The CBB

Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.

Nay.

Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.

Yay, I find the new way more natural. I think Romance languages use the older version.

Thank you for your answers. My plan is to post something on Kobardon as soon as I have a first version of a grammar pdf.

Omzinesý wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021 15:12

Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.

Yay, I find the new way more natural. I think Romance languages use the older version.

Great Can you poimt me to some examples maybe?

Creyeditor wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021 18:28 Thank you for your answers. My plan is to post something on Kobardon as soon as I have a first version of a grammar pdf.

Omzinesý wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021 15:12

Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.

Yay, I find the new way more natural. I think Romance languages use the older version.

Great Can you poimt me to some examples maybe?

I'm no expert of these. So I have understood.

A few questions about Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar. First, the phonology, in its current state, is as follows:

/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/θ s x h/ d s ḫ h
/ɬ/ ł
/ɹ ʕ/ r g
/l/ l

/à è ø̀ ì ỳ ɤ̀ ò ɯ̀ ù/ a e ö i ü ë o ï u
/á é ǿ í ý ɤ́ ó ɯ́ ú/ á é ô í û ê ó î ú
/m̩ n̩ ŋ̩ l̩ ɹ̩/ m n ĝ l r

(C)V(C), unless V is one of the syllabic resonants, which cannot take codas

Question 1. Should I add clicks to CT? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On the one hand, CT has been more or less like this for about fifteen years. On the other hand, I absolutely love clicks and think they're underutilized and sound cool.

The following sub-questions are only applicable if the answer to Question 1 is "yes":

Question 1a. Should bilabial clicks be added to CT? The only bilabial consonant in CT currently is /m/, and I have half a mind to keep it that way. However, I'd only have clicks at three places of articulation (+ lateral alveolars) if I did this.

Question 1b. Which click series should be included? I wouldn't include a voicing distinction amongst the clicks (to fit in with the rest of the language), but I'd be inclined to include nasalized versions of the clicks as well. So something like /kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/. But would ejectives make sense with this phonology, or aspirates (given how fast and loose /h/ can behave in CT)? And/or preglottalized clicks, perhaps? What about fricated ones?

Question 1c. How should the clicks be romanized? The font family I am fond of using, TT Marxiana, doesn't support clicks (or the velar nasal), so I'd have to find alternate means. My inclination is to romanize in one of the following manners:

/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ b mb z nz j nj q nq
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ k@ n@ k| n| k|| n|| k! n! k# n#

The first option reminds me of Xhosa, but doesn't get across the unusual nature of clicks (IMO anyway). The second looks egregious (especially the @ and #), but otherwise gets things across in a clear—and font-supported—manner.

Question 2. Should I axe the syllabic resonants? I don't like them much, but they do have some applicability vis-à-vis genitives and measure-words.

Man in Space wrote: ↑21 Feb 2022 00:28 Question 1. Should I add clicks to CT? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On the one hand, CT has been more or less like this for about fifteen years. On the other hand, I absolutely love clicks and think they're underutilized and sound cool.

Nay.

Man in Space wrote: ↑21 Feb 2022 00:28 Question 2. Should I axe the syllabic resonants? I don't like them much, but they do have some applicability vis-à-vis genitives and measure-words.

Since you don't like them very much, I'm be inclined to vote "yea". Out of curiosity, though, how are they used in genitives and measure words?

Can these sound changes realistically happen?

pl bl ml fl vl > t̼ d̼ n̼ ɬ̼ l̼~ɮ̼

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022 23:33 Can these sound changes realistically happen?

pl bl ml fl vl > t̼ d̼ n̼ ɬ̼ l̼~ɮ̼

In my probably under-informed opinion: not in just one step.
But a chain of sound-changes —— possibly as few as two? —— might accomplish it.
I hope somebody who knows more than I do comments!

Should Vrkhazhian only express attributes as relativized verbs and nouns in the equative case?

rēbis satīsēzi bēdas sagiltēzes lēˀebnakki
man-MASC.ACC NFUT-be_hostile-3ms book-NEUT.ACC NFUT-be_old-3ns.REL NFUT-have\APPL-1cs>3ms
"I gave the aggressive man an old book" (lit. man who-is-hostile book who-is-old I-gave-him)

Usually:
rēbis sattîs bēdas saggalas lēˀebnakki
man-MASC.ACC hostile-MASC.ACC book-NEUT.ACC old-NEUT.ACC NFUT-have\APPL-1cs>3ms
"I gave the aggressive man an old book"

I don't understand. I don't see any equative in the glosses

Creyeditor wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 08:26 I don't understand. I don't see any equative in the glosses

In my sentences there was a noun in the equative case but I removed it since the usage of equative-cased nouns does not change whether I decide adjectives have a dedicated form or are simply relativized verbs; I will still have them either way. So demonstrating it in the sentences does not serve to emphasize the difference.

my initial thought was "well I could have three classes: nouns, verbs, and particles" and "I could modify the other classes by having adjective-like nouns and adjective-like verbs" though my issue is many-fold: the adjective-like nouns and verbs do not share the repeatable endings that so elegantly display concord between noun and modifier, the adjective-like verbs do not feel "marked" enough or they feel too "weighted" to one side, and they don't really allow for semantic shifting away from the verbal meaning (no "oppose, defy" > "opposed, defied" > "enemy")

Conversely, I now have to decide how I form my adjectives if I make the geminated stem indicate applicative voice or decide how I form the applicative if I make the geminated stem indicate deverbal adjectives.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 09:10

Creyeditor wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 08:26 I don't understand. I don't see any equative in the glosses

In my sentences there was a noun in the equative case but I removed it since the usage of equative-cased nouns does not change whether I decide adjectives have a dedicated form or are simply relativized verbs; I will still have them either way. So demonstrating it in the sentences does not serve to emphasize the difference.

my initial thought was "well I could have three classes: nouns, verbs, and particles" and "I could modify the other classes by having adjective-like nouns and adjective-like verbs" though my issue is many-fold: the adjective-like nouns and verbs do not share the repeatable endings that so elegantly display concord between noun and modifier, the adjective-like verbs do not feel "marked" enough or they feel too "weighted" to one side, and they don't really allow for semantic shifting away from the verbal meaning (no "oppose, defy" > "opposed, defied" > "enemy")

Conversely, I now have to decide how I form my adjectives if I make the geminated stem indicate applicative voice or decide how I form the applicative if I make the geminated stem indicate deverbal adjectives.

What abaut a relative pronoun or a relativizer that agrees the head?

I gave man.M REL.M be.aggressive book.N REL.N be.old

If adjectives are replaced by nouns, the second question is how they work as predicates.

The girl is a beauty. or The girl has beauty.

Omzinesý wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 12:59

Ahzoh wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 09:10

Creyeditor wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 08:26 I don't understand. I don't see any equative in the glosses

In my sentences there was a noun in the equative case but I removed it since the usage of equative-cased nouns does not change whether I decide adjectives have a dedicated form or are simply relativized verbs; I will still have them either way. So demonstrating it in the sentences does not serve to emphasize the difference.

my initial thought was "well I could have three classes: nouns, verbs, and particles" and "I could modify the other classes by having adjective-like nouns and adjective-like verbs" though my issue is many-fold: the adjective-like nouns and verbs do not share the repeatable endings that so elegantly display concord between noun and modifier, the adjective-like verbs do not feel "marked" enough or they feel too "weighted" to one side, and they don't really allow for semantic shifting away from the verbal meaning (no "oppose, defy" > "opposed, defied" > "enemy")

Conversely, I now have to decide how I form my adjectives if I make the geminated stem indicate applicative voice or decide how I form the applicative if I make the geminated stem indicate deverbal adjectives.

What abaut a relative pronoun or a relativizer that agrees the head?

I have a relative pronoun, which I use mainly for clauses where the head is not the subject of the relative clause. I developed relativizing verb subject suffixes exactly so I wouldn't have to use relative pronouns for subjects of relative clauses

Creyeditor wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 08:26 I don't understand. I don't see any equative in the glosses

Isn’t there a degree-of-comparison in some languages called “equative”?
Positive: High
Comparative: Higher
Equative: As high as
Superlative: Highest

If so wouldn’t it apply to all modifiers, whether adjectives or adverbs?

eldin raigmore wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 19:49

Creyeditor wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 08:26 I don't understand. I don't see any equative in the glosses

Isn’t there a degree-of-comparison in some languages called “equative”?
Positive: High
Comparative: Higher
Equative: As high as
Superlative: Highest

If so wouldn’t it apply to all modifiers, whether adjectives or adverbs?

No, it's the equative case, it basically translates to "X-like"

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022 23:33 Can these sound changes realistically happen?

pl bl ml fl vl > t̼ d̼ n̼ ɬ̼ l̼~ɮ̼

You're probably already familiar with this note on the Wikipedia page for linguolabial consonants. Based on that, the relationship between [j] & [i], and the historical shift from [pl bl fl] > [pj bj fj] in (for example) Italian, maybe you could have something like [plV] > [pjV] > [pijV] > [t̼ijV] > [t̼V]?

So I want a language with robust gender marking and have settled on eight as a good number. Typical masculine and feminine and animal and arboreal and abstract distinctions exist. The last three are inanimates based on shape: long, flat and round, but I'm unsure if this is interesting enough.

The shape classes are interesting enough to me. Maybe syncretism in the plural could spice it up a bit.

I had pondered reducing contrasts for object agreement. It works, thanks.

(Also a plurale tantum class, but eight and no more)

shimobaatar wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022 18:46

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022 23:33 Can these sound changes realistically happen?

pl bl ml fl vl > t̼ d̼ n̼ ɬ̼ l̼~ɮ̼

You're probably already familiar with this note on the Wikipedia page for linguolabial consonants. Based on that, the relationship between [j] & [i], and the historical shift from [pl bl fl] > [pj bj fj] in (for example) Italian, maybe you could have something like [plV] > [pjV] > [pijV] > [t̼ijV] > [t̼V]?

A few days later but palatalized bilabials are crosslinguistically unstable (i have a paper about it somewhere in here if anyone wants it) and there's sound changes in a few different languages that would corroborate the pl > pj > t̼ pathway, like greek pj > pt (e.g. klepto < klep-ye-ti) and the portuguese pl > t͡ʃ > ʃ.

So yeah those changes could happen probably.