Yay or Nay?

[Ahzoh]

Edit: (Original thread description:)
I thought that we should have a thread where we can submit ideas for our respective conlangs which we are not sure about, for others to judge or give their opinion on.

Yay or nay,

Vrkhazhian should have ejective fricatives (that, like all fricatives, tend to affricate word-initially)?

The inventory would look like this:
https://www.frathwiki.com/Vrkhazhian#Consonants

Edit: Split from the first Yay or Nay? thread. -Aevas, 2020-05-08

[zyma]

I'd vote no.

[Omzinesý]

Yay or nay,

Vrkhazhian should have ejective fricatives (that, like all fricatives, tend to affricate word-initially)?

The inventory would look like this:
https://www.frathwiki.com/Vrkhazhian#Consonants

Maybe it could have ejective fricatives as roducts of some morpho-phonological processes, but not on the lexical level.

[Ahzoh]

Maybe it could have ejective fricatives as roducts of some morpho-phonological processes, but not on the lexical level.

Such as?

[Omzinesý]

Maybe it could have ejective fricatives as roducts of some morpho-phonological processes, but not on the lexical level.

Such as?

I have no idea of your language's phonology, but generally, say there is a prefix ending in a glottal stop and a stem starting in a sibilant, they can realize as an ejective sibilant.
/ʔ/ + /s/ => [s']

[zyma]

Maybe it could have ejective fricatives as roducts of some morpho-phonological processes, but not on the lexical level.

Such as?

I have no idea of your language's phonology, but generally, say there is a prefix ending in a glottal stop and a stem starting in a sibilant, they can realize as an ejective sibilant.
/ʔ/ + /s/ => [s']

There's some information on the phonology on the page Ahzoh linked to.

[gestaltist]

Maybe it could have ejective fricatives as roducts of some morpho-phonological processes, but not on the lexical level.

Such as?

I have no idea of your language's phonology, but generally, say there is a prefix ending in a glottal stop and a stem starting in a sibilant, they can realize as an ejective sibilant.
/ʔ/ + /s/ => [s']

There's some information on the phonology on the page Ahzoh linked to.

And providing it (or the relevant parts) would've constituted basic courtesy when they asked the question...

[zyma]

Maybe it could have ejective fricatives as roducts of some morpho-phonological processes, but not on the lexical level.

Such as?

I have no idea of your language's phonology, but generally, say there is a prefix ending in a glottal stop and a stem starting in a sibilant, they can realize as an ejective sibilant.
/ʔ/ + /s/ => [s']

There's some information on the phonology on the page Ahzoh linked to.

And providing it (or the relevant parts) would've constituted basic courtesy when they asked the question...

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’ve said, but Ahzoh did provide that link with the original question on the previous page of this thread.

[Ahzoh]

Yes, I did indeed provide a link to the phonology on the original question post. The syllable structure/phonotactics would also be there.

[gestaltist]

My bad then

[clawgrip]

I have two language families that occupy the same geographical area in a conworld. Although they are not related, for some reason or another they both form the passive voice through reduplication of the initial syllable of the stem. This was not actually planned, as I think I unconsciously reused the same idea in both languages before I even decided they were going to be in the same location. Examples from two languages from the two different families:

Nandut: pām "he writes" ; bapām "it is written"
Uyendur: ganur "he writes" ; gegnur "it is written"

It was an accident, but I kind of like how they share this unusual feature. Anyway, for various reasons, I have decided it is necessary for there to be a third language or language family that is not related to either of them, in the same location. This language family will not be as prominent and will be an isolate or very small family, one or two languages.

The question is, should I give this language the reduplicated passive as well, as some sort of weird areal thing, or should it just be something unrelated?

[felipesnark]

I have two language families that occupy the same geographical area in a conworld. Although they are not related, for some reason or another they both form the passive voice through reduplication of the initial syllable of the stem. This was not actually planned, as I think I unconsciously reused the same idea in both languages before I even decided they were going to be in the same location. Examples from two languages from the two different families:

Nandut: pām "he writes" ; bapām "it is written"
Uyendur: ganur "he writes" ; gegnur "it is written"

It was an accident, but I kind of like how they share this unusual feature. Anyway, for various reasons, I have decided it is necessary for there to be a third language or language family that is not related to either of them, in the same location. This language family will not be as prominent and will be an isolate or very small family, one or two languages.

The question is, should I give this language the reduplicated passive as well, as some sort of weird areal thing, or should it just be something unrelated?

I say 'yay', as an areal feature!

[zyma]

I have two language families that occupy the same geographical area in a conworld. Although they are not related, for some reason or another they both form the passive voice through reduplication of the initial syllable of the stem. This was not actually planned, as I think I unconsciously reused the same idea in both languages before I even decided they were going to be in the same location. Examples from two languages from the two different families:

Nandut: pām "he writes" ; bapām "it is written"
Uyendur: ganur "he writes" ; gegnur "it is written"

It was an accident, but I kind of like how they share this unusual feature. Anyway, for various reasons, I have decided it is necessary for there to be a third language or language family that is not related to either of them, in the same location. This language family will not be as prominent and will be an isolate or very small family, one or two languages.

The question is, should I give this language the reduplicated passive as well, as some sort of weird areal thing, or should it just be something unrelated?

I say 'yay', as an areal feature!

[DesEsseintes]

Yay here too.

[clawgrip]

Looks like it's a go, then.

I have been away from here too long. It's nice to see responses from familiar names. Thanks, everyone.

[Ælfwine]

Yay or Nay: Crimean Gothic shall have front rounded vowels /ø/ and /y/ from PGmc *eu and *iu respectively.

I'm not sold on having front rounded vowels. Greek and Slavic influence suggests against them, but Crimean Tatar suggests for it. There is also no evidence for front rounded vowels in the corpus (but that doesn't mean CG may not have had it.) Still, I like the faux German look on the romanization (although this will obviously not apply to Cyrillic.)

[Zekoslav]

When did the Crimean Tatars arrive in Crimea?

[zyma]

Yay or Nay: Crimean Gothic shall have front rounded vowels /ø/ and /y/ from PGmc *eu and *iu respectively.

I'm not sold on having front rounded vowels. Greek and Slavic influence suggests against them, but Crimean Tatar suggests for it. There is also no evidence for front rounded vowels in the corpus (but that doesn't mean CG may not have had it.) Still, I like the faux German look on the romanization (although this will obviously not apply to Cyrillic.)

Nay.

[Ælfwine]

When did the Crimean Tatars arrive in Crimea?

Probably along with the Golden Horde, so 13th century.

[Zekoslav]

When did the Crimean Tatars arrive in Crimea?

Probably along with the Golden Horde, so 13th century.

The likelihood of *iu > /y/ and *eu > /ø/ would then depend on whether these diphtongs were preserved until the Tatars came. If they were monophthongized much earlier, then the likelihood of such a result decreases. However, as I've already said sometimes relying too much on historical realism can be limiting, especially when certain things are still debated in historical linguistics!