Re: New Language - Altsag Venchet

Joseph Flatula wfrote:
>Thanks to Peter Clark for suggesting what exactly to put here.  I've got a
>number of languages that are reasonably developed, and Altsag Venchet is
>one
>of them.  It is descended from the earlier language Chovur, which I have
>also developed.  All of my languages are set in a world I'm working on, so
>they have histories, related languages, borrowings, etc.  Most words in
>Altsag Venchet are the natural inheritance of Chovur, though many are
>borrowed from Thungwaz to the east.
>
>This is a reasonably in-depth look at Altsag Venchet, so there's plenty
>here
>to read.  I'm interested in any sorts of comments about the language,
>specifically the following:
>1) If it seems workable.
>2) If I've unwittingly assumed something from English, as that is my first
>language.
>3) If I've used some grammatical term in the wrong way, or need a different
>way of describing something.
>
>Altsag Venchet is an agglutinative language, VSO in structure.  The
>phonemes
>are as follows:
>
>Consonants
>------------
>stops: b, d, t, g, k, q
>approximants: r, l, y
>nasals: m, n, ng
>fricatives: v, s, z, sh, zh, kh, gh
>affricates: ts, j, ch
This inventory seems a bit unsymmetric. Nothing necessarily wrong with that,
but are there any intrafictional reasons for this? I mean, there are for
instance no voiceless labials, even though based on analogy with the
dentals/alveolars and the velars one'd expect *p and *f to turn up. Did
these exist at an earlier stage of the language, only to succumb to some
sound change? You might've also expected *dz to turn up.

Is "q" [q]? If so, it seems a bit lonely as the only uvular. If not, is it
perhaps a glottal stop [?]? That'd be less "weird" symmetry-wise (seeing
that voiced uvular stops are impossible), but the orthography would then be
pretty original, and you'd better call particular attention that convention.

>Vowels
>--------
>round: ö, ü
>front: i, e, a
>back: o, u
>
>If anyone wants, I could give IPA equivalents, but these sounds are all
>pretty much as expected.  The umlaut-vowels are front rounded, as in
>German.
>
>Within a word, all vowels must be of compatible classes.  Round vowels are
>not permitted to go with back vowels.  Any affixes containing a round or
>back vowel change to match the word they are added to.
I take this that the vowels /i e a/ are neutral with regard to vowel
harmony. What about words with only these in the root? Do each affix have an
"intrinsic" preference for front or back rounded, or is there some rule
holding for all such words?

>Stress is always on the first syllable.
>
>Consonants may only cluster between vowels - any consonant may cluster with
>approximants or nasals, before, after, or both.  Vowels may only cluster in
>the form vowel + i.
Is /ii/ a valid combination, and if so how is it then pronounced. Are
combinations like /ai/ monosyllabic (ie, diphthongs)?

>Nasals match the place of articulation of any following adjacent consonant.
>Fricatives are voiced between vowels.
Do this mean that the voiced fricatives are merely intervocalic allophones
of the voiceless ones, or that there is a voicing distinction that gets
neutralized in intervocalic position?

>If an affix creates an illegal vowel cluster, add the nearest consonant
>from
>the _affix_ to break it up.  If there is none, use "n".  For illegal
>consonant clusters, use the nearest vowel from the affix, using "a" if
>there
>is none.  Two of the same vowel in a row reduce to one.  If "n" is followed
>by "g", it assimilates into "ngk".
>
That seems pretty weird. And the correct term in this instance is
"dissimilation", since "k" is less similar to "n" (or "ng") than is "g",
since "k" is unlike both "g" and the nasals is voiceless. Not impossible,
but pretty high on the weirdity scale.

>Nouns
>-------
>Suffixes and prefixes to a noun are added in the pattern:
>intensity-root-number-case
>
>--- Intensity ---
>u-   makes a noun more intense
>i-   makes a noun diminutive, attenuated
>
>- kelgai "cold", ukelgai "bitterly cold", ikelgai "a bit chilly"
Is this "kelgai" really a noun? Imparticular the gloss "a bit chilly" looks
very adjectivish.

Does this prefix work with more concrete nouns like "kaina" below - would
*"ikaina" mean "little land" or some such?

>--- Gender ---
>Every noun is either animate or inanimate.  Animate nouns are living
>things,
>parts of living things, and other things being viewed as capable of action.
>There are a number of irregulars, of both genders.
>
>--- Number ---
>Nouns are singular by default.  To make them plural, use an ending based on
>the gender and form of the word.
>-ur   animate
>-tukh   animate, ending in a vowel
>-ok   inanimate
>-ra   inanimate, ending in k or q
>-t   inanimate, ending in a vowel
>
>- checher "winter", checherok "winters"
>- jörad "hand", jöradur "hands"
>- kaina "land", kainat "lands"
>- khalda "river", khaldatukh "rivers"  (khalda is animate)
>
>--- Case ---
>-   nominative
>-en   accusative
>-at (-ash after a stop)   predicative
>-ang   dative
>-il   genitive
Is that -at/-ash variation due to some constraint on SVS sequences, where V
is any vowel and S is any stop? Is this effective generally, or has it been
so under some earlier period of the language development?
>
>Objects of prepositions are in the dative case.  Adjectives used as
>predicates are in the predicative case.
>
>Pronouns
>---------
>Personal pronouns are declined in a regular fashion, using the same affixes
>as nouns.  There are three basic roots, which have different forms when
>they
>have no affixes, this independant form listed after a slash.
>
>te / te   1st person
>kazh / kad   2nd person
>tsev / tseb   3rd person
Are there any phonological reasons for these alternations, current or
historical?

>The impersonal pronouns fall into five categories, person, thing, place,
>time, and way.  Each of these has three forms, query/relative, this, and
>that.  For example, this-time is "now" in English, query-time is "when",
>etc.
>
>      query, this, that
>person - jeng, yet, kul
>thing - jan, karta, kul
>place - shairu, kartu, kültü
>time - janat, tseira, balqü
>way - öghra, öghra, urgai
>
>
>Verbs
>------
>Affixes to a verb are in this order:
>intensity-root-mood-tense-aspect-person
>
>--- Intensity ---
>same as nouns
>
>--- Mood ---
>infinitive / indicative   -
>interrogative / conditional   -akh (-ak if no other suffixes, or after a
>fricative)
>optative   -nor (-or after m)
>exhortative   -te (-se after a stop)
>
>--- Tense ---
>present   -
>present progressive   -aj (-ai after ch or j)
>past   -un
>future   -ar
>
Here a "ch" or "j" is apparently able to prevent a "ch" from turning up in
an ending, yet a word "checher" is possible. Is "checher" a late loan
breaking the rules, or is there some other explanation?

>--- Aspect ---
>perfective   -ge (-ghe after a stop)
>habitual   -us (-ut if no further suffixes, -ut after a fricative, but -us
>after a stop)
>inceptive   -je
>cessative   -tona (-sona after a stop)
>medial   -em
>intentional   -var (-bar after a fricative)
>unintentional   -gai (-ghai after a stop)
>causative   -ilka
>
>
>Perfective is for completed actions.  Habitual, actions repeatedly or
>habitually done.  Inceptive means "to begin to X", cessative "to stop
>Xing".
>Medial, "in the middle of Xing", "while Xing".  Intentional and
>unintentional reflect the speaker's intent.  Causative means "to cause to
>X".
>
>--- Person ---
>-tse   1st
>-ad (-az after a stop)   2nd
>-   3rd
>
>
>Adjectives and Adverbs
>------------------------
>These are largely uninflected.  They can use the same intensity markers as
>nouns and verbs.  I may end up adding more about these.
_Largely_ uninflected: any other exceptions beside the predicative case
ending and the insensity markers?

>Derivational Morphology
>-------------------------
>one who does X   -jin
>the place of X   -uk (-ukh after a stop)
>the act of Xing   -rur
>
>
>Syntax
>-------
>The word order is strongly VSO, with modifiers before the words they
>modify.
>Adverbs are almost always next to their verb, but may go before or after.
>Relative clauses in the middle of a sentence are concluded with the
>particle
>"a".
>
>I haven't given too much thought to compound sentences yet.  I'm just sort
>of winging it for now.
>
>
>In my next e-mail (hopefully in a few minutes), I'll have the text of
>August
>Schleicher's "The Sheep and the Horses" in Altsag Venchet.  It's already
>translated, so I'm going to write up a morpheme by morpheme interlinear
>translation.
>
>Thank you very much for reading over all this mess, and for the patience to
>get all the way to the bottom.  Perhaps I'll write up some more
>descriptions
>of my other languages, if anyone's interested.
>
>Joe Fatula
Interesting thing, all in all. There does appear to be rather more to the
phonology than you're telling us, particularly regarding phonotactics ...


                                          Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Replies