Re: Gbwia, my language (LONG!)

R. Nierse wrote:
>
> Thanks for your comment. I notice you did recieve my first attempt. I
> didn't and that's why I posted it twice. Sorry for that.
>
        No need to apologize. Things like that sometimes happen.

> ----------
> > Van: Christophe Grandsire <grandsir@...>
> > Aan: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
> > Onderwerp: Re: Gbwia, my language (LONG!)
> > Datum: donderdag 23 september 1999 14:37
> >
> > R. Nierse wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> >         I'll try to help as best as I can (even if African Tone languages
> are
> > not the languages I master the best :) ).
> >
> > > Gbwl`
> > >
> I see that the tones have mutilated the vowels! I have to mail it once
> more, but then writing Gbwi`a` instead of Gbwl`
>
        I can see accented letters without a problem, but when I want to reply
they just disappear from the quoting text. The fonts on this computer
don't have any accented letters. That must be the reason.

> > > Phonology
> > >
> > > Consonants
> > >  Voiceless
> > > p       t               k       kp (little ingressive) 1        ' 2
> > >
> >
> >         Argh! A double-articulated consonnant! :)
> >
> I really loved them since the time I heard them first
>
        Me too, but I think I'll never be able to pronounce them correctly.
Forget it Christophe, not for your conlangs (but a kp cluster is not
that bad :) I think Chasma"o"cho will have a bunch of words with initial
kp :) ).

> > >  Prenasalised
> > > mb      nd      ny      ng
> > >
> >
> >         What is 'ny'? Is it a stop?
>
> ny is [nj]
>
        OK. I don't find it very different from a palatalised n. Maybe it
should be classified with the nasal... Well, I don't know.

> >
> > >  Voiced
> > > gb
> > >
> >
> >         So p, t and k have no voiced counterparts but prenasalised
> > counterparts, and kp has no prenasalised counterpart but a voiced
> > counterpart. Is there a reason for that?
>
> Not really. I thought the mb, nd etc more exotic than just b, d. And I like
> gb and not Ngb. So, there is no reason behind it other than my tast
        This reason is good enough for me :) I like prenasalised stops.
Tj'a-ts'a~n possesses true nasalised voiced stops (~b, ~t and ~g), but I
generally pronounce them as prenasalised (I have problems to close my
mouth and open the nasal channel in the same time :) ). Dialectical
feature let's say :)

> >
> > >  Clicks
> > > @ 3     c       x       q
> > >
> > >  Nasals
> > > m       n   (used with low fequency: in loanwords only?)
> > >
> >
> >         It seems strange that a language could have no nasal at all
> except in
> > loanwords, especially in a language that has prenasalised consonnants.
> > Do you know any natlang precedent?
> >
> Not really, for me it just feels good. They just think it is difficult to
> pronounce [b] [d] [g]. It's easier when they are prenasalised.
>
        It's true that prenasalised stops are even softer than voiced stops.

> > > 3 @ can be pronounced as a bilabial click or as a labial-dental click.
> BTW,
> > > has anybody a suggestion for a better symbol?
> > >
> >
> >         As you have no bilabial or labio-dental fricative, why not use f
> or v
> > for it? They carry well the idea of labialisation. I know they carry
> > also the idea of fricativization, but it would just be a bad habit to
> > lose, and the use of @ as a click is stranger then what I propose (at
> > least for me :) ).
>
> The @ was inspired by the circle with the dot in the middle, representing
> the bilabial click in Hottentot. So stupid that I didn't think od using f
> or v . I'll stick to v.
>
        Glad I could help. :)

> >
> > > Vowels
> > > i, e, a, o, u.
> > > All vowels can occur in low, high and falling tone.
> > >
> >
> >         Argh! Tones! :)
>
> Yes, I think they are difficult, but that is what made me try. BTW, when I
> learned Cameroonian Pidgin, I learned the tones quite quickly, because they
> mimicked the intonation of English.
        I have no problem with pitch-accented languages, but tones still are a
challenge for me, especially in languages that have "circumflex" tones
such as the lowing-rising tone of Standard Chinese.

> > >
> > > Tone
> > >
> >
> >         Very interesting.
> >
> Thank you
>
> > > Syllable structure
> > > (m)(C)(w)V(')(V)
> > > CVC is not allowed, except when final V disappears for syntactic
> reason. If
> > > that consonant is a voiceless stop, than that stop is pronounced
> > > unreleased.
> > > Note: I'm still doubting here. Should the minimal structure be CV (as I
> > > originally had) or just V ( I accidentally made some syllables
> beginning
> > > with a vowel)?
> > >
> >
> >         If you really want to stick to CV as a minimal structure, why not
> > allowing the glottal stop ' at the beginning of words? It would be
> > simple then to add it to all your words beginning with a vowel. But a
> > minimal structure V allowed at the beginning of words is just fine too.
> >
> I opt for the glottal stop. Thanks for the help
>
        You're welcome.

> > > Grammar
> > >
> > > Gbwl` is inflecting a little. Both nouns and verbs can take affixes and
> > > reduplication. Verbs can be active or stative, static verbs equalling
> our
> > > adjectives most of the time.
> > > Gbwl` has a split-ergative construction.
> > >
> >
> >         Very interesting part about nouns. I never thought of somehting
> like
> > that. How long have you worked on your language?
> >
> Say since july. Last weeks I have been working harder on it.
>
        Impressive. It didn't take you long to have all this material.

> > >
> > > Verbs
> > >
> > > Dependent pronouns are inflected with prefixes an suffixes.
> > >
> > > Prefixes
> > > 1.      `-
> > > 2.      l-
> > > 3.      y- + last high tone of root becomes low, or in case of low
> tone: low
> > > tone vowel disappears.
>
> This is wrong again. Now it looks even more complicated than it really is.
> It should be:
> 1. a`-
> 2. i`-
> 3. u`-
> > >
> > > These prefixes also occur on nouns referencing the possessor. As verbal
> > > prefixes they signal agreement with the transitive agent and with
> > > intransitive subjects in noncompletive aspects. In the completive
> aspect
> > > intransitive subjects are marked by suffixes (see below), resulting in
> a
> > > split-ergative verb-agreement system.
> > > The system is ergative in the completive aspect where transitive agents
> are
> > > marked by prefixes and intransitive subjects and transitive objects by
> > > suffixes. The system in nominative in the noncompletive aspect where
> > > subjects are marked by prefixes and objects are marked by suffixes.
> > >
> >
> >         This is a thing I love, just like changing word order depending
> on
> > tense or aspect. I should try that in a language of mine one day or
> > another :) .
>
> I stole this from Yucatec Maya
        So there are natlangs with such a feature ?! I must have it :) ! Next
project I think :)

> >
> > > Suffixes
> > > 1. -(x)h
> > > 2. -(c)`
> > > 3. -0
> Should be:
> 1. -(x)e`
> 2. -(c)a`
> 3. -0
>
> > > The brackets indicate that the consonants are used when the stem of the
> > > noun ends in a vowel, i.e. when the 3rd person prefix is used.
> > > Besides the above mentioned function, these dependent pronouns are
> suffixed
> > > to adjectives and nouns in stative constructions: gbb-xh    'I have
> been
> > > hungry'
> > >
> > > Examples:
> > > hlwo-xh                       'I have slept'  (or: Ta hlwo-xh, or: ta
> hlwo)
> > > sleep-1
> > >
> > > `-hlwo        'I am sleeping' (or: m-ta `-hlwo, or m-ta hlwo)
> > > 1-sleep
> > >
> > > y-hlel'-`   'He is seeing you' / 'He has seen you'  (or: m-hle
> (y-)hlel'-(`)
> > > td)
> > > 3-see-2
> > >
> > > I'm still figuring out if I want to use this rule: If (pro)noun is
> used,
> > > the afffix(es) is (are) optional.
> > >
> >
> >         Your affixes are short enough. Why not having mandatory
> agreement? No
> > need for optional affixes :) .
> >
> I'm still not sure what to do. Some way mandatory agreement is easier for
> me, but on the other hand I like the fact that one can drop the affix once
> it is clear from context what is the subject/object etc.. Maybe I want to
> make it too complicated?
>
        You know, I don't think mandatory agreement is easier or more difficult
than optional agreement. I use mandatory agreement in Chasma"o"cho and
optional agreement in Azak, but only because it suits well their nature
(Chasma"o"cho is more of an inflecting language, like French, whereas
Azak is rather agglutinating). Just take what best suits your language
:)

> Thanks for your input Christophe!
        You're welcome. I bothered the list with my so loooong posts about
Chasma"o"cho, so I can at least pay attention to the so looooong posts
of fellow conlangers :) .

--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com