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

[TBPO]

What’s the standard practice for glossing prepositions and conjunctions? Until now I’ve just been glossing them PREP and CONJ but you really don’t get any nuance out of that. Using English approximations for these specific word groups also doesn’t seem accurate enough to warrant using those either though.

Either use English approximations or make your own shortcuts (f.e. "and" in lists as CONJ.LST or just LST).

Edit: These aren't universal standards, but it's the best that I can suggest.

[All4Ɇn]

Ether use English approximations or make your own shortcuts (f.e. "and" in lists as CONJ.LST or just LST).

Edit: These aren't universal standards, but it's the best that I can suggest.

Thanks . Would it be weird to do something like “CONJ.and”?

[TBPO]

Ether use English approximations or make your own shortcuts (f.e. "and" in lists as CONJ.LST or just LST).

Edit: These aren't universal standards, but it's the best that I can suggest.

Thanks . Would it be weird to do something like “CONJ.and”?

Personally it doesn't look weird or incorrect for me, but it will complicate glosses of your language.

[Creyeditor]

Prepositions are often glossed as cases, e.g. LOC for 'at', ALL for 'to', INSTR for 'with', etc. Conjunctions and stuff like that are sometimes glossed with more specific labels, e.g. DISJ for logical disjunction 'or', CONJ for logical conjunction 'and', C(OMP) for a complememtizer or 'that', etc.
Also, what the others said.

[All4Ɇn]

Appreciate the replies thanks :)

[Yakker5250]

From what I've read, deixis happens when some constituent or other can't be interpreted without information about the context of the utterance. For example ...

First and second person pronouns are deictic, because their referents change depending on who is talking and who is being addressed.

Demonstrative pronouns are deictic because we can't interpret them without knowing what is figuratively or literally close to or away from the speaker at the time of the utterance.

Types of expressions other than pronouns can be deictic too, e.g., "now," "then," "here," and "there." But I want to focus on pronouns.

Are interrogative pronouns deictic? Their interpretations seem to me to be dependent on context, but I think I'm missing something.

[lurker]

From what I've read, deixis happens when some constituent or other can't be interpreted without information about the context of the utterance. For example ...

First and second person pronouns are deictic, because their referents change depending on who is talking and who is being addressed.

Demonstrative pronouns are deictic because we can't interpret them without knowing what is figuratively or literally close to or away from the speaker at the time of the utterance.

Types of expressions other than pronouns can be deictic too, e.g., "now," "then," "here," and "there." But I want to focus on pronouns.

Are interrogative pronouns deictic? Their interpretations seem to me to be dependent on context, but I think I'm missing something.

Not sure if this answers your question, but it touches on a feature of my current lang. Nouns inflect for deixis: 1st and 2nd person, as well as proximal, medial, distal, and indefinite 3rd person. There is also an interrogative ending that requests the listener to identify the referent of the noun so-inflected.

GJbfrg = "an operating system" but
GJbrfBD = "Which operating system?"

I'm no linguist, but I'd consider interrogative pronouns potentially deictic, as you're asking the listener to define the relationship between the constituent and its referent, or in other words, to define its deixis.

[LinguoFranco]

So, I am working on a language that uses syllable weight for stress assignment. So far, the rule is pretty simple: the stress is always on the penultimate mora. That is, if the final syllable is heavy, it is stressed. Otherwise, the penultimate syllable is stressed.

One thing I am toying with is adding super heavy CVVC syllables which can shift stress back to the antepenult, if not further.

The only problem is that I have it so that only CVV syllables count as heavy, while CVC is light. So, if the coda is not moraic in a CVC syllable, then it seems kinda inconsistent to suddenly count as a mora in a CVVC syllable, doesn't it?

What do you think?

[Visions1]

Apparently there's a semantic map of Pluractionality (by Simone Mattiola 2016)

Leave it to linguists to put all the stuff you only knew subconsciously in full view.
Who needs drugs. This field expands my mind constantly.

Is there such thing as inflection for definiteness as well as case?

Aramaic does this, differentiating simple vs. construct vs. definite states. Bayθ, Beyθ, Bayθɔ - house, house of, the house.
Case may be added at the beginning, so Lbayθɔ, Bbayθɔ - to the house, in the house.

[Creyeditor]

So, I am working on a language that uses syllable weight for stress assignment. So far, the rule is pretty simple: the stress is always on the penultimate mora. That is, if the final syllable is heavy, it is stressed. Otherwise, the penultimate syllable is stressed.

One thing I am toying with is adding super heavy CVVC syllables which can shift stress back to the antepenult, if not further.

The only problem is that I have it so that only CVV syllables count as heavy, while CVC is light. So, if the coda is not moraic in a CVC syllable, then it seems kinda inconsistent to suddenly count as a mora in a CVVC syllable, doesn't it?

What do you think?

Yes, it does seem inconsistent. I am not sure that it means it is unnaturalistic. (I don't have any idea about a natlang that this occurs in.)
Why would a superheavy shift stress back to the antepenult though? Wouldn't stress just fall onbthe final syllable because it bears the penultimate mora? Wouldn't you need a superlight syllable in order to get stress on the antepenultimate (or an extrametrical syllable)?

[LinguoFranco]

So, I am working on a language that uses syllable weight for stress assignment. So far, the rule is pretty simple: the stress is always on the penultimate mora. That is, if the final syllable is heavy, it is stressed. Otherwise, the penultimate syllable is stressed.

One thing I am toying with is adding super heavy CVVC syllables which can shift stress back to the antepenult, if not further.

The only problem is that I have it so that only CVV syllables count as heavy, while CVC is light. So, if the coda is not moraic in a CVC syllable, then it seems kinda inconsistent to suddenly count as a mora in a CVVC syllable, doesn't it?

What do you think?

Yes, it does seem inconsistent. I am not sure that it means it is unnaturalistic. (I don't have any idea about a natlang that this occurs in.)
Why would a superheavy shift stress back to the antepenult though? Wouldn't stress just fall onbthe final syllable because it bears the penultimate mora? Wouldn't you need a superlight syllable in order to get stress on the antepenultimate (or an extrametrical syllable)?

Well, the idea is that the super heavy syllable would only pull the stress back if both of the last two syllables are light. Also, super light syllables are a thing?

[Creyeditor]

Can you give an (abstract) example of tge superheavy syllable pulling stress to the antepenultimate? Would stress still be on the penultimate mora?

In some languages reduced syllables (e.g. with a schwa vowel) are considered moraless, e.g. superlight.

[Khemehekis]

From what I've read, deixis happens when some constituent or other can't be interpreted without information about the context of the utterance. For example ...

First and second person pronouns are deictic, because their referents change depending on who is talking and who is being addressed.

Demonstrative pronouns are deictic because we can't interpret them without knowing what is figuratively or literally close to or away from the speaker at the time of the utterance.

Types of expressions other than pronouns can be deictic too, e.g., "now," "then," "here," and "there." But I want to focus on pronouns.

Are interrogative pronouns deictic? Their interpretations seem to me to be dependent on context, but I think I'm missing something.

Greetings, @Yakker!

Yakko is a yakker,
Wakko is a snacker,
Dot's plain cute,
So's this boot!

[LinguoFranco]

I know some languages contrast between palatalized and velarized consonants, but would it be unusual for a language to have contrasts between plain and velarized?

I know some languages kinda do this like Gilbertese and Kurdish, but it's usually two or three consonants at most.

[Visions1]

From what I can tell, when not a palatal (or palatal/labiovelar) contrast, it only occurs on certain consonants - typically either sonorants, or labials and perhaps dentals.

However, just because a real language hasn't done it, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I personally have wanted to make a plain-velar lang for a while, and I'd be downright pleased if you'd do it first.

[HolyHandGrenade!]

If it makes you feel better, you can always have allophonic palatalization for plain consonants.

[Omzinesý]

I know some languages contrast between palatalized and velarized consonants, but would it be unusual for a language to have contrasts between plain and velarized?

I know some languages kinda do this like Gilbertese and Kurdish, but it's usually two or three consonants at most.

In some varieties of Arabic the "emphatic" consonants are actually velarized. In most Arabic dialects the "non-emphatic" consonants are not palatalized.

----

In many languages palatalization is contrastive only before back vowels, Bulgarian being the best example. I assume velarized and non-velarized consonants could well contrast before front vowels.

[Ahzoh]

So, my conlang has both stress accent and pitch accent and it basically follows the so-called the three mora law like Latin and Akkadian. Or close to it.

My conlang's syllable structure allows this very well. However, as a result of glide elision and vowel coalescence, there now exist superheavy syllables which complicate this system.

Generally, I treat the final mora of a word as extrametrical (and thus the accent always falls on a vowel), but I don't know what to do about final superheavy syllables. If normal heavy syllables (CVV and CVC) are treated the same as light syllables, then I don't know if superheavy sylllables should also be treated as light (thus counting two moras as extra-metrical) or as normal heavy (only counting one mora as extra metrical).

This is especially complicated due to the the origins of the superheavy syllables, which by all logic and reason should mean the final superheavy syllable can be stressed if it originates from stressed penult fusing with an unstressed ult).

And of course, there is also superheavy syllables in places other than the final syllables, which would also complicate things.

Perhaps I should just consider the final mora of superheavy syllables to be extra-metrical across the board (though I think that is weird given their origins and also since other syllable types would not be so affected)?

What are your thoughts on this? Do you have other ideas/strategies to employ?

Anyways, I have listed all the possible syllable type combinations that are at least relevant to primary stress (— marks a syllable boundary, • marks a mora boundary) :

Spoiler:

ma—za
ma—za•a
ma—za•n
ma—za•a•n

ma•a—za
ma•a—za•a
ma•a—za•n
ma•a—za•a•n

ma•n—za
ma•n—za•a
ma•n—za•n
ma•n—za•a•n

ma•a•n—za
ma•a•n—za•a
ma•a•n—za•n
ma•a•n—za•a•n

Spoiler:

ma—ma—za
ma—ma—za•a
ma—ma—za•n
ma—ma—za•a•n

ma—ma•a—za
ma—ma•a—za•a
ma—ma•a—za•n
ma—ma•a—za•a•n

ma—ma•n—za
ma—ma•n—za•a
ma—ma•n—za•n
ma—ma•n—za•a•n

ma—ma•a•n—za
ma—ma•a•n—za•a
ma—ma•a•n—za•n
ma—ma•a•n—za•a•n

Spoiler:

ma•a—ma—za
ma•a—ma—za•a
ma•a—ma—za•n
ma•a—ma—za•a•n

ma•a—ma•a—za
ma•a—ma•a—za•a
ma•a—ma•a—za•n
ma•a—ma•a—za•a•n

ma•a—ma•n—za
ma•a—ma•n—za•a
ma•a—ma•n—za•n
ma•a—ma•n—za•a•n

ma•a—ma•a•n—za
ma•a—ma•a•n—za•a
ma•a—ma•a•n—za•n
ma•a—ma•a•n—za•a•n

Spoiler:

ma•a•n—ma—za
ma•a•n—ma—za•a
ma•a•n—ma—za•n
ma•a•n—ma—za•a•n

ma•a•n—ma•a—za
ma•a•n—ma•a—za•a
ma•a•n—ma•a—za•n
ma•a•n—ma•a—za•a•n

ma•a•n—ma•n—za
ma•a•n—ma•n—za•a
ma•a•n—ma•n—za•n
ma•a•n—ma•n—za•a•n

ma•a•n—ma•a•n—za
ma•a•n—ma•a•n—za•a
ma•a•n—ma•a•n—za•n
ma•a•n—ma•a•n—za•a•n

[LinguistCat]

I can't help with Ahzoh's question but I suppose if I wanted to make a language just subtly more alien, I could break that pattern of accentuation, especially in my conlang based on a language that holds to it

[Visions1]

First things first: You don't have to adhere to the 3-mora rule exactly. Not even Latin does (it counts —CVC# as one mora instead of two).

Maybe make the last two more of the superheavy into one mora?
So /ma.a.n-za.an/ as opposed to /ma.a.n-za.a.n/.
/ma.an-ma.a.n-za.a.n/ with stress in the middle as opposed to /ma.a.n-ma.a.n-za.a.n/.

Forgive the punctuation, it's just easier for me to read.

You might hate this, but would epenthetic insertions help with this? Maybe glottal stops (as much as you've been avoiding them).