There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Nimrina phonology
From: Herman Miller
1b. Re: Nimrina phonology
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
1c. Re: Nimrina phonology
From: Henrik Theiling
1d. Re: Nimrina phonology
From: Patrick Littell
1e. Re: Nimrina phonology
From: Herman Miller
1f. Re: Nimrina phonology
From: Herman Miller
2a. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Chris Bates
2b. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Chris Bates
2c. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Eldin Raigmore
2d. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Jonathan Knibb
3. Comparison Þrjótrunn - Icelandic - Latin
From: Henrik Theiling
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Nimrina phonology
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:41 pm (PDT)
From the recent discussion of phonology, I've realized it's been a
while since I did a language with a really interesting phonology. My
recent languages feel pretty artificial in that respect. So I decided to
start a new language, which makes use of phonological alterations in the
morphology for a more realistic feel.
So far what I have is this:
Initial consonant mutations in compounds (as in Japanese):
tilin "small"
sáti "foot"
tilinzáti "small-footed; having small feet"
Alteration of the final consonant when adding a suffix:
sán "two", satsa "twenty"
klym "five", klypsa "fifty"
The details need some work, but I'll eventually figure something out. My
current idea is that -ssa is the suffix for "10 times", but due to
phonological restrictions, it ends up as -sa after consonants. The full
set of numerals:
1 mi [m_ji], 10 há [ha:]
2 sán [sa:n], 20 satsa [satsa] (note shortening of vowel)
3 pai [pai], 30 paissa [pais:a]
4 trún [t`s`u:n], 40 trutsa [t`s`utsa]
5 klym [kl1m], 50 klypsa [kl1psa]
6 hrána [s`a:na], 60 hransa [s`aA~sa]
7 zá [za:], 70 zassa [zas:a]
8 híhli [Ci:K_ji], 80 hihlisa [CiK_jisa]
9 vai [vai], 90 vaissa [vais:a]
I have yet to work out the rules for shortening of vowels, so some of
these may eventually change. I might leave a few irregularities here and
there.
Nimrína [n_jimz`i:na] currently has 17 consonant phonemes (p b t d k g m
n r v s z s` z` h K l) and 6 vowel phonemes [i 1 u E O a]. Vowels can be
long or short, but since there are numerous diphthongs, it might be more
appropriate to consider long vowels as sequences of two identical
vowels. Note the absence of /f/, which has merged with /h/; /h/
alternates with /v/ in phonological contexts where it needs to be voiced.
Spelling is more or less phonemic, with some complications; for
instance, /z`/ is "r" and /r/ is "rr", so long /z`:/ is written "zr" to
avoid confusion with /r/.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Nimrina phonology
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:56 am (PDT)
Herman Miller skrev:
> From the recent discussion of phonology, I've realized it's been a
> while since I did a language with a really interesting phonology. My
> recent languages feel pretty artificial in that respect. So I decided to
> start a new language, which makes use of phonological alterations in the
> morphology for a more realistic feel.
>
> So far what I have is this:
>
> Initial consonant mutations in compounds (as in Japanese):
> tilin "small"
> sáti "foot"
> tilinzáti "small-footed; having small feet"
>
> Alteration of the final consonant when adding a suffix:
> sán "two", satsa "twenty"
> klym "five", klypsa "fifty"
>
> The details need some work, but I'll eventually figure something out. My
> current idea is that -ssa is the suffix for "10 times", but due to
> phonological restrictions, it ends up as -sa after consonants. The full
> set of numerals:
>
> 1 mi [m_ji], 10 há [ha:]
> 2 sán [sa:n], 20 satsa [satsa] (note shortening of vowel)
> 3 pai [pai], 30 paissa [pais:a]
> 4 trún [t`s`u:n], 40 trutsa [t`s`utsa]
> 5 klym [kl1m], 50 klypsa [kl1psa]
> 6 hrána [s`a:na], 60 hransa [s`aA~sa]
> 7 zá [za:], 70 zassa [zas:a]
> 8 híhli [Ci:K_ji], 80 hihlisa [CiK_jisa]
> 9 vai [vai], 90 vaissa [vais:a]
>
> I have yet to work out the rules for shortening of vowels, so some of
> these may eventually change. I might leave a few irregularities here and
> there.
>
> Nimrína [n_jimz`i:na] currently has 17 consonant phonemes (p b t d k g m
> n r v s z s` z` h K l) and 6 vowel phonemes [i 1 u E O a]. Vowels can be
> long or short, but since there are numerous diphthongs, it might be more
> appropriate to consider long vowels as sequences of two identical
> vowels. Note the absence of /f/, which has merged with /h/; /h/
> alternates with /v/ in phonological contexts where it needs to be voiced.
Nice. Do /K/ ~ /l/ also pattern as a voiceless-voiced pair?
Are all /h/s from *f? If not /h/ may alternate with zero in
some cases!
> Spelling is more or less phonemic, with some complications; for
> instance, /z`/ is "r" and /r/ is "rr", so long /z`:/ is written "zr" to
> avoid confusion with /r/.
Somehow _rz_ for /z`z`/ would seem more right to me,
probably because Swedish retroflexes represent /r/+dental,
and because _rz_ is one of the spellings of Polish /z`/,
but perhaps /rz/ is a possible cluster while **/zr/ isn't?
BTW did you know that _nimir/nimri/nimrim_ is the word
for 'Elf/Elves' in Tolkien's Adûnaic language?
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Nimrina phonology
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:27 am (PDT)
Hi!
Herman Miller writes:
>...
> Initial consonant mutations in compounds (as in Japanese):
>...
> Alteration of the final consonant when adding a suffix:
>...
> [i 1 u E O a].
>...
> Note the absence of /f/, which has merged with /h/; /h/ alternates
> with /v/ in phonological contexts where it needs to be voiced.
>...
I like it. In particular the cited parts above.
The six vowel system is a very nice extension of the five standard
ones. I wonder whether it is frequent in conlangs (or natlangs), it
feels natural at least. My Tyl Sjok has a seven vowel system adding
/@/ to the above (and letting all vowels be unrounded), which is just
about what Romanian has (but with the normal rounded back vowels). Is
this kind of seven vowel system more likely or wide-spread than the
six vowel system?
I also like the h/f merger leading to h - v alterations. I have
something similar in the current version of the S11 phonology, where f
precedes rounded vowels and h unrounded ones, and in clusters, it is
h, f, or v, depending on phonological context. Hmm, maybe I should
not throw it away (I think the language does not sound nice, as stated
before). Is it also inspired by Japanese (where it is more like h/f
-- p -- b like 'hito' + 'hito' > 'hitobito')?
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Nimrina phonology
Posted by: "Patrick Littell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:49 am (PDT)
On 8/17/06, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The six vowel system is a very nice extension of the five standard
> ones. I wonder whether it is frequent in conlangs (or natlangs), it
> feels natural at least.
The standard five + /1/ is pretty common in South America, possibly so
far as to be an areal trait. I could look it up, but I'm pretty sure
you'd find/have found it frequently within the Chibcha and Mapuche
spheres of influence, at least.
When a seventh vowel is added to the above, it's usually /@/-ish. I
gather that precise phonetic realization of the sixth and seventh
vowels varies, however.
> My Tyl Sjok has a seven vowel system adding
> /@/ to the above (and letting all vowels be unrounded), which is just
> about what Romanian has (but with the normal rounded back vowels).
-- Pat
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Nimrina phonology
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:15 pm (PDT)
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> Nice. Do /K/ ~ /l/ also pattern as a voiceless-voiced pair?
Currently, yes: ríva "yellow" + hlázi "tea" = rívalázi "green tea".
> Are all /h/s from *f? If not /h/ may alternate with zero in
> some cases!
I've considered the possibility that not all /h/'s are from an earlier
/f/; perhaps there was a /x/ : /G/ contrast and the /G/'s dropped out.
Loss of /G/ could also account for some of the long vowels and
diphthongs. I have a feeling that if I want a naturalistic phonology I'm
going to have to go into the history to some extent.
>> Spelling is more or less phonemic, with some complications; for
>> instance, /z`/ is "r" and /r/ is "rr", so long /z`:/ is written "zr"
>> to avoid confusion with /r/.
>
> Somehow _rz_ for /z`z`/ would seem more right to me,
> probably because Swedish retroflexes represent /r/+dental,
> and because _rz_ is one of the spellings of Polish /z`/,
> but perhaps /rz/ is a possible cluster while **/zr/ isn't?
Either spelling would work, but /rz/ I'm thinking would assimilate to
/zz/. Of course, progressive assimilation is always a possibility, but
if assimilation is regressive, I can let "rz" represent an original /rz/
which in the current language is pronounced /z:/.
> BTW did you know that _nimir/nimri/nimrim_ is the word
> for 'Elf/Elves' in Tolkien's Adûnaic language?
I don't know if I've seen anything about Adûnaic. Was this in one of the
"History of Middle-Earth" volumes? It's possible I may have seen this
long ago, but I didn't have anything particular in mind when I came up
with the name Nimrína.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Nimrina phonology
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:33 pm (PDT)
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> I also like the h/f merger leading to h - v alterations. I have
> something similar in the current version of the S11 phonology, where f
> precedes rounded vowels and h unrounded ones, and in clusters, it is
> h, f, or v, depending on phonological context. Hmm, maybe I should
> not throw it away (I think the language does not sound nice, as stated
> before). Is it also inspired by Japanese (where it is more like h/f
> -- p -- b like 'hito' + 'hito' > 'hitobito')?
Japanese to some extent, but also the history of Spanish, where h < f in
some words (although the written "h" is now silent).
I don't want to borrow too many ideas from one language, but I figure
that some relation between /h/ and /f/ is widespread enough that it
won't necessarily bring to mind Japanese. I already have one idea
borrowed from Korean: /l/ has allophones of [l] and [4], although the
distribution isn't exactly the same as in Korean (initial [l] is
permitted, for instance). "Minnesota" for esample is borrowed as
"Minesóla" [m_jinEsO:4a]!
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Chris Bates" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:08 am (PDT)
>How about your conlangs? Would you say they are:
>1. Very Tense-Prominent but not very Aspect-Prominent?
>2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
>3. Or that they are both quite Tense-Prominent and quite Aspect-Prominent?
>3a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
>3b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
>3c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
>4. Would you say they are neither very Tense-Prominent nor very Aspect-
>Prominent?
>4a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
>4b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
>4c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
>
>
My latest conlang has mood as its dominant category. All events are
first categorized for mood (realis vs irrealis), with the future
classified as irrealis. Evidentiality is almost as extensive, with all
realis events then taking evidentiality marking as well as all future
(irrealis) events (this distinguishes them from other types of
irrealis). There is restricted evidentiality in the future to
inferential, hearsay, and other indirect evidential forms.
Aspect is marked somewhat unsystematically by a combination of forms in
the (serial) verbal complex which perform other duties, as well as
optionally by adverbs. Tense is not directly marked normally, although
past/present and future are separable since they take different mood
markers (the future is classified as irrealis remember). However, in the
visual evidence category there are two evidentials, one which marks
present tense (ie the action is happening right now and you can directly
observe it), and one that marks past tense.
So we have:
-Realis
--Non-Visual Evidentiality (past and present not distinguished)
--Visual Evidentiality (past and present distinguished)
-Irrealis
--Non-Visual Evidentiality (future)
--No Evidentiality Marking (other irrealis)
As we can see, all verbs are marked for mood, most are marked for
evidentiality, and only some are marked for tense. Aspect is the least
grammaticalized, often being marked by serialized verbs which also have
other meanings:
/fe Ski:K da Kahk/
CLS:woman sing do stand-realis-vis.evid
She stood singing = She used to sing
Here, along with the verb "do" which generally co-occurs with sing
anyway, we have a posture verb "stand" added. The posture verb adds an
aspect of stativity or habituality to the action, although this is not
its only possible function (it still retains its meaning "stand", and
could just be interpreted as a postural specification).
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Chris Bates" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:58 am (PDT)
Dirk Elzinga wrote:
> Eldin:
>
> You need to look at this book:
>
> Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood. John
> Benjamins. ISBN: 155619935X.
I'd be very interested to know what typological generalizations it
proposes, if you've read it. :) From "Adjective Classes: A Cross
Linguistic Typology" I know of the following claims regarding stative
verbs and verby adjectives vs nouny adjectives:
(1)
if a language is head marking, it will have verb-y adjectives
if a language is dependent marking, it will have noun-y adjectives, or
adjectives will form a separate class
(2)
if a language is aspect prominent (to use the terminology of Bhat), it
will have verb-y adjectives
if a language is tense prominent, it will have noun-y adjectives, or
adjectives will form a separate class
There thus seems to be a proposed cluster of the features head marking,
aspect prominent, with verb-y adjectives/stative verbs on the one hand,
versus dependent marking, tense prominent, with noun-y adjectives on the
other. Dixon, in the introductory paper of "Adjective Classes", claims
that (1) seems to hold quite well, although there are exceptions (eg
Korean), but (2) seems to have rather numerous exceptions.
I haven't read any other proposed typological correlations connected to
mood or evidentiality marking rather than tense or aspect marking.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:00 pm (PDT)
---In [email protected], Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dirk Elzinga wrote:
>>Eldin:
>>You need to look at this book:
>>Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood.
>>John Benjamins. ISBN: 155619935X.
>
>I'd be very interested to know what typological generalizations it
>proposes, if you've read it. :)
Based on Dirk's recommendation I have ordered the book; but I haven't seen
it yet.
>From "Adjective Classes: A Cross Linguistic Typology"
Who wrote that and where can one get it?
>I know of the following claims regarding stative verbs and verby
>adjectives vs nouny adjectives:
>
>(1)
>if a language is head marking, it will have verb-y adjectives
>if a language is dependent marking, it will have noun-y adjectives,
>or adjectives will form a separate class
I didn't know that.
>(2)
>if a language is aspect prominent (to use the terminology of Bhat),
>it will have verb-y adjectives if a language is tense prominent, it
>will have noun-y adjectives, or adjectives will form a separate class
Is this so? Slavic languages are well-known for being very aspect-
prominent (most of them) and not very tense-prominent (most of them). Is
their "adjective-neutralization parameter" set to "verb", really? I
thought many of them had adjectives as a separate class.
But a tendency towards stative verbs and a tendency towards aspect-
prominence seem to be correlated; and of course "stative verbs" are a lot
like "verby adjectives". I just think Slavic languages -- perhaps unlike
some Caucasian and/or Kartvelian languages -- don't tend to be
active/stative in morphological alignment, nor to have
adjectives "neutralized" as verbs (that is, functioning as stative verbs).
I could be wrong; I've only "studied" one Slavic language (Russian), and I
can't say I know it (I didn't finish the course). But from what I could
see it expressed the same notions English expresses by "adjectives" via a
separate class, neither verbs nor nouns, just as English does.
>There thus seems to be a proposed cluster of the features head
>marking, aspect prominent, with verb-y adjectives/stative verbs on
>the one hand, versus dependent marking, tense prominent, with noun-y
>adjectives on the other.
There does? Who proposed it?
I've never seen either cluster quite that big before; I've also never seen
every pair within either cluster before (that is, each cluster contains a
pair I've never seen correlated before).
>Dixon, in the introductory paper of "Adjective Classes",
Haven't read it. Can it be found online?
>claims that (1) seems to hold quite well, although there are
>exceptions (eg Korean),
I didn't know that.
>but (2) seems to have rather numerous exceptions.
>I haven't read any other proposed typological correlations connected
>to mood or evidentiality marking rather than tense or aspect marking.
Thanks.
-----
eldin
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Jonathan Knibb" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:50 pm (PDT)
>2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
That's my T4. Aspect marking is grammaticalised and obligatory on each new
referent; tense marking is lexical and usually omitted ... except that the
time at which an event happened is specified by a definiteness marker,
alongside the definiteness of the referent itself, and this can have tense
implications.
>Languages with evidentials may be "Mood-Prominent", or at least
>"Evidential-Prominent"...
Well, T4 has two two-way mood/evidential distinctions: +/- hearsay (speaker
can't vouch for truth of statement from own experience), and +/- narrative
(referent is not directly relevant to (sentence or discourse) context). Each
of these has one marked and one unmarked value, though, so neither is
literally 'prominent' if absent.
>Does your conlang require that any speaker mention how he/she knows what
>he/she is saying happened, but hardly ever require at that they mention
>when it happened...?
If the hearsay marker fulfils the first criterion and the lack of tense
marking the second, then yes!
>Where did you get that idea to put it in your conlang?
I think I must have known about aspect when I first started creating T4,
though goodness knows where from. Certainly one of my major motivations at
the beginning was that tense should *not* be obligatorily marked - I've
often felt irritated at the extent of obligatory tense marking in English
(my L1). I've let my minimal redundancy criterion slip over the years, so
now I have obligatory aspect but not tense! The narrative marker came early,
but the hearsay thing derives from much more recent reading of Mithun's book
on the native American languages.
Jonathan.
_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Comparison Þrjótrunn - Icelandic - Latin
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:40 pm (PDT)
Hi!
I've added a small overview to my Þrjótrunn pages for an easy
comparison of the languages. It clearly shows that Icelanders will
probably be a bit confused by the declension tables to due false
friends among the affixes. :-)
There's also an overview of the first four declensions of Latin and
what is typically the result in Þrjótrunn.
http://www.kunstsprachen.de/s17/s_01.html#03
Comments?
Bye,
Henrik
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
