Re: (LONG) Sketch by a novice, please criticize/help/flame/etc

Paul Bennett <Paul.Bennett@...> wrote:

> Please post any and all comments, especially as regards my horrendous a=
nd
> probably inconsistent terminology.
I'll be merciless. :) [Joking of course, since Inconsistent is my middle
name.]

> Phonological terms are as classified by native speakers, rather than be=
ing
> "close" descriptions.
No problem with native classifications, but that is mainly
interesting from a concultural POV (it doesn't help *us*! :)

>=20
>          Orthographic      ASCII-IPA
>          Front Mid  Back   Fr  Md  Bk
> Plosive  p     k    t      p   k   t
> Aspirate ph    kh   th     p_h k_h t_h
> Nasal    m     n    ng     m   n   N
> Sibilant s     s'   c      s   S   tS
> Liquid   w     r    y      w   *   j
I take Mid=3Dk and Back=3Dt to be a typo... I like this simple phonology,
especially the <r>!

>=20
> Open     i     e    a      i   e   a
> Closed   u     e"   o      V   @   O
> L Open   ii    ee   aa     i:  e:  a:
> L Closed uu    e"e" oo     V:  @:  O:
I think your /O/ is actually /o/ (as in 'caught', you said,
which AFAIK is /kot/, not /kOt/, which would be RP 'cot').
If it's really /O/, as Nik Taylor already said, it's a bit
strange to have it with /e/ (should be /E O/ or /e o/).

Also, it's a bit strange that there is no /u/ or /U/.
Finally, you'd better use a vowel triangle for your vowels,
and avoid using 'open', 'closed' etc. as you do, at the risk
of being misunderstood...

>   Within the lexicon,
> bracketed parts of roots are listed in the order they would appear if t=
he
> brackets were
> not present, regardless of the spelling of any particular form of the r=
oot.  For
>  example the
> lexicon pairs the(kha), thekhu and sungi, su(nge") occur in that order.
Most times I've heard the unchanging part of a root being called
'dictionary form'. And the main forms of a root, those which let you
derive every other possible forms, are IIRC its 'principal parts'. (?)
For example, the PP of English verbs is usually the infinitive, which
is also the DF. But the strong verbs (like sing-sang-sung) have those
three PPs (present, past, participle).


> Examples of each of the types of root.
>=20
>          NS   NP      VI      VC       LX
> Minimal  su   susnge" sungse" sunguse" su(nge")
> Reduced  ame  arme    amre    amare    ame(r)
> Regular  taki tatki   takti   takati   taki
> Extended moru motru   mortu   morotu   moru(t)
It'd be nice to see exactly what the rules are for transforming
root, since I see elision, vowel alternation, metathesis, but
I'm not sure how they would react in other environments. This
however is probably best to leave for a more advanced stage of
construction of the lang. What you *should* do is try and produce
some phonetic restrictions (syllable structure, which consonants
can form clusters, etc.)

> LX - The way the root is presented in the lexicon.
There you have the dictionary form, then.


> Affixes and Word Order
>=20
> The three methods of forming words are:
>=20
> 1)   (mutated)[root]+[root flexion] alone
> 2)   [location]+(optional)[particle]+[particle flexion] alone (known as=
 an
> "immediate")
> 3)   (1)+(2) in that order
I really don't get this. Could you give some examples? What does
'mutated' mean, and what are 'immediates' used for?


> Flexions are used to represent either or both of the person and/or gend=
er of a
> word.
Are they both marked when needed? Compulsorily? Where, in what order?


>=20
> >Genetive
I really love those categories of possession!

> ta  - attributive (used to form similes, metaphors, and so forth)
Very poetic language, I guess.=20

> tuu - partative (a section of an "indenumerable" object, or made of som=
ething)
> taa - nominalising (used to form verbal nouns)
These two I don't get... I seem to know what partitive is, but
'indenumerable' beats me. And what's nominalising got to do with
genitive?


> ke - "yes/no" questions.  ("ket?" means "is it him?")
Niiice! And zero-copula too, which seems to be a trend...
(I'm even falling for it from time to time :)
And what a coincidence, (my) Drasel=E9q uses _ke_ exactly
for the same function! You can prefix it to a verb, or
postpose it to the rest of the sentence (which in turn
seems suspiciously similar to Japanese _ka_).


>=20
> tatkiraces - your hands
> lekhepas'es atuup - some of your milk
> lekhepayas atuup - (the same, to someone who's stock-in-trade was milk)
etc.

These examples look nice, but I'd suggest (when you write a grammar
or something) placing them right next to the formal explanation, so
that your readers can grasp the concept _in situ_.

I hope I didn't sound harsh... I'm in a hurry and I took your
inviting words literally. :)


--Pablo Flores
  http://draseleq.conlang.org/pablo-david/