 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
2
|
Creation of the Language / The Lab / Re: Grammar and Syntax Megathread
|
on: December 20, 2016, 12:51:40 pm
|
Do we want to have gendered nouns/adjectives?
Maybe some kind of noun classes that aren't tied to gender? That seems a good idea Based on the words we have so far, I think the three options should be "-is" nominatives, "-ez" nominatives, and "-in" nominatives How should those decline, then? Tbh, imo, "-is" and "-ez" are far too similar sounding to really support different sets of inflections over a longer period. are they though? remember also that final "-is" would be a stressed syllable and final "-ez" would be an unstressed syllable Ah, did not know that. Then I agree, stress + voicing is probably enough of a distinction to keep up differences. Would the classes affect only adjectival declination, or also changes in nominal inflection? If the latter (take Latin as an example), here a few ideas on how nominative endings could tweak the ideas of declination we have at this point. "-IS" Nouns (Class I or whatever) berís berál berúx berén berír beról bérux (if no differences in writing with our genitives, why not a difference in pronunciation?) berón "-EZ" Nouns hábez hábel hábeg háben habzír habzól habézug habzón "-IN" Nouns sulín sulinál sulinúx sulinén sulinír sulinól sulíx sulinón Before completely critising all of that, hear me out: "-ez" endings in singular more often than not are "e", simply because stress there sits at the first syllable, and with a lack of schwa unstressed vowels in natural languages often move towards "e". This unstressed e is lost completely in the plural when the stress moves behind it onto the ending, safe for the plural genitive "ux", where it sits, on all three declinations, on the penultimate syllable (which is also the reason the unstressed u is deleted completely in the "in" declination, with "sulínux" being simplified to "sulíx"), to differentiate it from final (or initial) stressed singular genitive "úx". The "g" in the genitive endings of the "ez" nouns is a sort of voiced version of the "ux". I very much like evergreen's idea, btw. |
|
|
|
|
3
|
Creation of the Language / The Lab / Re: Basic Pronunciation
|
on: December 20, 2016, 12:33:11 pm
|
Phonological inventory looks fine to me, don't you think though that all three of /b v w/ might be a bit much? Very few languages other than English have all three, and if our language is spoken, I'd assume most dialects would simplify to two or even just one forms ( just /β/ and /w/ for example).
Secondly, for the romanisation, why not take "x" for the sh-sound and "c" (or "ch") for the ch-sound? X for sh is common in many natural languages (Catalan, some South American Indian languages...), while I have never seen c for sh, tbh.
I actually think the "C" as sh and "TC" as ch makes sense... I also like having a letter for the hard h sound. But I agree that dialects would prove one of b, v, and w unnecessary. Which do y'all want to cut? Alright. With "hard h" you mean the IPA [ x ], right? If it were up to me, I'd keep [ b ] as is, spelled /b/ obv, and have [v] and [w] as allophones (or even just [v] and a labialisation of the preceeding/suceeding sound), depending on the environment - idk, have [v] in consonantic and [w] in vocalic environments, so for example /arva/ as [arwa] and /arevta/ as [arevta*], or whatever you prefer. *or ideally [arevda] or [arefta], since differences in voicing between stops and fricatives mostly sound weird and are quite hard to do, imo, and get simplified very often. |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Creation of the Language / The Lab / Re: Grammar and Syntax Megathread
|
on: December 19, 2016, 11:03:27 am
|
Do we want to have gendered nouns/adjectives?
Maybe some kind of noun classes that aren't tied to gender? That seems a good idea Based on the words we have so far, I think the three options should be "-is" nominatives, "-ez" nominatives, and "-in" nominatives How should those decline, then? Tbh, imo, "-is" and "-ez" are far too similar sounding to really support different sets of inflections over a longer period. What you could have though is the nominative ending's grade of voicing influencing case inflections, so, idk, have a nominative in "-ez" turn the genitive (?) ending "-x" into "-g" or "-r" or whatever we would agree upon as a voiced equivalent to "x" (since the obvious option "ɣ" doesn't exist here). |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Creation of the Language / The Lab / Re: Basic Pronunciation
|
on: December 19, 2016, 10:50:02 am
|
|
Phonological inventory looks fine to me, don't you think though that all three of /b v w/ might be a bit much? Very few languages other than English have all three, and if our language is spoken, I'd assume most dialects would simplify to two or even just one forms ( just /β/ and /w/ for example).
Secondly, for the romanisation, why not take "x" for the sh-sound and "c" (or "ch") for the ch-sound? X for sh is common in many natural languages (Catalan, some South American Indian languages...), while I have never seen c for sh, tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Off-Topic / Off-Topic / Re: Introduction thread
|
on: December 19, 2016, 10:40:36 am
|
|
Stuff still going on here, people?
Name: Cranberry
Location: The deep dark valleys of the Eastern Alps
Interests: Politics (duh), languages (duh), mathematics, overall typically nerdy stuff
Languages I speak: German, English, Italian, Tyrolean dialect, basics of Spanish and Icelandic
Pet peeve: anything Iceland (or any cold, remote island in the polar regions basically, but still Ísland best í heimi)
Birthday: 4 June
|
|
|
|
|