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

[zyma]

Voiced codas can lengthen vowels, but I wonder if long vowels can voice codas?

In my conlang, Middle Wenthish, a Germanic language, I voice consonants after long vowels - and, since this isn't something that comes naturally to me or that I've done in any other language, I presume I had a good reason for this based on something Germanic-y I read about. But I'm afraid I don't know what it was anymore!

The correlation of longer vowels before voiced consonants (not just codas) is apparently valid in English, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Lithuanian, Hindi, Assamese, Bengali, Telugu, Arabic, Japanese, and Korean, and with some exceptions in Welsh. The opposite correlation is allegedly not known of in any language.

And there are several studies out there showing that speakers of various languages take vowel length as a cue to interpret voicing - if you play people a longer vowel followed by a voiceless consonant, they'll often hear a voiced consonant. Which in theory SHOULD make it really easy for length to lead to voicing...

...but I'll admit I'm a bit concerned that there aren't a heap of obvious examples of this actually happening in any language!

I can't think of any specific examples of this sort of change in a Germanic language at the moment, but of course, that certainly doesn't mean there aren't any! I'll keep thinking and will try to look further into it, though, and I'll post again here in this thread if I find something.

What does immediately come to mind for me is that, according to Wikipedia, voiceless obstruents underwent lenition in the Anatolian languages "between unstressed syllables and following long vowels. The two can be considered together as a lenition rule between unstressed morae, if long vowels are analyzed as a sequence of two vowels".

[Creyeditor]

Ergo, we can only be decently sure that /a/ does alternate for roots, but we can't be certain if it's actually neutral for suffixes.

As for Shuluun Höh or other languages, I haven't found anything. The paper seems to build a lot of its case on Sibe specifically.

Just a minor addition. I would guess that there are no alternations in roots and that these are static phonotactic constraints on possible root shapes.

[Nel Fie]

It's not described as such, but that's a possibility, yes - after all, what would even be the distinction between harmony and a phonotactic constraint in the case of roots?

Again, the data provided in the paper doesn't really give us enough to go on there. The original source might have more insights, but I can't get my hands on a copy.

[Ælfwine]

/t͡s/ > /θ/ is attested as a sound change, but is /θ/ > /t͡s/ attested at all? (Perhaps via way of /θ/ > /t͡θ/?)

[thethief3]

/t͡s/ > /θ/ is attested as a sound change, but is /θ/ > /t͡s/ attested at all? (Perhaps via way of /θ/ > /t͡θ/?)

Finnish apparently

[VaptuantaDoi]

/t͡s/ > /θ/ is attested as a sound change, but is /θ/ > /t͡s/ attested at all? (Perhaps via way of /θ/ > /t͡θ/?)

Finnish apparently

The Finnish example is weird because it supposes a 'duke of york' shift */ts/ → */θ/ → /ts/ which is questionable to say the least (and apparently it's been repeated based off a single late-19th century source without any new work). The change has been claimed a few times in Semitic, but never with a very sure reconstruction of the value of *θ (i.e. it could have been */ts/ all along). The same goes for Kuki-Chin where there's a correspondence set /f t ts ht s/ which has been ascribed to *θ, but *dz also works and is apparently preferable for distributional reasons.

On the other hand, fortition of /θ/ is common, which might produce an alveolar POA contrast (e.g. *t θ → /t t̪/ or /t t̻/) that's then reinforced with affrication (*t t̻ → t t̻s̻). So I'd say go with it. Part of the problem is /θ/ is fairly rare so people are hesitant to reconstruct it and we don't really know what tends to happen with it.

Apparently Moroccan Arabic dialects have *θ t → *t → ts which might work too.

[Ahzoh]

I have modality obligatorily marked on the verb, and I have three basic moods: actual/realis [REAL], potential/irrealis [IRR], and counterfactual [CONTF].

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what verb should be marked irrealis and which should be marked as counterfactual when it comes to if-then clauses and clauses that are just "X if Y" or "X but Y" or "X therefore Y"

I think it's like this:

Code: Select all

[CONTF] if [CONTF] = e.g. "I would have done that if it stopped raining"
[IRR]   if [IRR]   = e.g. "I will do that if it stops raining"

if [CONTF] then [IRR]   = e.g. "If I had done that then I would be happy"
if [CONTF] then [CONTF] = e.g. "If I had done that then I would have been happy"(?) [I'm not sure if this is an actual distinction]
if [IRR]   then [IRR]   = e.g. "If I do that then I'll be happy"
if [IRR]   then [CONTF] = ???

But I'm not sure becuase English modality is conveyed weirdly.

[Pabappa]

I cant really offer help, but I can say that working in the conlang first might be a good strategy, because you'll see possibilities that English rules out. Working with Play I struggled a lot with particles, but recently I've decided that the same Play morpheme -m overlaps in meaning with English "if", "because", and the imperative. I've also decided I don't need a subjunctive and may not need a conditional mood either (unless the -m morpheme counts).

Play also allows the THEN statement to precede the IF, which English only does in certain types of sentences. For example we can say "I will go to the store if it's clear" but not "Therefore, I will go to the store; it's clear". Im not sure this directly relates to what youre doing, but I found it interesting when I realized I could do it, and this is another example of how conlang-first work opens up new ideas I might have missed otherwise.

[Omzinesý]

I have modality obligatorily marked on the verb, and I have three basic moods: actual/realis [REAL], potential/irrealis [IRR], and counterfactual [CONTF].

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what verb should be marked irrealis and which should be marked as counterfactual when it comes to if-then clauses and clauses that are just "X if Y" or "X but Y" or "X therefore Y"

I think it's like this:

Code: Select all

[CONTF] if [CONTF] = e.g. "I would have done that if it stopped raining"
[IRR]   if [IRR]   = e.g. "I will do that if it stops raining"

if [CONTF] then [IRR]   = e.g. "If I had done that then I would be happy"
if [CONTF] then [CONTF] = e.g. "If I had done that then I would have been happy"(?) [I'm not sure if this is an actual distinction]
if [IRR]   then [IRR]   = e.g. "If I do that then I'll be happy"
if [IRR]   then [CONTF] = ???

But I'm not sure becuase English modality is conveyed weirdly.

I think, semantically, factual, non-factual, and counterfactual modalities are features of sentences.

Factual:
'I did it because/when it stopped raining.'

Non-factual:
'I will do it, if it stops raining.'

Counterfactual:
'I would do it, if it stopped raining.'

At the formal level, you can well have different moods and their combinations to code different modalities.

I think the difference between 'If I did' and 'If I had done' is just the time reference, when you imagine the hypothetical event would happen. Of course, pragmatically, a hypothetical event in the past is even more hypothetical than that in the present.

[Ahzoh]

I have modality obligatorily marked on the verb, and I have three basic moods: actual/realis [REAL], potential/irrealis [IRR], and counterfactual [CONTF].

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what verb should be marked irrealis and which should be marked as counterfactual when it comes to if-then clauses and clauses that are just "X if Y" or "X but Y" or "X therefore Y"

I think it's like this:

Code: Select all

[CONTF] if [CONTF] = e.g. "I would have done that if it stopped raining"
[IRR]   if [IRR]   = e.g. "I will do that if it stops raining"

if [CONTF] then [IRR]   = e.g. "If I had done that then I would be happy"
if [CONTF] then [CONTF] = e.g. "If I had done that then I would have been happy"(?) [I'm not sure if this is an actual distinction]
if [IRR]   then [IRR]   = e.g. "If I do that then I'll be happy"
if [IRR]   then [CONTF] = ???

But I'm not sure becuase English modality is conveyed weirdly.

I think, semantically, factual, non-factual, and counterfactual modalities are features of sentences.

I only know that some languages have dedicated morphemes to indicate the counterfactual, especially mood-prominent languages like Chalcatongo Mixtec (as described by D.N.S. Bhat 1999):


Ultimately I think my issue is one of agreement.

Is it "if [counterfactual situation] then [counterfactual reaction]"? Or is it "if [counterfactual situation] then [hypothetical/unrealised reaction]"?

[Salmoneus]

I think you're kind of coming from the wrong direction and getting trapped as a result.

Languages don't work on the principle of "here's a cool label a linguist invented - I guess I'd better work out where it most logically applies!"

They work on the principle of "this is what we do, decide for yourself what label is easiest to understand as a mnemonic".

---------------

Likewise, try not to think about finding ways to match specific English sentences, particularly when it's not 100% clear what the difference is between how the English sentences themselves might be used.


--------------------------

Even from the point of view of the labels, I think you're getting different things confused.


"Irrealis" means anything that isn't concretely real.

"Counterfactual" means specifically something that is not true.

When you have "if... then..." clauses (or "X if Y" clauses, which are the same, despite English having two ways to phrase them), then you're dealing instead with protasic and apodosic modes.

There may be a protasic mode that corresponds in form and/or semantics to a counterfactual. But there may not. Even if the language has a counterfactual. There may be an aposodic mode that corresponds in form and/or semantic to a counterfactual. But there may not.

When dealing with conditionals like this, think about this as a pair of moods for the two clauses - protasis and apodosis. There may be more than one possible pair, with a difference in significance, or there may no. Either or both the moods in a pair may or may not formally correspond to a mood that is used in non-conditional constructions. Sometimes the precise significance of a given pair may be suggested by the usage of a mood in non-conditional constructions. But the significance of the conditional pair is not in any way logically determined by the label that a linguist puts on (seemingly) the same mood when used in other constructions.

[most obviously: many languages place either protasis, apodosis or both into the "indicative" mood (i.e. the mood also widely used in indicative clauses), even though neither clause is actually semantically indicative]

In your case, neither the protasis nor the apodosis can be a simple counterfactual, semantically, because a counterfactual does not incorporate ideas of 'if' or 'then'. Despite this, the counterfactual could well be repurposed for use in either the protasis or the apodosis, or both. It is also possible that there could be more than one conditional construction (i.e. mode-pairing), with the counterfactual used in one but not others, in which case it might well be used (although it's certainly not certain) in the construction that is most often used in scenarios with a degree of counterfactual implication.

But don't start from the labels, stick every possible pairing together and try to work out what the best English translation is for each, because that's not how languages work.

-----

As for "X but Y" and "X therefore Y", these are entirely different.

"X therefore Y" is a deductive construction. One or both clauses may (or may not) use a mode that is conveniently labelled "deductive".

"X but Y" is not a modal construction at all, it's a pragmatic one. The difference between "X and Y" and "X but Y" is not a semantic one, but a pragmatic one - the second construction, as a construction in English, tends to indicate that Y is surprising, or else (or also) warns against drawing rash conclusions from X. It can also be used to imply that X is a concession (and concessives might perhaps be considered modal if there's a dedicated mode for them), but to limit the significance of that concession.

There is of course no need to have a single simple construction that precisely mirrors the pragmatics and/or semantics of the English construction.

[Ahzoh]

I think you're kind of coming from the wrong direction and getting trapped as a result.

Languages don't work on the principle of "here's a cool label a linguist invented - I guess I'd better work out where it most logically applies!"

It might look like that, but I'm trying to work with a specific definition of the counterfactual as it applies to Vrkhazhian, which is thus: a hypothetical past/present event that could have occurred if certain conditions were met (or avoided).

One could express the counterfactual alone as a main clause in Vrkhazhian and it would mean something like "I would have/I was supposed to/I was going to/I intended to do X (evidently I didn't)" or even "in an alternate past, I would have done this"

Here is it's use with a conjunction:
"I was going to do my homework but I got distracted" = suggests a hypothetical alternative past where I did do my homework if distraction didn't occur.
The clause before the "but" is clearly counterfactual, and this would be marked in the counterfactual mood, because "I did my homework" is false. The clause after the "but" is a realis, and thus would be marked in the realis mood, because "I got distracted" actually happened.

You could also have "I was going to go outside if it stopped raining" = a hypothetical alternative past that could have occured if the condition "was not raining" was met, but it wasn't, so it didn't happen.
Here the clause before the if is counterfactual while the clause after the if is irrealis. Or is it also a counterfactual because "did not rain" is false while "did rain" is true? That's where it gets tricky, because there is overlap between the irrealis and the counterfactual.

---

I think part of the issue is that the counterfactual is strictly temporal (nonfuture) while the irrealis is generally atemporal, not having any specific reference to time. It is often and commonly used to express future events, but it doesn't have to.

Likewise, try not to think about finding ways to match specific English sentences, particularly when it's not 100% clear what the difference is between how the English sentences themselves might be used.

I assure you I try not to and I do not think it is the case in this case. I'm trying to look at it broadly/crosslinguistically

[Omzinesý]

Indo-European and some other languages use prepositions as verb prefixes to code different adverbial functions (lexical affixes which I've been interested in for a while). What other morphemes could develop to lexical affixes and still preserve their original functio? Multi-purpose morphemes are one of the things making a good conlang.

[Khemehekis]

The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)

Congratulations on your new name! Is it pronounced like "zymurgy" (with /ai/), or like "Zima" (with /i/)?

[Creyeditor]

Indo-European and some other languages use prepositions as verb prefixes to code different adverbial functions (lexical affixes which I've been interested in for a while). What other morphemes could develop to lexical affixes and still preserve their original functio? Multi-purpose morphemes are one of the things making a good conlang.

What about bodyparts? They get incorporated as lexical affixes in North American languages and are the source of adverbs, cf. e.g. English by hand/manually or colloquial German zu Fuß 'by foot, directly, without additional tools'.

[Omzinesý]

colloquial German zu Fuß 'by foot, directly, without additional tools'.

How grammaticalized it is? Is some movement still needed in semantics?

Body parts are such a big thing in Dlor. I would like to find a new idea, but they really are very useful.

[Creyeditor]

The standard example is 'Kannst du mir ein Stück Brot zu Fuß geben?' 'Can you give me a piece of bread 'by foot', meaning without a plate or anything. There is still some movement involved and I haven't really heard it in other contexts. I vaguely recall that in some North American language 'by foot' added a kind of derogatory meaning but I might be wrong.

[Man in Space]

The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)

Congratulations on your new name! Is it pronounced like "zymurgy" (with /ai/), or like "Zima" (with /i/)?

Caber is going to need a new word.

[Khemehekis]

The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)

Congratulations on your new name! Is it pronounced like "zymurgy" (with /ai/), or like "Zima" (with /i/)?

Caber is going to need a new word.

You're referring to łímo?

[Man in Space]

The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)

Congratulations on your new name! Is it pronounced like "zymurgy" (with /ai/), or like "Zima" (with /i/)?

Caber is going to need a new word.

You're referring to łímo?

That’s in CT.

Common Caber has śimo ‘friend’ and śimobatar ‘friendship’. I will have to add something appropriate…perhaps zŭmŏ ‘to bestow a name (on s.o.), to name, to identify, to assign, to designate’.