(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1960
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Creyeditor wrote:
31 Jul 2020 23:00
jimydog000 wrote:
30 Jul 2020 11:46
I thought I would be able to find a language that doesn't mark past-tense, having past-tense as the default, but marks non-past.
But I couldn't find any, or any discussion about it. Does it happen though?
I think this is common actually, especially the past-tense as default part. This often happens in languages that do not have inflectional tense marking. I read a paper on Balinese and the unmarked forms where translated as past tense, whereas TAM particles could change this to present progressive or perfect translations. I am pretty sure there are more such languages, but I am only judging from translations so far. I guess someone must have done research on it. Lisa Matthewson's research group might be a good place to start.
I'd note that there's a difference here between a language with compulsory tense, but with the past zero-marked, and a language with optional tense marking, in which the unmarked forms are often translated into English as past-tense. Both probably happen, but I'd guess that the latter happens much more often than the former...

User avatar
littlesalmon
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 16
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 21:34
Location: ...
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by littlesalmon »

Creyeditor wrote:
31 Jul 2020 23:00
Do you mean when two words in the target language can only be translated as one word in the metalanguage? This is actually a gap in the Leipzig Glossing Rules. My professor suggested the hash mark on the target language line to join the two words, like some people do in phonology.
That's actually a really good idea. I'll probably use this if I'll ever actually run into this problem; anyway, thank you.
Edit: Alternatively, as an extension of rule 4A, the underscore can probably be used. This is what feels most natural to me now, and this is what I'm using. This is here for anyone who may be experiencing this problem in the future and who might search this topic to find out.
Last edited by littlesalmon on 02 Aug 2020 20:23, edited 1 time in total.
216 always explains everything. ilaki onito itota ti ji ji ti akina itota ma. 216 всегда всё объясняет.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 326
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 »

My settings Catfolk language has an assimulating <l>, as described below. Is it described correctly? If not, how should I be describing it?

[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution with [l̪], occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7451
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar »

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
02 Aug 2020 14:42
My settings Catfolk language has an assimulating <l>, as described below. Is it described correctly? If not, how should I be describing it?

[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution with [l̪], occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].
Can any of the three (or even two out of the three) appear intervocalically? Are there any other consonants that all three (or again, even two out of the three) can occur next to?

If not, then yes, it sounds like [l̪ l ʟ] are all in complementary distribution with one another, meaning they could be seen as allophones of a single phoneme /l/.

However, for clarity's sake, I would recommend moving the position of the first comma in your description to immediately after the word "distribution":
[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution, with [l̪] occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 326
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 »

shimobaatar wrote:
02 Aug 2020 16:10
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
02 Aug 2020 14:42
My settings Catfolk language has an assimulating <l>, as described below. Is it described correctly? If not, how should I be describing it?

[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution with [l̪], occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].
Can any of the three (or even two out of the three) appear intervocalically? Are there any other consonants that all three (or again, even two out of the three) can occur next to?

If not, then yes, it sounds like [l̪ l ʟ] are all in complementary distribution with one another, meaning they could be seen as allophones of a single phoneme /l/.

However, for clarity's sake, I would recommend moving the position of the first comma in your description to immediately after the word "distribution":
[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution, with [l̪] occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].
For context, "[l]" is used in this response where necessary because it's the most common phone. Actually, I hadn't thought about [l]'s intervocalic phone for some reason, but it'd be either [l̪] or [l]. [l] only occurs adjacent to [m, ŋ] in compounds, where it's unchanged because of phonotactics.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7451
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar »

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
02 Aug 2020 17:33
Actually, I hadn't thought about [l]'s intervocalic phone for some reason, but it'd be either [l̪] or [l].
So either [l̪] or [l] can occur intervocalically, but can the occurrence of one as opposed to the other potentially change the meaning of a word or morpheme? For example, using V to stand for any vowel, could [Vl̪V] and [VlV] be different words/morphemes in this language?

If so, then [l̪] and [l] are in contrastive distribution intervocalically, and I'd describe them as the intervocalic realizations/allophones of two separate phonemes /l̪/ and /l/, even if the distinction between these two phonemes seems to be neutralized in most other environments.

If, however, [Vl̪V] and [VlV] are just two possible pronunciations of the same word/morpheme, then it sounds like [l̪] and [l] are in free variation intervocalically. In that case, I'd still describe them as allophones of a single phoneme /l/.
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
02 Aug 2020 17:33
[l] only occurs adjacent to [m, ŋ] in compounds, where it's unchanged because of phonotactics.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean that it's unchanged because of phonotactics. However, if only [l] can occur adjacent to [m] or [ŋ], then it still sounds like [l̪ l ʟ] are all allophones of a single phoneme.

Nloki
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 64
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Nloki »

Could a fusional affix resulted from merging a venitive or andative and a passive be considered or even reanalyzed as an ablative or allative applicative respectively ?
VEN.PASS = ABLV
For the sake of keeping things clear I would stick with the first glossing, as ABLV could be thought of as a nonstandard abbreviation for an abilitative. What are your thoughts on such regard?

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 326
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 »

shimobaatar wrote:
02 Aug 2020 21:58
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
02 Aug 2020 17:33
Actually, I hadn't thought about [l]'s intervocalic phone for some reason, but it'd be either [l̪] or [l].
So either [l̪] or [l] can occur intervocalically, but can the occurrence of one as opposed to the other potentially change the meaning of a word or morpheme? For example, using V to stand for any vowel, could [Vl̪V] and [VlV] be different words/morphemes in this language?

If so, then [l̪] and [l] are in contrastive distribution intervocalically, and I'd describe them as the intervocalic realizations/allophones of two separate phonemes /l̪/ and /l/, even if the distinction between these two phonemes seems to be neutralized in most other environments.

If, however, [Vl̪V] and [VlV] are just two possible pronunciations of the same word/morpheme, then it sounds like [l̪] and [l] are in free variation intervocalically. In that case, I'd still describe them as allophones of a single phoneme /l/.
I was saying only one of either [l̪] or [l] will occur intervocalically, not that both do.
shimobaatar wrote:
02 Aug 2020 21:58
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
02 Aug 2020 17:33
[l] only occurs adjacent to [m, ŋ] in compounds, where it's unchanged because of phonotactics.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean that it's unchanged because of phonotactics. However, if only [l] can occur adjacent to [m] or [ŋ], then it still sounds like [l̪ l ʟ] are all allophones of a single phoneme.
English walkway [ˈwɔkˌweɪ] is an example of the compounding I'm talking about because it's never [ˈwɔ(l)ˌkweɪ] or [ˈwɔ(l)ˌkʷeɪ]. Essentially, the assimilation doesn't happen if the word has two distinct components. For example, the hypothetical translation of "walkway" is "genlak," which would always be [geɪ̯ŋ.lɐk] while never being [geɪ̯ŋ.ʟɐk]. The working syllable sttcure is (C)(C)V(C), with restrictions preventing [m, ŋ, r, l] from appearing consecutively in the onset. I still don't know if [lm, ml] are allowed at syllable boundaries because of <l>'s assimilatory nature. Although, I'm leaning towards allowing [ʟŋ, ŋʟ] since <l> assimilates easily in that case.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3930
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

Nloki wrote:
02 Aug 2020 22:24
Could a fusional affix resulted from merging a venitive or andative and a passive be considered or even reanalyzed as an ablative or allative applicative respectively ?
VEN.PASS = ABLV
For the sake of keeping things clear I would stick with the first glossing, as ABLV could be thought of as a nonstandard abbreviation for an abilitative. What are your thoughts on such regard?
I think this is unlikely, because a passive reduces valency, whereas an applicative increases valency, but maybe there is way to make it work. Do you gave any ideas for any intermediate stages?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
littlesalmon
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 16
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 21:34
Location: ...
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by littlesalmon »

Another glossing question:
If an attribute of a word, like, for example, its tense is indicated by a phonologically distinkt word that is separated from the main word by another, how can I gloss this?
There is an option I used before (not conveying at all which word's attribute I'm describing), but this information can be important, and it doesn't feel right to leave it out. Example (here it's obvious, but it isn't always that way):

Will you marry me?
FUT you marry I[ACC]
216 always explains everything. ilaki onito itota ti ji ji ti akina itota ma. 216 всегда всё объясняет.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3930
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

littlesalmon wrote:
05 Aug 2020 18:44
Another glossing question:
If an attribute of a word, like, for example, its tense is indicated by a phonologically distinkt word that is separated from the main word by another, how can I gloss this?
There is an option I used before (not conveying at all which word's attribute I'm describing), but this information can be important, and it doesn't feel right to leave it out. Example (here it's obvious, but it isn't always that way):

Will you marry me?
FUT you marry I[ACC]
Are you hinting at the fact that (in the English example) tense marking is indicated by "will" which is separated from the main verb "marry" by the subject "you"? I think there is no reason to include it into your glossing. Glosses do not need to be fully self-explanatory. They usually come with some paragraph of explanatory text. If you really need to convey this, you could go with "marry[FUT]", I guess. This would be a combination of rule 6 snd 8 of the LGR.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
littlesalmon
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 16
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 21:34
Location: ...
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by littlesalmon »

Okay, thank you for clarifying that the glosses don't need to be fully self-sufficient and self-explanatory; that was the main point I didn't understand. Though if I ever need to convey a thing like that, your suggestion works (but now I realize that this wasn't my situation).
216 always explains everything. ilaki onito itota ti ji ji ti akina itota ma. 216 всегда всё объясняет.

Post Reply