Re: A Conlang, created by the group?

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:22:10 -0500, Carlos Thompson
<cthompso@...> wrote:

>Prefixes:
>predicate: a-
>patient: e-
>agent: o-
>theme: -
>modifier: i-
>other: uX-
>negative: -ri-
>
>Postfixes:
>indefinite/qualifier: -a
>definite/perfect/determinant: -o
>plural/repetitive: -j-
>singular/(one time only) -w-
>static/inanimate: make previous consonant voiceless (h)
>dynamic/animate: make previous consonant voiced (n)
>
>una(awake)no i(me)a upi(memory)ho i(lost)no upe(dream)njo (you)nwo =
e(me)nwo
>i(think)ho a(see)hjo
>  I think I've seen you in my dreams lost in my memory at waking
I like the general plan of prefixes-root-suffixes (with stress on the
root), although I think the "other" category could just begin with a
consonant rather than adding an extra syllable with the u-. The main
complaint I have with this system is the suffixes that make the previous
consonant voiced or voiceless. It will make the problem of avoiding
duplicate words in the vocabulary more difficult, I think.

I think we might as well start coining words as needed in examples. If
everyone contributes a few words in each post, before long we'll have a
reasonably good-sized vocabulary. Or if you don't like a particular word
that someone's proposed, give an alternative and we can decide later =
which
one is accepted.

I'll be using the convention that /c/ =3D voiced uvular stop, /h/ =3D =
[x], and
/x/ =3D voiced velar fricative. The other letters basically have their =
IPA
values.

So here's my proposal. For nouns and adjectives, I suggest having the =
case
as a suffix, and number as a prefix. Adjectives agree with the noun in
number (and gender if we use it). Here's a comparison of the two systems.

(new word) kir (ta- va-) =3D "bird" (feathered animal)
(new word) nav (adj./v.) =3D "blue" (color between green and violet)

-a =3D agent
-u =3D patient
-o =3D theme
-i =3D modifier
u- (or 0-) =3D indefinite
a- =3D definite
j- (or changing the gender prefix) =3D plural

translation     proposal 1     proposal 2     proposal 3
a bird (ag.)    okirwa         ukira          takira
the bird (pat.) ekirwo         akiru          atakiru
birds (theme)   kirja          jukiro         vakiro
blue birds (a)  inavja okirja  junavi jukira  vanavi vakira

In proposal 3, "bird" belongs to the "ta- va-" class, which has "ta-" as =
a
singular prefix and "va-" as a plural prefix. (Well, someone did mention
Swahili...)

Compounds could be made simply by dropping the prefixes of all but the
first word: "junavi kira" or "vanavi kira" =3D "bluebird" (a thrush of =
the
genus Sialia, or just to be different, how about: ).

Another suggestion: classify vocabulary as A (one syllable), B (two
syllables) or C (three syllables) based on personal guesses of how
frequently they will be used. "Bird" is probably frequent enough to go =
into
the A vocabulary. Some widespread and well-known kinds of birds, like
crows, pigeons, and parrots, may also deserve A vocabulary roots, =
depending
on preference. Birds that are well-known but less frequently referred to =
by
the general public, such as finches, wrens, and ibises, go into the B
vocabulary. Birds mainly known only to bird enthusiasts, such as =
tapaculos,
seriemas, and pitohuis, definitely belong to the C vocabulary, and =
probably
won't come up in conversation anyway.