Re: CHAT: I'm back

En réponse à Rob H <magwich78@...>:

> Hello again everyone,
>
> I was subscribed to the conlang list a while ago (although I was usually
> a "lurker"), and now I've
> come back, at least for a little while.
Welcome back!

>
> There are two stages, Old OT and Classical OT.  The language is derived
> from Patrick C. Ryan's
> proposed Proto-Language Monosyllables (accessed at
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/indexFILES.htm).
>
Well, nice idea to base a conlang on :) .

> Old OT phonological inventory:
>
> b, bh, p, ph
> d, dh, t, th
> g, gh, k, kh
> s, x, l, r
> m, n, w
> h, j
>
> a, e, i, o, u
>
> Classical OT phonological inventory:
>
> b, d, g, p, t, k
> v, x, [theta], [s-hacek]
> m, n, l, r, h, j
>
> a, e, i, o, u
>
Do you have a sound change table? And what are [theta] and [s-hacek]? /T/
and /S/?

>
> The present stem is the most basic stem for the language. All verb
> stems end in vowels -- either from reduction of un-stress-accented
> *e, *o, or *a in final position (> -a)
So unstressed a is pronounced as a schwa?

>
> OT verbs also inflect for person and number. The personal endings
> are: 1st sg -m (> -n), 2nd sg -s, 3rd sg -, 1st pl -men, 2nd pl -sen,
> and 3rd pl -t. These endings are always last.
>
These endings look somewhat IE. Do they come from the proto-syllables you were
referring to? (I didn't have time to check)

> Verbs in OT have (so far) two moods, indicative and imperative. The
> indicative mood takes a null morpheme, but the imperative adds the
> suffix -ka.
>
Strange that the imperative is more marked than the indicative. Unless you
explain it as being a former optative or such (or maybe an exclamatory particle
which became part of the verb), I don't know if it is very naturalistic (for
what I know, the imperative form of a verb is usually the most unmarked one.
Often it is the root form of the verb only, at least for the 2nd person
singular).

>
> OT is also an active language with distinction based on control. In
> verbs that represent actions under one's control, the subject takes
> the nominative case (when explicitly expressed) and the verb inflects
> for the subject; for verbs that delimit actions not under one's
> control, the subject takes the accusative or a local case and the
> verb takes no personal inflection.
i.e. a la English "me thinks". Nice. Although what do you do with transitive
verbs? Does it mean that both the subject and the object will be in the
accusative case?

 Non-control verbs are best
> understood passively. For example: "I fall" would be translated
> literally in OT, "falls me," but perhaps a better back-translation
> would be "I am fallen."
>
What about non-control transitive verbs? Like "see" or "hear" as opposed
to "watch" and "listen"? They are non-control verbs too I suppose.

>
> Nominal morphology is more complex than verbal morphology; further
> specification of a verbal idea will be seen in the object taking a
> local case (usually allative or ablative), rather than use of
> preverbs or converbs.
>
It seems interesting, but I would like to see examples of that to know what you
mean :) . But I think I get the idea.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.