Re: New Conlang

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

>Hallo!
>
># 1 wrote:
>
> > Last night, I tought of a new conlang.
> >
> > It would be ergative-absolutive, but that's not what's special
> >
> > All the nouns (an pronouns) are made of a root of vowels
>"-(V)(V)V-V(V)(V)-"
> > made of two groups of mono/di/triphtongs that can take affixes. The
>preffix
> > would indicate number and definiteness, the infix indicates the case.
> >
> > When the case is absolutive, the infix is the verb, made of one or more
> > consonants. Its time is indicated by a suffix.
>
>This looks very, very, very much unlike any natlang I have seen or
>heard of - but it is an interesting idea.
>
That's exactly what I wanted!

The only problem I see is that it is too weird to be really effective.. I
always get stuck with the dilemma efficienty vs. weirdness...

> > To be able to make a lot of verbs with only consonants, there are 36
> > consonants that can be used as verbal infixes. When adding the permitted
> > groups of two consonnants, it makes 134 possibilities of verbs. It would
> > make more if I counted the groups of three consonants or the groups in
>which
> > there would have syllabics.
> >
> > The consonants are:
> >
> > (/-/ = |-|)
> > p = p
> > b = b
> > t = t
> > d = d
> > k = k
> > g = g
> > p\ = fh
> > B = vh
> > f = f
> > v = v
>
>A bilabial/labiodental contrast in fricatives - unusual, but why not?!
>
You're right, why not? I don't find it so hard to distinct, far less than
/s/ and /T/ for me..

> > s = s
> > z = z
> > S = sh
> > Z = zh
> > x = kh
> > G = gh
> > h = h
> > T = th
> > t_N = tl
> > d_N = dl
> > s_N = sl
> > z_N = zl
> > l = l
> > l_N = ll
>
>Ahh, linguolabials!  Sweet!
>
Yeah I like them! particularly /l_N/, but /s_N/ and /z_N/ also sound odd :-)

> > K = thh
> > L\_o_r = khh (unvoiced lateral velar fricative)
> > m = m
> > n =n
> > n_N = nl
> > N = gn (ng is for /Ng/)
> > B\ = cc
>
>|cc| for a bilabial trill is, well, hardcore ;-)
>
In fact I wanted trills being two times the flap letters (because, after
all, that's what they are) and the flaps being individual letters and not
digraphs because I want to use them often as basic sounds

> > r = rr
> > R\ = xx
> > B\_o = c (billabial flap)
>
>Ah, a bilabial flap!  I am planning to have it in one of my
>conlangs as well!
>
Yeah this is nice but I still prefer the uvualar flap, it sounds a little
like what raccoons produce, I always impress my friends when I imitate the
raccon sound with uvular flaps (that they can't produce)

> > 4 = r
> > R\_o = x (uvular flap)
> >
> > These are the consonants that will mean a verb infixed in a noun, there
>can
> > also have groups of consonants that are usually regular except a few:
> >
> > /s/+/l/ = s'l
> > /z/+/l/ = z'l
> > /s_N/+/l_N/ = sll
> > /z_N/+/l_N/ = zll
> > /t_N/+/s_N/ = tsl
> > /d_N/+/z_N/ = dzl
> > /n_N/+/t_N/ = ntl
> > /n_N/+/d_N/ = ndl
> > /N/+/k/ = nk
> > /N/+/g/ = ng
> >
> > There are also two consonants that do not mean verbs
> >
> > /?/ = q
> > That marks the ergative
> >
> > /w/ = /w/
> > That has other uses but that can't mean a verb
> >
> > The vowels are:
> >
> > (/-/ = |-|)
> > i = i
> > e = e
> > a = a
> > y = y
> > 2 = ö (o¨)
> > 1 = î (i^)
>
>Why not |ï|?
>
Yeah, it would limit the number of diacritics.. I used |î| because I knew
that this is the way it is represented in Romanian and that I wanted to keep
the way other languages use.

Like when I used |th| for /T/ (that is first wanted to be |tt| but that I
represented |th| to follow the convention), |kh| for /x/, |zh| for /Z/...

> > u = u
> > o = o
> > @ = ë (e¨)
> >
> > The diphtongs are: /i@/, /ei/, /ai/, /2y/, /iu/, /eu/, /au/, /oi/, /ui/,
>and
> > /ou/
> > The triphtongs are: /ai@/, /ei@/, /ui@/, /oi@/, /iu@/, and /aui/ (in
>which
> > the principal is the /a/)
> >
> > So it makes 25 possibilities, two times in the roots, so 625.
> >
> > Examples:
> >
> > Absolutive 1st person singular pronoun = i-e
> > Absolutive 2nd person singular pronoun = o-o
> > Ergative 1st person singular pronoun = wi
> > Ergative 2nd person singular pronoun = wo
> > (pronouns are the only words that do not use the absolutive root with
>-q-
> > infix to form the ergative)
> >
> > man = u-o
> > woman = au-i
> > dog = ai-ië
> >
> > to sleep = -p-
> > to eat = -v-
> > to love = -ll-
> >
> > I sleep = ipe
> > you sleep = opo
> >
> > I eat you = wi ovo
> > you eat me = wo ipe
> >
> > I love you = wi ollo
> >
> > The nouns take a prefix to indicate definiteness and number
> >
> > vhuqo qaulli = This man loves a woman
> > vh- = demonstrative singular
> > q- = indefinite singular
> >
> > mauqi shullo = All the women love these two men
> > m- = definite collective
> > sh- demonstrative dual
> >
> > Genitive is marked like ergative but placed after its noun that is
>marked
> > definite
> >
> > vhuqo baulli wi = This man loves my woman
> > b- = definite singular
> >
> > baipië vhuqo = This man's dog sleeps
> >
> > baiqië bauqi wi baillië wo = My woman's dog loves your dog
> >
> > The tense is marked with a suffix on the absolutive noun that carries
>the
> > verb and the voice by another suffix
> >
> > I still have to think about the moods and a lot of things but I think
>that
> > this is promising
> >
> > Comments? Remarks?
>
>Grossly unnatural and freakish, but - funky!
>
Thanks! It means it produces the right effect!

- Max