Forum for Terris, a ConLang
September 21, 2018, 04:39:35 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to SMF For Free
   Home   Help Search Staff List Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: December 24, 2016, 08:38:37 pm 
Started by LLR - Last post by Codae

bérux (if no differences in writing with our genitives, why not a difference in pronunciation?)

Meh... it seems too arbitrary to throw the stress onto the first syllable like that.  I think a form like bedrúx < *bererúx (with dissimilation occurring between the r in the stem and the r in the pluralizing infix) would be more natural.

 on: December 24, 2016, 03:27:34 pm 
Started by LLR - Last post by Figueira
I like those endings....I guess we're going with the idea that e can be stressed?

 on: December 24, 2016, 03:25:36 pm 
Started by LLR - Last post by Figueira
I feel like we should keep b/v/w as is just because we've been operating under that for a while.

 on: December 21, 2016, 01:20:04 pm 
Started by LLR - Last post by Cranberry
Yeah sure, makes sense.

 on: December 20, 2016, 02:46:34 pm 
Started by LLR - Last post by LLR
I like these suggestions a lot, but the "-in" plural endings seem quite clunky...

sulnir, sulnol, and sulnon would be simpler even, if you really want to keep this construction

 on: December 20, 2016, 02:45:03 pm 
Started by LLR - Last post by LLR
Yes, sounds good.

 on: December 20, 2016, 12:51:40 pm 
Started by LLR - Last post by Cranberry
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)

bérux (if no differences in writing with our genitives, why not a difference in pronunciation?)

"-EZ" Nouns


"-IN" Nouns


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.

 on: December 20, 2016, 12:33:11 pm 
Started by LLR - Last post by Cranberry
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.

 on: December 20, 2016, 07:02:13 am 
Started by LLR - Last post by evergreen
in that second example both words would take the same case markers etc

and you can draw a distinction between (can't think of the right terms right now) an integral relationship (silez hocodj = stardust) and like ownership or whatever (silez hodj[+gen] = a star's dust/dust belonging to a star/whatever)

 on: December 20, 2016, 06:53:23 am 
Started by LLR - Last post by evergreen
one thing i wanted to propose is a subordinating infix -c-

to shinesilnu
the light shining on me… sicilnu …
sand, dustsilez
stardustsilez hocodj

(obviously these examples are ignoring other affixes)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy