Re: milimpulaktasin

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
> En réponse à Robert Hailman <robert@...>:
>
> > >
> > > Now if you tell me that Ajuk has the same structure I'm gonna be very
> > scared :)
> >
> > Be scared. Not very scared, but scared.
> >
>
> Oy! :)
Oy indeed!

> > Ajuk's structure is (C)(r,l,j)V(C), where (r,l,j) is only allowed
> > after
> > dental, alveolar or postalveolar consonants. Besides that, CC clusters
> > are the only ones allowed, and only medially. There is also the
> > constraint that all roots end in a consonant, so root-final (I guess
> > you
> > could say stressed) syllables are (C)VC. All affixes are VC, except
> > for
> > the affixes that are consistantly final (person affixes in verbs, case
> > affixes elsewhere) which are V.
> >
>
> Right, not so much different...
>
> > Ajuk used the Roman orthography, but I have considered an orthography
> > pretty much exactly like yours. What I came up with didn't really
> > please
> > me, but...
> >
>
> Well, mine doesn't please me either (you can have a look at it in my homepage,
> Azak is one of the three langs I have things on the page about. Everything's in
> French though...), but it fits the character of the language nicely...
I'm looking it over as I get the chance. My French is utterly dismal,
but amazingly enough I can read your home page fairly easily. It's kinda
freaky. (here we go again!)
> > So, what differences do we have? Right, no CC(r,l,j) clusters allowed
> > in
> > Azak, roots are allowed to only have a consonant in Azak, suffixes of
> > just V are allowed in Ajuk, and they have different orthographies.
> >
>
> What about your Roman orthography compared to Azak's transcription? The Roman
> transcription of Azak uses the letters with their IPA value (so <j> is /j/),
> except that it has no /h/ and the digraphs <sh> and <zh> mark /S/ and /Z/
> respectively (nothing very original I'm afraid...).
Bingo! The same, pretty much. It agrees with the IPA in that <j> is /j/,
but it has no /h/ (or /w/), so it has digraphs - <th>, <sh>, <zh>, <kh>,
and <gh> represent /T/, (/D/ intervocalically) /S/, /Z/, /x/ and
/whatever voiced velar fricative is.../

<snip>

> Yeah, unless we can find more differences in the grammar. let's see: Azak is
> highly agglutinating, ergative, with no formal difference between verbal and
> nominal roots (i.e. roots are not nominal or verbal by themselves. But the
> suffixes are separated between nominal suffixes and verbal suffixes - with some
> overlap of course :) -). It's VSO, head-first, and marks a lot of things on both
> the noun and the verb. There are suffixes for definition, number, case,
> possession and verbal agreement (they are the same), aspect, mood and
> evidentiality (and I may be missing some things). No tense, conjugation is more
> based on mood and aspect. It has a small number of interesting features, like
> the presence of two genitive cases called "ergative" and "absolutive"
> respectively, and the existence of a case I cannot remember the name that
> transforms nouns into adjectives. It has also suffixes to reflect the state of
> mind of the speaker about something (not only that s/he doubts what s/he says or
> not, but also that s/he's happy about it, sad, surprised, polite, rude, etc...).
Ah, here we go. Ajuk is (somewhat highly) agglutinating also, with no
difference between verbal and nominal roots - but that's about where it
ends. Ajuk has an IE case system. Head-final, SVO, verbs agree with the
subject in gender and number, and also have suffixes for tense, mood,
aspect, etc. Adjectives agree with the noun in gender, case, and number.
Beyond Nom/Acc/Dat it has Genitive, Instrumental, Vocative and Ablative.

Well, I feel alot better now!

> Well, as a whole I consider it as a transition conlang. Before it, the conlangs
> I created were really amateurish, and quite hollow really (self-critic). Merely
> trys all worth forgetting about. After it came Astou, Reman, Moten, Notya (plus
> two other projects that I would resurrect later as O and Narbonósc), and then I
> became acquainted with the list, and the ones who were already here then know
> the rest :) . In that respect, Azak shows features of both periods: it's still
> rather amateurish, but it shows that I had begun to have a better insight in
> languages than I had before (well, since I had *none* before, I could only do
> better :) ). Its creation coincides with the moment I began to read linguistics
> books incidentally :) . Well, for that reason I think it's worth looking at :) .
Hmm. Ajuk is my first language worth mentioning too - I made a few
attempts when I was younger, but they didn't get very far and I cringe
when I look at them. Amazingly enough, I started working on Ajuk in
earnest when I found this list and began reading linguistics books,
too... uh oh, I'm scared again. ;-)

But over all, it's good that once we delved beneath the surface we found
some differences. Otherwise we would have had to fight to see who gets
to keep their language. ;-)

--
Robert

Reply