Yay or Nay?

[ɶʙ ɞʛ]

How likely is it for /ɨ ə a/ to shift directly to /i o a/ as a full vowel system?

[Arayaz]

How likely is it for /ɨ ə a/ to shift directly to /i o a/ as a full vowel system?

A height-based three-vowel system (e.g. /ɨ ə a/) probably has a lot of allophony going on that makes it unlikely that the vowels would entirely shift over. I'd say it's possible, though, for those to become their primary realizations while keeping the other variation happening.

[lurker]

Should I add a dedicated negative imperative modal? Right now you say "don't X" by using the regular imperative <G> /long low weak growl/ and use the adverb <rnL> /chuff, early falling weak grunt/ "not"

Code: Select all

G sKg rnL, G qF sdq!					
G	sKg-0	rnL	G	qF	sdq-0
IMP	take-A	not	IMP	only	throw-A
No take only throw!

But I might change this to use a dedicated negative imperative modal particle *<Gr> /long low weak growl, chuff/ derived by analogy from the verb <DBr> /long falling weak whine, chuff/, "cannot" which itself is a contraction of <DB> "can" and <rnL> "not". This would change the above example to:

Code: Select all

			
Gr sKg G qF sdq					
Gr	sKg-0	G	qF	sdq-0	
NIMP	take-A	IMP	only	throw-A	
No take only throw!

Is there a logical difference between a negative command and a positive command to refrain from doing something? As with my treatment of the plurative particle <h> /short low strong growl/ in the presence of other quantifying adjectives, I may include it as a dialectal feature.

[Keenir]

Should I add a dedicated negative imperative modal? Right now you say "don't X" by using the regular imperative <G> /long low weak growl/ and use the adverb <rnL> /chuff, early falling weak grunt/ "not"

Is there a logical difference between a negative command and a positive command to refrain from doing something?

offhand, I could imagine it to be an element of politeness...see
Don't Touch That!"
...vs...
I'd really appreciate it if you didn't touch that.

As with my treatment of the plurative particle <h> /short low strong growl/ in the presence of other quantifying adjectives, I may include it as a dialectal feature.

maybe the Negative Imperative Modal is the dialectal feature...slowly expanding in what % of the population uses it?

[Creyeditor]

Should I add a dedicated negative imperative modal? Right now you say "don't X" by using the regular imperative <G> /long low weak growl/ and use the adverb <rnL> /chuff, early falling weak grunt/ "not"

Code: Select all

G sKg rnL, G qF sdq!					
G	sKg-0	rnL	G	qF	sdq-0
IMP	take-A	not	IMP	only	throw-A
No take only throw!

But I might change this to use a dedicated negative imperative modal particle *<Gr> /long low weak growl, chuff/ derived by analogy from the verb <DBr> /long falling weak whine, chuff/, "cannot" which itself is a contraction of <DB> "can" and <rnL> "not". This would change the above example to:

Code: Select all

			
Gr sKg G qF sdq					
Gr	sKg-0	G	qF	sdq-0	
NIMP	take-A	IMP	only	throw-A	
No take only throw!

Yes, prohibitives are cool and mot used enough in conlanging.

[lurker]

Should I add a dedicated negative imperative modal? Right now you say "don't X" by using the regular imperative <G> /long low weak growl/ and use the adverb <rnL> /chuff, early falling weak grunt/ "not"

Is there a logical difference between a negative command and a positive command to refrain from doing something?

offhand, I could imagine it to be an element of politeness...see
Don't Touch That!"
...vs...
I'd really appreciate it if you didn't touch that.

As with my treatment of the plurative particle <h> /short low strong growl/ in the presence of other quantifying adjectives, I may include it as a dialectal feature.

maybe the Negative Imperative Modal is the dialectal feature...slowly expanding in what % of the population uses it?

I already have a polite imperative by inflecting the verb in the nonauthoritative mood, which looks like this under the current regime:

G sKg rnL! Don't take! (direct command)

G sKgb rnL. Please don't throw (polite request)

There's even a hortative mood in <Ln> /late rising weak grunt/ that in some dialects is merged with the polite imperative, but it's distinct in the standard:

Ln sKgb rnL. You really shouldn't throw.

Yes, prohibitives are cool and mot used enough in conlanging.

I'll at least tuck it in as a dialectal feature, though I still wonder if there's a difference between a prohibitive and a negative imperative. Though I suppose it's one of those "It depends" things.

[TBPO]

Should I add a dedicated negative imperative modal? Right now you say "don't X" by using the regular imperative <G> /long low weak growl/ and use the adverb <rnL> /chuff, early falling weak grunt/ "not"

Is there a logical difference between a negative command and a positive command to refrain from doing something?

offhand, I could imagine it to be an element of politeness...see
Don't Touch That!"
...vs...
I'd really appreciate it if you didn't touch that.

As with my treatment of the plurative particle <h> /short low strong growl/ in the presence of other quantifying adjectives, I may include it as a dialectal feature.

maybe the Negative Imperative Modal is the dialectal feature...slowly expanding in what % of the population uses it?

I already have a polite imperative by inflecting the verb in the nonauthoritative mood, which looks like this under the current regime:

G sKg rnL! Don't take! (direct command)

G sKgb rnL. Please don't throw (polite request)

There's even a hortative mood in <Ln> /late rising weak grunt/ that in some dialects is merged with the polite imperative, but it's distinct in the standard:

Ln sKgb rnL. You really shouldn't throw.

Yes, prohibitives are cool and mot used enough in conlanging.

I'll at least tuck it in as a dialectal feature, though I still wonder if there's a difference between a prohibitive and a negative imperative. Though I suppose it's one of those "It depends" things.

You can add prohibitive as a shortening of negative imperative. Prohibitive can be used in slang or informal context and negative imperative can be used in formal speech. And yes, it can be used in the same time as politeness, and "polite informal" and "impolite formal" are possible.

[Knox Adjacent]

Yes, prohibitives are cool and mot used enough in conlanging.

Do we have survey data for this?

[Khemehekis]

Yes, prohibitives are cool and mot used enough in conlanging.

Do we have survey data for this?

How about this? A search of this forum at https://cbbforum.com/search.php?keywords=prohibitive* shows only 137 hits, with not many different conlangs with prohibitives popping up.

The conlangs that have a prohibitive, however, include a number I remember/have heard of, including Lihmelinyan, Proto-Nautli, and Penzalan.

[Creyeditor]

Yes, prohibitives are cool and mot used enough in conlanging.

Do we have survey data for this?

Yes, https://cals.info/feature/71/.

[Knox Adjacent]

Point taken.

[Creyeditor]

I don't have survey data for their coolness though

[Keenir]

I don't have survey data for their coolness though

weirdly, thats a question most surveys seem to not address. *shrugs*

maybe if we fund our own surveys?

[TBPO]

Do I should add mages to Saytal?

(I'll call users of magic magicians)
At the moment my conworld has 3 types of magic:
-Repairers replace human body parts with animal parts. They do either if body part is very damaged or if the patient wants to enhance his/her body.
-Clerics pray to eldritch entities called angels, which can (but not have to) fulfill small wishes. Most humans know that angels are real, but no one know that they're praying to them, not to f.e. gods.
-Sorcerers are extremally powerful magicians which control four elements. Only one of few hundred million people is born sorcerer.

Mages may be magicians that are more powerful than repairer or clerics but that must spend runes, which are hard to produce and are expensive due to use of rare material.

I'm also not sure should I make my conworld an RPG setting.

[Creyeditor]

Maybe mages could be a subkind of Sorcerers or Clerics.

[Khemehekis]

Should I add the words "nectarine" and "amaranth" under the More Plants section of my Landau Core Vocabulary?

This is a question that never got answered.

For everyone's reference, here are the plant words in Part IV:

Spoiler:

plant*
female (plant)
male (plant)
bush
flower, blossom, bloom*
tree*
bulb
berry
grass
grain
corn, maize
rice
wheat
apple
banana
cherry (sweet)
cherry (sour)
coconut
lemon
orange
peach
pear
pineapple
strawberry (cultivated)
strawberry (wild)
bean
carrot
garlic
ginger
olive
onion
pea
pepper (Capsicum)
potato
tomato
peanut
coffee
tea
cotton
tobacco
lily
rose
palm

And in Part V:

Spoiler:

herb
weed
vine
vine (of grapes)
barley
millet
oats
rye
sorghum
sugarcane
bamboo
quinoa
apricot
blackberry
blueberry
breadfruit
cherimoya
cranberry
date
dragon fruit
durian
fig
grape
grapefruit
guava
kiwifruit
kumquat
lime (small)
lime (big)
longan
loquat
lychee
mango
mangosteen
melon
pandanus
papaya
passionfruit
plantain
plum
pomegranate
rambutan
raspberry
sapodilla
starfruit
tamarind
tangerine
watermelon
anise
artichoke
asparagus
avocado
beet
bell pepper
broccoli
Brussels sprouts
cabbage
cauliflower
celery
chard
cilantro
cucumber
eggplant
garbanzo
green bean, string bean
green onion
kale
kidney bean
leek
lentil
lettuce
lima bean
parsley
pinto bean
pumpkin
radish
soybean
spinach
squash (summer)
squash (winter)
sweet potato
taro
yam
zucchini
basil
rosemary
sage
thyme
almond
cashew
chestnut
hazelnut
macadamia
pecan
pistachio
walnut
cinnamon
ginseng
mustard
nutmeg
pepper (Piper)
sesame
cacao
cassava
hops
wormwood
flax
hemp, cannabis
daffodil
dahlia
daisy (as garden flower)
geranium
hibiscus
iris
lavender
lilac
lotus (Nelumbinaceae)
marigold (Calendula officinalis)
morning glory
oleander
orchid
poppy
sunflower
tulip
violet
wisteria
cactus
rubber
rattan
moss
fern
reed
clover
milkweed
holly
ivy
poison oak
poison ivy
poison sumac
juniper
pine
fir
spruce
cedar
ginkgo
magnolia
maple
birch
willow
oak
elm
ash

[Arayaz]

Should I add the words "nectarine" and "amaranth" under the More Plants section of my Landau Core Vocabulary?

This is a question that never got answered.

For everyone's reference, here are the plant words in Part IV:

Spoiler:

plant*
female (plant)
male (plant)
bush
flower, blossom, bloom*
tree*
bulb
berry
grass
grain
corn, maize
rice
wheat
apple
banana
cherry (sweet)
cherry (sour)
coconut
lemon
orange
peach
pear
pineapple
strawberry (cultivated)
strawberry (wild)
bean
carrot
garlic
ginger
olive
onion
pea
pepper (Capsicum)
potato
tomato
peanut
coffee
tea
cotton
tobacco
lily
rose
palm

And in Part V:

Spoiler:

herb
weed
vine
vine (of grapes)
barley
millet
oats
rye
sorghum
sugarcane
bamboo
quinoa
apricot
blackberry
blueberry
breadfruit
cherimoya
cranberry
date
dragon fruit
durian
fig
grape
grapefruit
guava
kiwifruit
kumquat
lime (small)
lime (big)
longan
loquat
lychee
mango
mangosteen
melon
pandanus
papaya
passionfruit
plantain
plum
pomegranate
rambutan
raspberry
sapodilla
starfruit
tamarind
tangerine
watermelon
anise
artichoke
asparagus
avocado
beet
bell pepper
broccoli
Brussels sprouts
cabbage
cauliflower
celery
chard
cilantro
cucumber
eggplant
garbanzo
green bean, string bean
green onion
kale
kidney bean
leek
lentil
lettuce
lima bean
parsley
pinto bean
pumpkin
radish
soybean
spinach
squash (summer)
squash (winter)
sweet potato
taro
yam
zucchini
basil
rosemary
sage
thyme
almond
cashew
chestnut
hazelnut
macadamia
pecan
pistachio
walnut
cinnamon
ginseng
mustard
nutmeg
pepper (Piper)
sesame
cacao
cassava
hops
wormwood
flax
hemp, cannabis
daffodil
dahlia
daisy (as garden flower)
geranium
hibiscus
iris
lavender
lilac
lotus (Nelumbinaceae)
marigold (Calendula officinalis)
morning glory
oleander
orchid
poppy
sunflower
tulip
violet
wisteria
cactus
rubber
rattan
moss
fern
reed
clover
milkweed
holly
ivy
poison oak
poison ivy
poison sumac
juniper
pine
fir
spruce
cedar
ginkgo
magnolia
maple
birch
willow
oak
elm
ash

It'd make sense to do so, considering the other words there. But may I ask what the purpose of the LCV is, exactly?

[Khemehekis]

It'd make sense to do so, considering the other words there. But may I ask what the purpose of the LCV is, exactly?

The primary purpose is to inspire words that can be created in a conlang by a conlanger.

A secondary purpose is to cover the words to be mastered in someone learning English (or English speakers mastering another natlang).

[TBPO]

Do I should add mages to Saytal?

(I'll call users of magic magicians)
At the moment my conworld has 3 types of magic:
-Repairers replace human body parts with animal parts. They do either if body part is very damaged or if the patient wants to enhance his/her body.
-Clerics pray to eldritch entities called angels, which can (but not have to) fulfill small wishes. Most humans know that angels are real, but no one know that they're praying to them, not to f.e. gods.
-Sorcerers are extremally powerful magicians which control four elements. Only one of few hundred million people is born sorcerer.

Mages may be magicians that are more powerful than repairer or clerics but that must spend runes, which are hard to produce and are expensive due to use of rare material.

I'm also not sure should I make my conworld an RPG setting.

Maybe mages could be a subkind of Sorcerers or Clerics.

Nope. If I'll add mages, it will be type of magic separate from other. All 3 currently existing types of nagic require non-physical resource, when mages require physical runes to cast spells.
The question is still the same.

[TBPO]

My vowel system is: (in X-SAMPA)

Code: Select all

-l  +l
/a/ /a:/
/e/ /e:/
/i/ /i:/
/o/ /o:/
/u/ /u:/
/y/ /2:/

The question is: should I change /2:/ to /y:/ to keep regularity of vowel system?

Spoiler:

It's vestige of times when vowel system was following:

Code: Select all

-l  +l
/a/ /a:/
/E/ /e:/
/I/ /i:/
/O/ /o:/
/U/ /u:/
/Y/ /2:/

(And no, modifying the rest of current vowel system is NOT an option.)