Re: My first conlang (sketch)
|From:||Robert Hailman <robert@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, May 17, 2000, 0:26|
Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> At 22:02 15/05/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Alright, a while back I posted an introduction, but I haven't had much
> >time to post or work on my still-unnamed conlang, which I am presenting
> >here. I'm new to all this, but I have been reading things that have been
> >Phonology and Orthography:
> >Phoneme: p b t d k g m n N f v T D s z S Z x G r\ j l
> >Transliteraton: p b t d k g m n n* f v th th* s z sh zh kh gh r j l
> >* - "th" is pronouced /D/ when intrevocalic, "n" is pronounced /N/ when
> >preceeding or following a velar consonant. Also /r\/ is the SAMPA for a
> >Alveolar approximant, in case
> >another system is being used here.
> In this case, /n/ and /N/ (resp. /T/ and /D/) are allophones, and thus
> cannot be separate phonemes. For your phonemic description, you can thus
> forget /N/ and /D/ and explain when th and n are pronounced differently
> than usual.
That's what I meant to say, really. I guess I was tired when I typed
this up - in my notes they are marked as allophones.
> >Note that r, l, and j can only follow an alveolar, dental, or
> >postalveolar consonant:
> >eg. "thr" is valid, while "pr" is not.
> Strange ! For me, /pr\/ is much easier than /Tr\/ to pronounced. Is there a
> reason for this limitation?
>No particular reason, I just felt like it at the time. I don't have much
trouble pronouncing /Tr\/, though sometimes it comes out /T@r\/. I might
change this, the main reason for the restriction is so that, say, /tj/
and /tl/ are acceptable, while, say, /pj/ and /pl/ are not. For some
reason I have trouble pronouncing those last too, even though /pl/
exists in English.
> [snip interesting noun morphology. Reminds me of Finnish]
I don't know any Finnish, which is what I find interesting. I just made
it up as I went along, but I had an inkling I'd do it like that from the
> >Personal pronouns:
> >Pronouns are treated similarly to nouns. There are three monosyllabic
> >root pronouns, one for each person. From these, certain affixes are
> >added, as follows:
> > Gender:
> > Inanimate: -ot-
> > Male: -ap-
> > Female: -ip-
> > Neuter: -ep-
> > Number:
> > Singular: (none)
> > Plural: -as-
> > All in view (is there a better name for this?): -an-
> "visible"? Or maybe "proximate", because if you can see them all, they
> should be near you. What is the use of this "number"?
Yeah, proximate sounds about right. An example could be, using the same
"shukaj" and "zorkir" for search and camera as before, and, say "non"
for the 1st person root pronoun, a teacher talking to his/her students:
nonapan shukajapasotha zorkirasaj
"We will search for cameras", but only all the students present,
suggesting, perhaps, that they'd be going later that class.
nonapas shukajapasotha zorirasaj
"We will search for cameras", including everyone - the whole class. This
could suggest a field trip at a later date, where everyone would be
Also, I use the male forms for pronouns and verbs, which in this
language suggests that the group is predominately male or the leader -
in this case the teacher - is male. Otherwise, I'd use the neuter.
> The verb morphology looks interesting.
Anything in particular you find interesting? This is my first conlang,
so I'm eager for feedback.
Well, thanks for taking the time to look it over, I'll have more on it