Re: New Language - Altsag Venchet

(Andreas Johansson writes this, among other things)
> Joseph Flatula wfrote:
> >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.

There aren't any reasons why there are no voiceless labials, but it is
unsymmetrical.  Some of the related languages to this one have them, where
they have been the result of various sound changes.

Q does indeed represent [q], a voiceless uvular stop.

> >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?
Each affix is whatever it is, but it will change to match the word.  Maybe
that makes sense.

For example, -ok is of the back class, but will change to the round class
for round-class 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)?
Sorry, /ii/ is not allowed.  I should have mentioned that.  Combinations are
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?
There is a difference between voiced and unvoiced fricatives, it is possible
to have two words only differing by this aspect.  Fricatives simply become
voiced in intervocalic position.  I'm thinking of developing this so that it
becomes phonemic, and that the voiced/unvoiced fricatives merge together.

> >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.
I have to confess, this was originally sparked by a desire to prevent
ambiguity in the orthography, this way you never have to worry about n+g vs.
ng.  But once I added it, I liked the sound of it.

> >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.
Oops... yeah, it's an adjective, no question there.  It's just that you can
use these on adjectives as well.

> Does this prefix work with more concrete nouns like "kaina" below - would
> *"ikaina" mean "little land" or some such?
Yes, ikaina would mean little land, just as senga "horse", isenga "colt".

> >--- 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?
You've got the general idea.  The two stops rule has already been applied to
everything in the language, but it is no longer productive, as new
borrowings from other languages will attest.

> >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?
Yes, there was a rule at one time converting final fricatives into stops.
Originally, these were simply "te", "kazh", and "tsev".

> >--- 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?
Checher was reborrowed from the ancestral language recently, as the ch/j
rule is no longer productive in most cases.

> >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?
That's all I've got so far.

> >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
Well, there was more in the way of phonotactics in an older form of the
language, but many of the changes that led up to this point are no longer
productive.  If that's what you're seeing, that's great.  I didn't want this
to look like a fully formed language sprung out of nowhere, but as a
language with its own history.

Thanks very much for the comments and questions, this helps me think more
about what I can do to improve this language.

Joe Fatula