Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: LONG: Latest Wenetaic Stuff

From:Grandsire, C.A. <grandsir@...>
Date:Tuesday, October 26, 1999, 7:44
Paul Bennett wrote:
> > Phonology > > /4/ is something like /t/, /d/, /r/ and /l/ all rolled into one. > Several English dialects use this consonant between unstressed vowels > as an allophone of /t/ and /d/. >
Is it an alveolar flap? Or the Japanese 'r'?
> > >Vowels > > Doubled vowels are Long, marked (L) in the table above. Here is /* a guess at > */ a list of appropriate IPA values. > > i smallcap-i > e turned-smallcap-3 > a turned-a > u turned-smallcap-omega > e" schwa
So there can be a long schwa? Is there a natlang precedent?
> o turned-script-a > > /* The above description of the vowels is a guesstimate from someone > who has never officially studied phonetics. Audio files of the whole > phoneme inventory _WILL_ be posted on the Web, I promise. */ > > >Consonant Clusters > Two rules are present which seem to make most consonant clusters > pronounceable. /* These are thanks to comments made by Nik Taylor on > the CONLANG mailing list about clusters like /et_hke/ being hard to > pronounce */ > > 1. Post-stop nasals are realised as voiced stops at their original > POA, ie {etnge} -> [etge] > > 2. Pre-stop aspirated consonants are realised as fricatives near > their original POA, ie {ethke} -> [eTke] > The actual fricatives they become are: > {ph} -> [f] > {th} -> [T] > {kh} -> [C](SAMPA) the sound in German "ich" >
Personnally I'd better see {ph}->[P] (unvoiced bilabial fricative), {th}->[T] and {kh}->[x] (invoiced velar fricative) to keep the PoAs of the original phonemes (and it's more common to represent [P] by {ph} and [x] by {kh} then the sounds you proposed).
> These rules apply (in that order) when going from {...} to [...], ie > {ethnge} -> [eTge] >
So you can have clusters of different voicing? interesting...
> These are the only circumstances where the abovementioned phones are > produced. Where the cluster is still "awkward" a minimal euphonic [@] > is inserted. > > Root Formation > > There are four different syllable structures for roots, refered to as > minimal, reduced, regular and extended. The following should serve as > an explanation of their formation. > > Basic root (conceptually) : C1 V1 C2 V2 > NS: The same > NP: C1 V1 C1 C2 V2 > VI: C1 V1 C2 C1 V2 > VC: C1 V1 C2 V1 C1 V2 > > For minimal roots, C2 and V2 are omitted from the NS form, and C2 is > omitted in the NP form. The Lexicon form is always "C1V1(C2V2)" > > Reduced roots work in essentially the same way as Regular roots, except > the initial C1 is ommited. The Lexicon form is always "V1C2V2(C1)" > > Regular roots are as above. The Lexicon form is always "C1V1C2V2" > > Extended roots follow the same pattern, except non-initial C1 is > replaced by a "C3". The Lexicon form is C1V1C2V2(C3) > > >Basic Paradigm /*There's a touch of Arabic in here, but it started > life as a PIE e-stem vs o-stem thing*/ > > NS NP VI VC LX > Minimal so sosu sorsu sorosu so(ru) > Reduced ame arme amre amare ame(r) > Regular taki tatki takti takati taki > Extended moru motru mortu morotu moru(t) > > NS - Noun Singular > NP - Noun Plural > VI - Verb Instant (or complete) > VC - Verb Continous > LX - The way the root is presented in the lexicon. >
Oh! I see now what you mean. Is there examples of roots used in a different way for related concepts, that's to say, for example 'so(ru)' and 'soru' having related meaning? That could make 4 roots per conceptual root.
> Affixes and Word Order > > > Flexions are used to represent either or both of the person and/or > gender of a word. They are also referred to as Genders. Where the > mark .g<x>. (ie .g1. .g2.) occurs (often in interlinears) it refers > to a flexion, the number used refers to the position of the gender > in the following list. > > 1 Speaker -m- > 2 Adressee -s- > 3 Human -t- > 4 Animal -r- > 5 Inanimate -p- > 6 Abstract -k- > > In effect, there's a two-way branching going on, where one leg of the > branch leads to a Flexion, the other leads to another branch. Each > level of the tree represents a state of Animacy/Person that is more and > more similar to the Speaker. > > ?-Abstract (k) > \ > (Concrete)--Inanimate (p) > \ > (Animate)--Animal (r) > \ > (Human)--Somebody Else (t) > \ > (Me & You)--You (s) > \ > Me (m) > > E.g., moru.p is "a corpse", moru.k is "a death", moru.t.s'e.k is "his > death", mortu.k is the infinitive "to die", and morotu.s is "you are > dying". >
So what is 'moru.m'? "my death"? Is it possible to do that?
> In word-final or word-initial position, the flexion -k- may be elided > in colloquial speech. In medial position, it is always used. > > Positionals > > -a- Near > -o- Far > -u- Apparent > -k- Obscure > -e- Probable/Believed > -i- Improbable/Disbelieved > > The positional -a- is used when no positional is required (thanks to > context, or for cases where position is irrelevant), and is elided in > non-formal texts (both verbal and written). If any other positional > used is completely obvious from context, it too may be elided in > colloquial texts. > > Note:- except when they occur as positionals, vowels are not normally > elided. > > Cases (used in forming particles) > > >Gene(ra)tive (these all take the -a- Positional, almost always elided) > s'e - possessive (normal genetive, something which is possessed) > ya - trapping (an habitual or essential possession) > pa - familial (technically used for a family member, also extended to > very close friends. When used to or of people and things outside the > previous definition, it implies a sense of "solidarity" or > "cameraderie"). > > tuu - partative (a section of an uncountable substance, or made of > something) > ce - component (a distinguishable, seperate part of an object, or > member of a countable group) > > so - produced (that which is made by something) > nu - productive (that which forms something) >
I like all those different kinds of genitives. But they seem to be put on the possessed noun instead of the possessive noun. Am I right?
> >Attributive > ta - absolute attributive (used to form similes, metaphors, and so > forth) > re - relative attributive (marks the noun which is being compared > > against. "x y-arek" means "as x as y", "x y-orek" means "x-er than y") > /* the above is misleading gibberish, please see below */ > > The relative attributive <re> takes the -k- gender as agent, and > attaches to the attribute to form the superlative. > > Examples of Attributives: > (ap) makhetap - (it is) big > (ap) makhetap Yonutrek - (it is) as big as John > (ap) makhetap Yonutorek - (it is) bigger than John > (ap) makhekrep - (it is) the biggest of its kind > (ap) makheprep - (it is) about average size compared to an anaphoric set > (ap) makheporep - (it is) the biggest of an anaphoric set > > /* "Ar makhertar Yonutcerorek" could be used as a very personal compliment, > though one that would probably cause mixed emotions <GGG> */ >
Well, this is even more difficult to understand than my intensive and absolute in Chasma"o"cho, so I think I missed the joke... :(
> >Essive /*provisional term, the first term from Trask that I used*/ > taa - Essive > > Wenetaic is essentially zero-copula; <taa> is used to make some forms > that take copula in other languages and that aren't marked in any > other way in Wenetaic. In the translation of the English <being tired, > he slept> (meaning <he slept because he was tired>), <being tired> > is formed using the essive, and could be translated back to english as > <the tired (one) slept>. The essive marks forms sometimes translated > by verbal nouns and nominal verbs, or by adjective/adverbial > constructions. The essive is also used to form group nouns from plural > nouns, for example <mamnu.r> (the men) vs <mamnu.taa.r> (men in general). >
I like it. Is it a kind of suffixed "to be" kind of "verb"?
> >Tense > ngkk - past tense > ngoo - future tense > > When combined with positionals, the following specific meanings result: > angkk, angoo - as in English "recent past", "near future". > ongkk, ongoo - as in English "ancient past", "distant future". > kngkk, kngoo - "mythical" past, "prophetic" future > ungkk, ungoo - "obvious", "well known" past and future > engkk, engoo - something like "IMHO", or "IIRC" > ingkk, ingoo - yet to be fully deciphered, often used when describing > enemy propoganda and non-orthodox religious beliefs > > Tenses can be compounded infinitely, each tense mark being taken as > reletive to its antecedent. For example <takti.m.yi.t.k.ngkk.t.a.ngoo.t> > {VI.{G1.ACC}.{G3.OBS.PAST}.{G3.NEAR.FUT}.G3} means literally "in the near > future of the mythical past, he touches me", but translates as "in the > mythical past, he was about to touch me". >
I like this feature, even if it can be very confusing.
> /* It strikes me that, as tenses may take independant flexions, Wenetaic > may well work nicely as a lang for time-travellers. Hmmm... Now I think > about it, this actually ties in well with other features of the lang... */ >
What do you know about the people who speak Wenetaic by the way?
> >Location /*long and complex history, basically inspired by hearing about a > similar feature in some North American natlangs*/ > yi - directional (roughly equivalent to Dative Case) > ru - locational (roughly equivalent to Accusative Case) > > These combine with Positionals in obvious ways, except for -e- and -i-, about > which more research is required. Available informants (and attested texts) show > these forms to be very rare, and give a large range of inconsistent meanings to > them. >
I'd like to know more about them, as soon as you can decipher something from them :)
> >Truth Value /* check the CONLANG list archives towards the end of 1998 for a > list of contributors, mengkkmakhkk this thread ran and ran */ > khu - definately true > khk - seemingly/probably/partly true > yk - indeterminate truth/falsehood > thk - seemingly/probably/partly false > thu - definately false > > Positionals are used with the above to show evidentiality, ie how/why one > knows/thinks that this is the truth value. > > akhu, akhk, etc - personal experience > okhu, okhk, etc - reported experience, imparted knowledge > ukhu, ukhk, etc - deduced from plentiful evidence > kkhu, kkhk, etc - implied from scant evidence > ekhu, ekhk, etc - taken on faith, generally accepted > ikhu, ikhk, etc - generally accepted, but disputed "here & now" > > >Volitional - /*thanks for insipration to Sally Caves, Matt Pearson and Larry > Schelin, all on the CONLANG list*/ > wk - deals with the desire to do/be something in various ways > > awk - want to > owk - fail to > uwk - appear to > kwk - pretend not to / secretively > ewk - "because it's the right/expected/honorable thing to do" > iwk - "for no particular/discernable reason", spontaneously >
Wow! Those three things promise a great many shadings possible. It promises very hot religious and philisophical debates when someone makes a mistake in them... :) -- Christophe Grandsire Philips Research Laboratories -- Building WB 145 Prof. Holstlaan 4 5656 AA Eindhoven The Netherlands Phone: +31-40-27-45006 E-mail: