On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:57:05PM +0200, Steven Williams wrote:
>  --- "H. S. Teoh" <[log in to unmask]> skrev:
> > Affricates:
> > 	j	[dz]
> > 	ts	ts
> Suggestion: if your language allows homorganic
> consonant clusters, I would recommend representing
> [ts] with a single letter, to avoid ambiguities
> between the consonant cluster [t.s] and the lone
> affricate [ts]. Or at least make some indication of
> syllable boundaries (like some transliterations of
> Korean), if you allow such clusters.

Well, the only allowed clusters are nasal + non-nasal (did I fail to
mention this somewhere?) so I think /ts/ would be OK.

> And you got [dz], my favorite affricate. Go you!


> > Flaps:
> > 	r	[4] (medial)
> >
> > Notes: /r/ is realized as [d] when word-initial, and
> > [4] when medial.
> > In the Roman orthography, I decided to write initial
> > /r/ as /d/
> > instead, to emphasize this difference in
> > pronunciation.
> How about simply writing it as /r/, and leaving it up
> to the speaker to remember that initial [r] is
> pronounced as [d]? Does this allophony extend across
> word boundaries; i.e., if the word /raita/ (made up
> for the purposes of example) is pronounced as [daita]
> in isolation, would it be pronounced with initial [r]
> in phrases where the preceding word ends in a vowel,
> i.e., /na raita/ being pronounced as [na raita] (for
> another made-up example)?

Nope, the initial /r/ is pronounced [d] every time it's word-initial.
I'm considering whether I should just write every as /d/, tho it'd
sure come out strange to my eyes. :-)

> > Short vowels:
> > 	a	[a]
> > 	e	[&]
> > 	i	[i]
> > 	ue	[M]
> > 	o	[o] or [u]
> > 	oa	[A]
> > Long vowels:
> > 	aa	[a:]
> > 	ei	[ej]
> > 	ii	[i:]
> > 	ou	[u:]
> > Glides:
> > 	ua	[wa]
> > 	... (may be a couple more)
> I like this vowel system; there's this really
> interesting assymetry to it. Most of the vowels are in
> long-short pairs, except for [M] and [A]. Do these
> have origin in diphthongs (i.e., [M] historically
> being [ui] or something), or as the result of some
> sort of ablaut? Or are they just 'there'?

I haven't really thought about the historical origins of these sounds
yet. So far, I'm just setting down a small, concise set of sounds that
I envision this language to be using. So I guess they're just kinda

> > Case system: Tatari Faran's core case system is essentially
> > reduced EbisÚdian. There are 3 cases: originative, conveyant,
> > receptive. Besides these core cases, there are the secondary
> > cases: the vocative and the genitive. There is also a special
> > case, tentatively called the absolutive, which is unmarked.
> What are the function of these cases?

The core cases essentially function like EbisÚdian, which takes a bit
of an explanation. Basically, the core case of an NP is chosen
semantically, depending on the role of the noun relative to the verb.
The originative is used for source, origin, or active entity; the
receptive for destination or receiving entity. The conveyant is for
the transported, or conveyed, entity. This is a bit abstract, so I'll
use some examples:

1) In verbs of motion, the origin of the motion is in the originative,
the thing in motion is in the conveyant, the destination of the motion
is in the receptive:

	hou sa  tapa itsan       no  bata.
	I   CVY walk cinder-cone RCP walk-COMPL
	"I walk to the cinder cone."

	hou sa  tapa itsan       ko  bata.
	I   CVY walk cinder-cone ORG walk-COMPL
	"I came from the cinder cone."

2) In verbs of speaking, however, the speaker is in the originative
and the hearer is in the receptive:

	san    kei     tsana hou na  aniin.
	person ORG-FEM speak I   RCP speak-COMPL
	"The woman spoke to me."

	san    nei     tsana hou ka  aniin.
	person RCP-FEM speak I   ORG speak-COMPL
	"I spoke to the woman." Lit. "To the woman I spoke."

3) Now, for the most interesting part of the system: verbs of seeing,
hearing, etc.. For each of these senses, there are two corresponding
verbs, one for directing one's faculty towards a particular object,
and another for the reception of sensations from that object.

For example, "to see" is considered an 'incoming' action, because it
involves the _receiving_ of visual information. But "to look" is
considered an 'outgoing' action, because it involves the _directing_
of one's attention to the thing being looked at.

Hence, for the verb _hamra_, to see, the seer is in the *receptive*
case, and the thing being seen in the *originative*:

	san    ka       hamra hou na  aram.
	person ORG-MASC see   I   RCP see-COMPL
	"I see a man." Lit. "The man, I see."

But for the verb _juelat_, to look at, the seer is in the
*originative* and the thing being looked at is in the *receptive*:

	san    ka       juelat hou na  ito.
	person ORG-MASC look   I   RCP look-COMPL
	"The man looks at me."

Notice how the meaning has shifted even though the cases on the nouns
are identical to the previous sentence.

Perhaps one can understand this in terms of the cycle of perception:
first one "sends out" one's attention to a particular thing, and then
one "receives" a sensation from that thing. Here's another example:

	huu ka  kuni   buara   na  iti.
	I   ORG listen volcano RCP listen-COMPL
	"I listen to the volcano."

	huu na  dotan haara sa  buara   ka  inin.
	I   RCP hear  noise CVY volcano ORG hear-COMPL
	"I hear the roar of the volcano." Lit. "I hear the noise from
	the volcano."

The secondary cases are much more straightforward. The vocative is
used for addressing someone:

	diru tse!	"Hey, Miss!"
	san tse!	"Hey, man! (or woman)"
	bata' tse!	"Hey, boss!"

The genitive is used to indicate possession. For example:

	bota' houn
	house mine-GEN
	"My house."

The genitive is inserted between the head noun and the head noun's
case marker:

	tse na  hamra bota' houn     ka  aram.
	you RCP see   house mine-GEN ORG see-COMPL
	"You see my house."

> > All verbs in Tatari Faran come with a "complement".
> > <truncated>
> I would never have thought of this. Very cool! Though
> I be ignorant of the more arcane ways of Conlang and I
> am but a whiny student, I like this language a lot.

Thanks! :-)

> Do you have a website where all this is outlined, or will you some
> time in the future?

I will, eventually. Tatari Faran is, in fact, barely a week old. It'd
be some time before I work out enough detail to post on a website. :-)


Life goes on...