(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2020]

[holbuzvala]

Does anyone know of any resources for learning about how relative clauses are handled in polypersonal/polysynthetic marked languages?

Or failing that, can you write some ideas here if you know them off hand?

[Pabappa]

I don't know about natlangs but.. with Poswa I add an /s/ ... works for me.

sababum pobbažo "the men are talking to me" vs
sababum pobbažos vepababa "as the men are talking to me, theyre tilling soil"....
In other words, it's a serial verb construction. If you have an affix that means "while", you might be able to use that as a subordination marker in general .

I can give more details if you're interested .
edit: to clarify .... i believe that in many polysynthetic languages, all subordinated clauses are verbs, and therefore a solution that works for verbs would work for everything else. in Poswa, whatever the final word of that clause is, it must end in a vowel, and therefore it is always possible to add -s.

sapwepa tabba wipas džabom pap paeppel.
The fish with eight fins swam into my net.

Where džabom means "in my net" and belongs to the next clause.

[Omzinesý]

Does anyone know of any resources for learning about how relative clauses are handled in polypersonal/polysynthetic marked languages?

Or failing that, can you write some ideas here if you know them off hand?

I guess subject/object agreement doesn't have to affect relative clauses very much.
- Finite relative clauses can be used, with relative pronouns or without.
- Nonfinite relative clauses, i.e. participles, can be used.

Not long ago, there was discussion on anti-agreement effects of subordinate clauses on the board: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3978.
Relative pronouns can well be fused to the verb like any other pronouns. (write-I, write-you, write-he, ... , write-they, write-who).

Arabic likes to inflect the verb after the relativized: "I have a cup of coffee REL I-bouth-it in the market." or "the market REL I-bought a cup of coffee in-it."

[yangfiretiger121]

The language has three numbers singular, dual (form by infixing <-ϳ(ε)-> after a word's first vowel), and plural (formed by placing <-χϙο> after a dual's final vowel). Thus, "stars" translates to "υϳεδυχϙο." Considering the formation rules above, is Υϳεϸαυδυχϙο or Ϛϸαυϳεδυχϙο the more likely translation of Star Navy? I believe it's the first one, but want to confirm before finalizing things.

[zyma]

The language has three numbers singular, dual (form by infixing <-ϳ(ε)-> after a word's first vowel), and plural (formed by placing <-χϙο> after a dual's final vowel). Thus, "stars" translates to "υϳεδυχϙο." Considering the formation rules above, is Υϳεϸαυδυχϙο or Ϛϸαυϳεδυχϙο the more likely translation of Star Navy? I believe it's the first one, but want to confirm before finalizing things.

Looking at Υϳεϸαυδυχϙο or Ϛϸαυϳεδυχϙο, I think I recognize your word for "stars" (emphasis mine), but what do the other parts of those words mean? Something like "navy", I assume, but I'm not sure how to answer your question without knowing what the difference between those two words is.

[Salmoneus]

The language has three numbers singular, dual (form by infixing <-ϳ(ε)-> after a word's first vowel), and plural (formed by placing <-χϙο> after a dual's final vowel). Thus, "stars" translates to "υϳεδυχϙο." Considering the formation rules above, is Υϳεϸαυδυχϙο or Ϛϸαυϳεδυχϙο the more likely translation of Star Navy? I believe it's the first one, but want to confirm before finalizing things.

Looking at Υϳεϸαυδυχϙο or Ϛϸαυϳεδυχϙο, I think I recognize your word for "stars" (emphasis mine), but what do the other parts of those words mean? Something like "navy", I assume, but I'm not sure how to answer your question without knowing what the difference between those two words is.

Oh, I get it.

Shimo: the thing to remember is that yang likes each of their posts to be like a crossword puzzle in miniature, or an elaborate, self-ironising joke, and thus never gives any background information, nor ever states the question they want answered. Rather, we're expected to get out our pens and pencils and play with permutations of words until the hidden sense is revealed.

In this case, if you take the morphological information about the formation of the dual and the plural, and the plual form given, you can work out through deduction that the word for "star" must be υδυ.

If you then take each of the latter two words, and remove the string we've identified as meaning 'star', and also then the strings that have been identified as number markers, we are left with Υϸα and Ϛϸα.

If we then consider the clue that the dual marker is inserted 'after a word's first vowel', and then see that in one form the 'Y' is followed by what looks like the dual marker, we can deduce that 'Y' must represent a vowel (which is fortunate, since it doesn't look like a language where we could guess anything from the spelling). And specifically, if we assume that we're genuinely dealing with a dual marker and we assume that the dual marker is added to, as it were, the root form of a word, then we can deduce an important conclusion: the two long words are compounds featuring the root <Υϸα> - which just happens to undergo some sort of random-replacement mutation such that it never actually occurs as Υϸα in reality, but rather as the mutated form Ϛϸα. It is only when the 'Y' is held apart from the 'ϸ' by an intervening string that the 'Y' is found in its underlying form.

If we then take our findings regarding this putative root, <Υϸα>, and combine them with the otherwise entirely non sequitur following question about 'Star Navy', we can deduce that this root means 'Navy'.

Now, of course, we come to one of yang's little traps. Clearly, something is afoot! Because we're given two possible words meaning "Star Navy", a compound in which both nouns are clearly singular, and yet both possible translations are clearly marked for the plural. What gives?

Well, one interpretation could be that in this language, compounded attributive nouns must be in the plural. That's... not impossible? But then we need to look again at the question, because clearly nobody's going to imagine that pluralizing 'Navy' is a good way to show that it's being modified by 'Star'! So you're right, the post doesn't seem to make sense!

Instead, I think the absurdity of that idea is meant to be a hint that there's something cunning here, a little red herring. Because - and bear with me here! - what if the ony solid ground we're given, "Star Navy", is itself a lie? We need to treat yang's authorial voice here as what it is - an (intentionally, I presume) unreliable narrator. From the broader context of the question, with its initial, yet by the end seemingly irrelevant, focus on pluralisation, I'll propose something radical: we're actually meant to deduce, ad absurdem, that behind that innocent yet inscrutable 'Star Navy' there is instead lurking a more dangerous, yet more relevant, 'Star Navies'...

Suddenly, this emmendation permitted, the question makes sense. If we compare the two profered possible 'translations', and remove the plural marker - entirely a decoy, of no real significance - what are we left with? We're left with - assuming that we accept the above proposed morphosyntactic alternations in the first root - simply a difference in position of (what looks like) the dual marker!

In being asked to choose between these two 'translations', therefore, we're actually being asked something more concrete: where should the dual marker go?

And if we abstract back out again, taking into account our foregoing hypotheses regarding the meaning and function of each morpheme, we can from this concoct a simple and specific question of a sort that we can answer: in noun-noun compounds, should inflectional morphemes be placed on the compound as a whole, treated as a single noun in its own right following the usual rules of placement, or should they be placed directly on the head noun alone, following the usual rules of placement but not regarding the compounded element as a part of the noun in a strict sense?

Now, obviously, the actual answer to this question is uninteresting. It's just another way of asking: "what's the correct plural of 'solicitor-general'?", and the answer is inevitably 'it depends, what do you want it to be?'. Specifically, it - as the question itself makes clear - depends entirely on whether 'solicitor general' is regarded as a noun followed by an adjective (or appositive noun), as it etymologically once surely was, in which case the answer is 'solicitors-general', or whether it is regarded as a single noun in its own right, in which case the answer is 'solicitor-generals'. The fact that, in English, the answer is entirely dependent on dialect and register, and varies from word to word (I'm sure some people do say 'sergeants major' and even 'lieutenants general', they're far rarer than people who say 'presidents-elect') rather transparently demonstrates that this is not a question with an unequivocating answer.

But I don't think the answer is really the point of the game, is it? Surely the 'question' was just to inspire us all to spend our time on these logic-puzzles?

[Lambuzhao]

If we then take our findings regarding this putative root, <Υϸα>, and combine them with the otherwise entirely non sequitur following question about 'Star Navy', we can deduce that this root means 'Navy'.

Maybe the putative root means 'ship', so the compound (in singular) would mean 'Star Ship' and it's (possibly collective) plural 'Star Ships' ==> 'Star Navy'


That's as much skating around yang's Event Horizon I'll do b4 my tonguelore-wits spaghettify.

BTW

Edit: …ad absurdem

ad absurdum is from PFT.PASS.PTCP absurdus/a/um, not absurdis/absurde.

This reminds me of some examples in the Appendix Probi, where the reverse happens: 3rd Decl ADJs are (mis)treated as us/a/um ADJs.

E.G.

acre non acrum
tristis non tristus

[yangfiretiger121]

The language has three numbers singular, dual (form by infixing <-ϳ(ε)-> after a word's first vowel), and plural (formed by placing <-χϙο> after a dual's final vowel). Thus, "stars" translates to "υϳεδυχϙο." Considering the formation rules above, is Υϳεϸαυδυχϙο or Ϛϸαυϳεδυχϙο the more likely translation of Star Navy? I believe it's the first one, but want to confirm before finalizing things.

Looking at Υϳεϸαυδυχϙο or Ϛϸαυϳεδυχϙο, I think I recognize your word for "stars" (emphasis mine), but what do the other parts of those words mean? Something like "navy", I assume, but I'm not sure how to answer your question without knowing what the difference between those two words is.

Oh, I get it.

Shimo: the thing to remember is that yang likes each of their posts to be like a crossword puzzle in miniature, or an elaborate, self-ironising joke, and thus never gives any background information, nor ever states the question they want answered. Rather, we're expected to get out our pens and pencils and play with permutations of words until the hidden sense is revealed.

In this case, if you take the morphological information about the formation of the dual and the plural, and the plual form given, you can work out through deduction that the word for "star" must be υδυ.

If you then take each of the latter two words, and remove the string we've identified as meaning 'star', and also then the strings that have been identified as number markers, we are left with Υϸα and Ϛϸα.

If we then consider the clue that the dual marker is inserted 'after a word's first vowel', and then see that in one form the 'Y' is followed by what looks like the dual marker, we can deduce that 'Y' must represent a vowel (which is fortunate, since it doesn't look like a language where we could guess anything from the spelling). And specifically, if we assume that we're genuinely dealing with a dual marker and we assume that the dual marker is added to, as it were, the root form of a word, then we can deduce an important conclusion: the two long words are compounds featuring the root <Υϸα> - which just happens to undergo some sort of random-replacement mutation such that it never actually occurs as Υϸα in reality, but rather as the mutated form Ϛϸα. It is only when the 'Y' is held apart from the 'ϸ' by an intervening string that the 'Y' is found in its underlying form.

If we then take our findings regarding this putative root, <Υϸα>, and combine them with the otherwise entirely non sequitur following question about 'Star Navy', we can deduce that this root means 'Navy'.

Now, of course, we come to one of yang's little traps. Clearly, something is afoot! Because we're given two possible words meaning "Star Navy", a compound in which both nouns are clearly singular, and yet both possible translations are clearly marked for the plural. What gives?

Well, one interpretation could be that in this language, compounded attributive nouns must be in the plural. That's... not impossible? But then we need to look again at the question, because clearly nobody's going to imagine that pluralizing 'Navy' is a good way to show that it's being modified by 'Star'! So you're right, the post doesn't seem to make sense!

Instead, I think the absurdity of that idea is meant to be a hint that there's something cunning here, a little red herring. Because - and bear with me here! - what if the ony solid ground we're given, "Star Navy", is itself a lie? We need to treat yang's authorial voice here as what it is - an (intentionally, I presume) unreliable narrator. From the broader context of the question, with its initial, yet by the end seemingly irrelevant, focus on pluralisation, I'll propose something radical: we're actually meant to deduce, ad absurdem, that behind that innocent yet inscrutable 'Star Navy' there is instead lurking a more dangerous, yet more relevant, 'Star Navies'...

Suddenly, this emmendation permitted, the question makes sense. If we compare the two profered possible 'translations', and remove the plural marker - entirely a decoy, of no real significance - what are we left with? We're left with - assuming that we accept the above proposed morphosyntactic alternations in the first root - simply a difference in position of (what looks like) the dual marker!

In being asked to choose between these two 'translations', therefore, we're actually being asked something more concrete: where should the dual marker go?

And if we abstract back out again, taking into account our foregoing hypotheses regarding the meaning and function of each morpheme, we can from this concoct a simple and specific question of a sort that we can answer: in noun-noun compounds, should inflectional morphemes be placed on the compound as a whole, treated as a single noun in its own right following the usual rules of placement, or should they be placed directly on the head noun alone, following the usual rules of placement but not regarding the compounded element as a part of the noun in a strict sense?

Now, obviously, the actual answer to this question is uninteresting. It's just another way of asking: "what's the correct plural of 'solicitor-general'?", and the answer is inevitably 'it depends, what do you want it to be?'. Specifically, it - as the question itself makes clear - depends entirely on whether 'solicitor general' is regarded as a noun followed by an adjective (or appositive noun), as it etymologically once surely was, in which case the answer is 'solicitors-general', or whether it is regarded as a single noun in its own right, in which case the answer is 'solicitor-generals'. The fact that, in English, the answer is entirely dependent on dialect and register, and varies from word to word (I'm sure some people do say 'sergeants major' and even 'lieutenants general', they're far rarer than people who say 'presidents-elect') rather transparently demonstrates that this is not a question with an unequivocating answer.

But I don't think the answer is really the point of the game, is it? Surely the 'question' was just to inspire us all to spend our time on these logic-puzzles?

Sal, I oughta report you for something because this post is derogatory-as-all-hell. But, I won't because I realized that my post was woefully incomplete some time after making it. However, I was busy with other things at the time and didn't know, exactly, how I was going to word my edit.

I tend not to go into much detail because I type horrendously slow as I only use my index fingers. It's a direct compound that should, literally, translate into "navy of the stars," noting the genitive particle βαγ is left off due to compounding. The pre-coalescence spellings of the components are below, both as singular and plural. I haven't thought of a translation for "ship," yet.

Star = υδυ
Stars = υϳεδυχϙο

Navy = υεϸα (<υε> coalesces into <ϛ>)
Navies = υϳεϸαχϙο

Thus, I'll yank Sal's concocted question in my own words. In noun-noun compounds, is the dual marker <-ϳ(ε)-> more likely to be infixed to the head noun, υεϸα—in this case, or the plural/adjectival noun, υδυ—in this case?

[elemtilas]

ad absurdum is from PFT.PASS.PTCP absurdus/a/um, not absurdis/absurde.

This reminds me of some examples in the Appendix Probi, where the reverse happens: 3rd Decl ADJs are (mis)treated as us/a/um ADJs.

E.G.

acre non acrum
tristis non tristus

Surely this whole absurdum~absurdem thing is but an example of dialect delectability of the old Mater Dingua as she's now i-spoke? Dagnabbit Valerie! Anyways I am certain that Appendix Probi is now out of date and Valerius Probus out of touch! Modern Latin speakers after all have access to Appendix Quersuini after all, do we not? You know, dicis tu tamatis dico 'go tomatus.

[Keenir]

The language has three numbers singular, dual (form by infixing <-ϳ(ε)-> after a word's first vowel), and plural (formed by placing <-χϙο> after a dual's final vowel). Thus, "stars" translates to "υϳεδυχϙο." Considering the formation rules above, is Υϳεϸαυδυχϙο or Ϛϸαυϳεδυχϙο the more likely translation of Star Navy? I believe it's the first one, but want to confirm before finalizing things.

Oh, I get it.
But I don't think the answer is really the point of the game, is it? Surely the 'question' was just to inspire us all to spend our time on these logic-puzzles?

Sal, I oughta report you for something because this post is derogatory-as-all-hell.

well, the classical answer (that some posters on messageboards before your time used) was "'Considering the formation rules' the more best translation of Star Navy is whichever one you want to use, since its your conlang, isn't it?"

I suspect you'd call foul on that being 'derogatory-as-all-hell' as well.

But, I won't because I realized that my post was woefully incomplete some time after making it. However, I was busy with other things at the time and didn't know, exactly, how I was going to word my edit.

as best you can. trust me, thats all we can do, any of us.

[Dormouse559]

Oh, I get it.

[…]

This response was entirely unnecessary. While I understand your frustration, if you find a question has too little information for you to give an answer, either straightforwardly tell the poster so or ignore the question.

Sal, I oughta report you for something because this post is derogatory-as-all-hell. But, I won't because I realized that my post was woefully incomplete some time after making it. However, I was busy with other things at the time and didn't know, exactly, how I was going to word my edit.

It sounds like you've already realized it, but I'll just remind you to think about how others will look at your questions. You're the only one here with intimate knowledge of your conlang, so it's always useful to give as much relevant information as you can — both for you getting an answer, and for those of us who'd like to help.

[yangfiretiger121]

Exactly why I included the info I thought pertinent to the subject after my griping at Sal, Dormouse.

To make sure my question isn't lost in the kerfuffle, I'm including a refined combined post below.

The language has three numbers singular, dual (form by infixing <-ϳ(ε)-> after a word's first vowel), and plural (formed by placing <-χϙο> after a dual's final vowel). Noun-noun compounds, such as Star Navy, have brought up a quandary regarding placement of the <-ϳ(ε)-> infix to get accurate translations, such as "navy of the stars," noting the genitive particle βαγ is left off due to compounding, because the compound's first vowel is different than the plural noun's orthographically. The pre-coalescence spellings of Star Navy's components are below in both singular and plural. In these compounds, is the dual marker <-ϳ(ε)-> more likely to be infixed to the head noun, υεϸα—in this case, or the plural/adjectival noun, υδυ—in this case?

Star = υδυ
Stars = υϳεδυχϙο

Navy = υεϸα (<υε> coalesces into <ϛ>)
Navies = υϳεϸαχϙο

Edit: Additionally, is a moraic nasal likely merge into a following consonant at the same POA, such as [mp → p̃]?

[Keenir]

In these compounds, is the dual marker <-ϳ(ε)-> more likely to be infixed to the head noun, υεϸα—in this case, or the plural/adjectival noun, υδυ—in this case?

why not both?

[yangfiretiger121]

In these compounds, is the dual marker <-ϳ(ε)-> more likely to be infixed to the head noun, υεϸα—in this case, or the plural/adjectival noun, υδυ—in this case?

why not both?

Being the dual marker, a second appearance within a single word is seen as entirely redundant because of full plurals forming from dual plurals.

[DesEsseintes]

Oh, I get it.

[…]

This response was entirely unnecessary. While I understand your frustration, if you find a question has too little information for you to give an answer, either straightforwardly tell the poster so or ignore the question.

But then the rest of us would have been bereft of much amusement.

Furthermore, I think the way Sal deconstructed the question was actually kinda helpful. If some random noob read that, and thought about it, they might actually get something out of it.

That’s why Sal is an MVP. People may not always like his posting style (cos their poor little egos might get bruised), but his comments are pretty much always substantive, full of insight and obscure knowledge, as well as entertaining.

[Dormouse559]

But then the rest of us would have been bereft of much amusement.

Furthermore, I think the way Sal deconstructed the question was actually kinda helpful. If some random noob read that, and thought about it, they might actually get something out of it.

That’s why Sal is an MVP. People may not always like his posting style (cos their poor little egos might get bruised), but his comments are pretty much always substantive, full of insight and obscure knowledge, as well as entertaining.

It clearly did not entertain yangfiretiger. The post was unnecessary in the sense that it was passive-aggressive and assigned motives to another member they've given no indication of having. Salmoneus' deconstruction may have been helpful, and he may have been right to let a member know they hadn't given enough detail, but the kind of condescension he resorted to was uncalled for.

If you'd like to discuss this any more, I'd ask you to continue it over PM, so the thread can get back on track.

[LinguoFranco]

Question for y'all.

If you have a personal language, how closely does it meet your linguistic ideals?

I was designing a personal language and decided it was not the way I want it to be.

[Reyzadren]

My own favourite conlang for myself has all the linguistic features that I want, except its logical restrictions ofc. It's not perfect or ideal, but I don't expect it to be. Still, I can use it proficiently and appropriately whereby I can't find such satisfaction any natlang or other conlang.

However, it might not be considered a personal language by some conlangers' definitions because it's a fictional language, ie must be based on rl instead of a conworld.

[Pabappa]

My own favourite conlang for myself has all the linguistic features that I want, except its logical restrictions ofc. It's not perfect or ideal, but I don't expect it to be. Still, I can use it proficiently and appropriately whereby I can't find such satisfaction any natlang or other conlang.

However, it might not be considered a personal language by some conlangers' definitions because it's a fictional language, ie must be based on rl instead of a conworld.

All of this applies to me too, with Poswa. It's got every feature I want, except those that would conflict with other features. But it took me quite a long time .... I started Pabappa back in 2004, and Poswa in 2007. Poswa only exists because Pabappa does, so it's been either 12 or 15 years that I've been at it.

[Ælfwine]

I am currently trying to debate the phonemic status of /j/ in my language. Historically, this phoneme became /d/ intervocally and was lost after a consonant, leaving it only in initial position. Would it be phonemic if it still made minimal pairs?