Re: Some Random Questions

dunn patrick w wrote:

> 1.  You know, I notice that my conlangs tend to peter out quickly -- none
> of them seem to grab my interest, although I have this idea of a perfect
> conlang that perfectly expresses my artistic vision. . . okay, I guess
> that was more of a comment.
I guess patience has got to be one of the virtues of the dedicated conlanger!

> 2.  How do you handle irregularity?  I know this has popped up before, but
> I'm still not sure.  For instance, do you always make the verbs of being
> irregular?  The personal pronouns?  Or do you just let irregularities
> evolve?
The only verb that has suppletive forms and full conjugations in Teonaht is,
alas, the verb "to be."All other verbs just have the radical form with a
suffix that can be popped onto the pronoun,
as I think I've said a million times <G>!   But to get around the monotony of
this kind of
regularity, I've invented different kinds of verbs that take different
gerundive suffixes which
affect the tense and aspect particles that latch onto the pronoun.  As for
evolving regularities,
this will happen if you stick with a language long enough.  Teonaht is over
thirty years old;
it still has very immature vocabulary in it (_harod_ for instance, to mean
"rabbit," obviously
taken from "hare."), _harem_, meaning "to have," obviously taken from HAve
(!!).  But
what I eventually did with _harem_ was make three forms of possession, and
_harem_
is only one.   And then there is vocabulary: I'll make a word up, forget I
made it up, make
another word with the same meaning.  Now I've got two words, and I have to
assign them
subtle differences.  Let a language grow for a while with you, Patrick, and
see what happens
to it.

My nouns and the way you make them plural is wildly variable.  I think I must
have borrowed
this from the Welsh.

        There is the -n suffix plural.  Most common.
        There is the ni- prefix plural.  Next most common.
        There is the mim-prefix plural.  Average.
        There is the se- prefix.  Common only to the Nenddeylyt nouns.
        The Nenddeylyt nouns have several accusative forms not shared by the
other nouns.
                But if I keep at this, analogy will spread them to the
non-Nenddeylyt nouns.

> 3.  How unnatural is it to have only one class of noun declensions?
> (Well, now that I think of it, I guess English only has one real class of
> noun declensions -- of regular nouns, anyway)  Or only one of verb
> declensions?
  Actually, modern English still shows several different types of noun
declension.
There's our survival  from the Radical Consonant Declension that gives us
our  man, men; foot, feet; tooth, teeth; etc.   Then there's the remnant of
the Neuter A-Stem Declension where the plural form in the nominative was
the same as the singular nominative... we still say  "I shot three deer."  "I
counted five fish."  That used to extend to "word" and "horse" in Old English.

But you're right; analogy has flattened out almost all these differences.

I say, what the hay?  Try inventing three different variations on your noun
declensions and verb types and see if that perks things up for you.

And yes, along with Nick... I introduce alternate forms quite artificially and

intentionally.  It makes learning Teonaht hell, but it makes it more
interesting
and believable.

Sally
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/verbs.html
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teonoun.html