There are 5 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Ṫirdonic, my first serious conlang
From: Alex Fink
1b. Re: Ṫirdonic, my first serious conlang
From: Cosman246
1c. Re: Ṫirdonic, my first serious conlang
From: H. S. Teoh
1d. Adposition length (was: Re: Ṫirdonic, my first serious co
From: C. Brickner
2.1. Re: Anglicizing Your Conlang's Autoglottonym
From: Anthony Miles
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Ṫirdonic, my first serious conlang
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:59 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:12:32 -0700, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is Tirdonic supposed to be an IE language, or some kind
> of sister to it? Or just taking inspiration from?
Yeah, this inspiration certainly shows.
> At first glance, the nominal morphology strikes me as extremely regular. That
> might
> be fine and dandy for a 19th century ophthalmologist of some note, but for the
> naturalistic language of a bunch of wandering barbarians, this might be a tad
> too regular!
>
> Haven't looked at the verbs and so forth yet.
In the verbs it's even extremer. I hope not to come off too harsh, but the
current incarnation of Thirdonic strikes me as what David was warning against
when he inveighed against Lego-block morphology (see his LCC1 talk "Down with
morphemes!", and its slides, both online).
For one, they're way too long! The octosyllable _bidirekameolidodh_ for "saw"
is outside the pale of plausibility for me. Surely speakers would have already
worn them down, one way or t'other, to a more manaģable size. Languages which
can be reasonably analysed in morphemes tend to make heavy use of zero
morphemes for the most common value of any category, like what you currently
have for the active voice and imperative mood.
My high-level recommendation would be to leave the morphemic mould. Have you
*seen* the PIE verbal system? Four unrelated ways to form the aorist, with
which one (or more) each stem uses basically lexical and not predictable by
rule; elèven ways to form the present, similarly (and 27 if you count
subclasses!). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIE_verbs>
But concretely, in the near term, I'd suggest throwing out the exponence of
your third-person marker: if the presence of a gender marker implies third
person, then a separate marking for third person is overkill. In subject
number, every morpheme having a _-dh_ means that every finite verb ends in a
_-dh_, and it's just as reasonable to analyse that _-dh_ as a marker of nothing
more than "this is a finite verb" unrelated to the subject number; under that
analysis it's not really pulling its weight and may as well be dropped.
Then there's aspect, tense, and mood, which are rarely so cleanly segregated
into three separate categories as you have them here: this could not only
benefit from some zero morphs, but from some rules which say "certain aspect
(tense, mood) distinctions are only made in certain tenses (moods, aspects),
and otherwise collapsed", as well as perhaps from some rules like "which aspect
of a given verb is zero-marked depends on its lexical aspect
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect>" to shave off a fraction more of
a morpheme on average.
As for the forms, I see you have a predilection for -CV and -VC suffixes... but
not either particular one! Having ònly CV forms, or ònly VC forms, would have
ensured that assembled verbs consisted of alternating ...CVCVC... which might
be phonotactically desirable. But having both doesn't give you a similarly
nice phonotactic outcome, and there seems to be little reason not to make some
of the exponences just one segment (with maybe some phonotactic repair rules if
necessary).
Incidentally, this formal pattern also makes -sase- a bit of a sore thumb as a
steal from Japanese.
As for case, here you dò actually have number morphemes which are single V, and
case morphemes which are single C; you just haven't analysed them as such in
your tables! Here my concern is, kinda, the opposite: it's weird that, given
so many case markers are just C, no two of them were accidentally the same.
(You could do a birthday paradox computation: with 10 nonzero-marked cases and
23 consonants, there's only a (23 choose 10)/23^10 = 10% chance of this.) You
might make some of them longer -- after all, it's common for case markers to
still synchronically be a bit like cliticised adpositions, and adpositions are
rarely just one consonant long. Or you could build some of them off a common
oblique stem.
Alex
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Ṫirdonic, my first serious conlang
Posted by: "Cosman246" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:01 am ((PDT))
Thanks. I'll definitely use this when editing Ṫirdonic.
-Yash Tulsyan
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:12:32 -0700, Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Is Tirdonic supposed to be an IE language, or some kind
> > of sister to it? Or just taking inspiration from?
>
> Yeah, this inspiration certainly shows.
>
> > At first glance, the nominal morphology strikes me as extremely regular.
> That might
> > be fine and dandy for a 19th century ophthalmologist of some note, but
> for the
> > naturalistic language of a bunch of wandering barbarians, this might be
> a tad too regular!
> >
> > Haven't looked at the verbs and so forth yet.
>
> In the verbs it's even extremer. I hope not to come off too harsh, but
> the current incarnation of Thirdonic strikes me as what David was warning
> against when he inveighed against Lego-block morphology (see his LCC1 talk
> "Down with morphemes!", and its slides, both online).
>
> For one, they're way too long! The octosyllable _bidirekameolidodh_ for
> "saw" is outside the pale of plausibility for me. Surely speakers would
> have already worn them down, one way or t'other, to a more manaģable size.
> Languages which can be reasonably analysed in morphemes tend to make heavy
> use of zero morphemes for the most common value of any category, like what
> you currently have for the active voice and imperative mood.
>
> My high-level recommendation would be to leave the morphemic mould. Have
> you *seen* the PIE verbal system? Four unrelated ways to form the aorist,
> with which one (or more) each stem uses basically lexical and not
> predictable by rule; elèven ways to form the present, similarly (and 27 if
> you count subclasses!). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIE_verbs>
>
> But concretely, in the near term, I'd suggest throwing out the exponence
> of your third-person marker: if the presence of a gender marker implies
> third person, then a separate marking for third person is overkill. In
> subject number, every morpheme having a _-dh_ means that every finite verb
> ends in a _-dh_, and it's just as reasonable to analyse that _-dh_ as a
> marker of nothing more than "this is a finite verb" unrelated to the
> subject number; under that analysis it's not really pulling its weight and
> may as well be dropped.
> Then there's aspect, tense, and mood, which are rarely so cleanly
> segregated into three separate categories as you have them here: this could
> not only benefit from some zero morphs, but from some rules which say
> "certain aspect (tense, mood) distinctions are only made in certain tenses
> (moods, aspects), and otherwise collapsed", as well as perhaps from some
> rules like "which aspect of a given verb is zero-marked depends on its
> lexical aspect <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect>" to shave
> off a fraction more of a morpheme on average.
>
> As for the forms, I see you have a predilection for -CV and -VC
> suffixes... but not either particular one! Having ònly CV forms, or ònly
> VC forms, would have ensured that assembled verbs consisted of alternating
> ...CVCVC... which might be phonotactically desirable. But having both
> doesn't give you a similarly nice phonotactic outcome, and there seems to
> be little reason not to make some of the exponences just one segment (with
> maybe some phonotactic repair rules if necessary).
> Incidentally, this formal pattern also makes -sase- a bit of a sore thumb
> as a steal from Japanese.
>
> As for case, here you dò actually have number morphemes which are single
> V, and case morphemes which are single C; you just haven't analysed them as
> such in your tables! Here my concern is, kinda, the opposite: it's weird
> that, given so many case markers are just C, no two of them were
> accidentally the same. (You could do a birthday paradox computation: with
> 10 nonzero-marked cases and 23 consonants, there's only a (23 choose
> 10)/23^10 = 10% chance of this.) You might make some of them longer --
> after all, it's common for case markers to still synchronically be a bit
> like cliticised adpositions, and adpositions are rarely just one consonant
> long. Or you could build some of them off a common oblique stem.
>
> Alex
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Ṫirdonic, my first serious conlang
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:49 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:59:15PM -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
[...]
> after all, it's common for case markers to still synchronically be a
> bit like cliticised adpositions, and adpositions are rarely just one
> consonant long.
[...]
The counterexample would be Russian, in which the ancient prepositions
*въ, *съ, *къ, have had their short vowels dropped, so today they are
single consonants в, с, к (/v/, /s/, /k/), respectively. This gives rise
to some pretty incredible consonant clusters when these prepositions
modify a noun that begins with an already-long initial cluster, for
instance: к взрослому (/'gvzroslomu/).
Having said that, though, it's true that not *all* Russian prepositions
are single consonants; a good number remain CV (e.g., по, на, до), VC
(из/ис, от), and there's also CVC (под) as well as CCV and CCVC (при,
пре, пред < перед, the latter of which are actively used in both forms,
one being just an abbreviation of the other). The single-consonant
prepositions в, с, к also still have CV reflexes under certain
phonological conditions, reflecting their origin, for example:
во мне < *въ мьне
со всем < *cъ вьсьмъ
These cases are due to Havlík's Law, in which the Old Church Slavonic
ultrashort vowels ъ, ь (the so-called 'yers') are alternately 'strong'
or 'weak' (starting from weak in the ultima). The weak yers completely
dropped out whereas the strong ones lengthened respectively to о and е.
For the most part, the original ъ is in the weak position, so most cases
of *въ and *съ drop the vowel, resulting in the single-consonant
prepositions, but when the conditions are right, the old CV form
resurfaces. But these are rare enough that nowadays they are considered
as exceptions, and these prepositions are normally single consonants
only.
T
--
All problems are easy in retrospect.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Adposition length (was: Re: Ṫirdonic, my first serious co
Posted by: "C. Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:14 pm ((PDT))
----- Original Message -----
Having said that, though, it's true that not *all* Russian prepositions
are single consonants; a good number remain CV (e.g., по, на, до), VC
(из/ис, от), and there's also CVC (под) as well as CCV and CCVC (при,
пре, пред < перед, the latter of which are actively used in both forms,
one being just an abbreviation of the other). The single-consonant
prepositions в, с, к also still have CV reflexes under certain
phonological conditions, reflecting their origin, for example:
T
__________________________________________
Senjecas has 62 postpositions. I place these into two groups: original and
derivative (derived from another part of speech). In the list below the
derivative postpositions are marked with double quotes.
Of these 62, one is trisyllabic, seven are monosyllabic, and 53 are disyllabic.
The other one is the prefix ‘með-'.
All but four end in –a. The polysyllabic ones take the secondary pitch on the
antepenult and can thus be differentiated from the original word: ‘sőma’,
liken, compare; ‘sóma’, compared to, than.
1. ‘aka’ denotes from a time anterior to.
2. ‘aða’ denotes in association or connection with.
3. ‘afa’ denotes separation from support, attachment or position.
4. ‘aļa’ denotes on the farther side of time or space literally or figuratively.
5. ‘ana’ denotes change to, toward, or at an elevated place literally or
figuratively.
6. “anta” denotes in opposition to, in contact with, or in exchange for,
literally or figuratively.
7. ‘apa’ denotes removal from or location at a certain place or time either
literally or figuratively.
8. “avwa” denotes made with or composed of; used in a culinary sense.
9. ‘be’ denotes on or toward the exterior of.
10. “çoga” denotes in opposition to, in contact with, or in exchange for,
literally or figuratively.
11. ‘do’ denotes motion towards literally or figuratively1.
12. “ðeea” denotes in place of, replacement or preference.
13. “dexsa” denotes to or on the side of a person or thing toward the south
when facing the rising sun.
14. “dela” denotes reference to.
15. “eba” denotes possibility.
16. ‘eha’ denotes movement or direction from the inside to the outside.
17. ‘ena’ denotes stationary position or location within or movement into.
18. ‘entera’ denotes situation or partition betwęn two or more entities.
19. ‘epa’ denotes accordance with.
20. ‘eta’ denotes in addition to.
21. ‘eva’ denotes position on top of literally or figuratively.
22. ‘ha’ denotes causality.
23. “hwelga” denotes the position of the body with the front toward the object.
24. “kenta” denotes in a parallel direction.
25. “kia” denotes agency.
26. “kwita” denotes in honor of.
27. ‘koma’ denotes physical proximity.
28. “kuȝa” denotes the manner, method, way by which something is done.
29. “laaba” denotes hanging down from.
30. ‘la’ denotes on this side of.
31. “lalta” denotes done for the benefit or interest of someone.
32. “laɱa” denotes to or on the side of a person or thing toward the north when
facing the rising sun.
33. “meða” denotes in the middle of.
34. “með-“ denotes the middle; the exact meaning is determined by the
postposition to which it is joined: meðafa, from the middle of; meðdo, toward
the middle of.
35. ‘meta’ denotes at the same time as.
36. “ɱeela” denotes instrumentality.
37. ‘nera’ denotes at or to a lower level than something else literally or
figuratively.
38. ‘ni’ denotes change to, toward or at a lower place either literally or
figuratively.
39. “noma” denotes to or at the home of someone.
40. “ņopa” denotes in a position forward of.
41. ‘o’ denotes the indirect object of the verb; for, to.
42. “pega” denotes position at or movement towards the side of something.
43. “pera” denotes before in time.
44. “perpa” denotes similarity.
45. ‘persa’ denotes at or during a time anterior to.
46. ‘porsa’ denotes up to a limit.
47. ‘posa’ denotes posterior to in time or space.
48. ‘qoɱa’ denotes with respect or regard to or concern for.
49. “reeða” denotes in preparation for.
50. “reega” denotes assistance.
51. “reeƶa” denotes the dimension to which something is extended.
52. ‘sana’ denotes having a lack of something.
53. “soma” denotes comparison.
54. “suna” denotes accompaniment in time or space.
55. ‘swa’ denotes exception.
56. “taada” denotes purpose.
57. “teela” denotes by a means of conveyance.
58. ‘terkwa’ denotes duration or extension through time or space literally or
figuratively.
59. “tiirsa” denotes disregard for.
60. ‘upa’ denotes to or at a higher level than something else literally or
figuratively.
61. “telþa” denotes at or to the two sides of a place or thing.
62. “vooa” denotes encirclement or in or to various directions or locations.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Anglicizing Your Conlang's Autoglottonym
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:18 am ((PDT))
If you were a human Neo-Victorian explorer of the late 22nd century in the
Earth-Jungle-Lord cosm where my Martian languages are spoken, you would
Anglicize the language name Siye as Sheeyay, Sheeyei, etc., Ulok as Oolock or
Ooloak. The Russian Orthodox would use Shiye and Ulok. Utu Nes is Ootoo Ness,
Ootooness, etc., or Utu. The autoglottonym of the language of the Southern
highlands is not yet known.
Current provisional transliteration scheme from Siye classical spelling (the
written style) to pronunciation spelling:
pu = fu
pi = shchi, schi
tu = tsu, zu
ku = hu
ki = chi
si = shi
-~# = -ng#
-~p m w= -mp, -mm, -mw
-~t n y= -nt, -nn-, -ny
-~k h = -ngk, -ng-
-~l = -ll-
-~s = -ss
w = v
Thus Simakim, the Pale of Siye-speakers, becomes Shimaching, and kemhusakinem
'the shore district' becomes Kengusachineng. In my notes, the English text
calls the ancient holy city Vipakang, while the Siye comments use Wipakam.
On a personal note, if someone is pronouncing the name of my conlang wrong, it
means she knows it exists. More than I dare to hope most of the time. People
who care about pronunciation can go read the FrathWiki page.
Messages in this topic (35)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
