Hallo! Elliott Lash wrote: > Greetings, > A co-worker and I have been working on and off on a > conlang for the a few weeks. I thought it was time to > talk about it a bit on the list. I'll be using a kind > of orthography that uses no diactritics, but in the > actual orthography (which I wont show on the list just > now) there are several diactritics. > > The phonology is kind of extraordinary: > > Vowels: > /a/ _a_ > /E/ _e_ > /i/ _i_ > /O/ _o_ > /u/ _u_ > /Y/ _y_ > > The vowels may be long, short, creaky long and creaky > short. (diactrics: /:/, /_k/, /:_k/) Not very bizarre except for the creaky vowels. > In the orthography, a doubled vowel is long, and a > creaky vowel is followed by a _~_ > > After uvulars, /i/ becomes /@j/ Makes sense; it is somewhat difficult to pronounce a front vowel after a uvular. There is a strong tendency to either front the uvular, back the vowel or both. > After a creaky voiced syllable, all vowels become > creaky. Ah, a dominant-recessive creakyness harmony! Nice! > Consonants: > /p_>/ (bilabial unvoiced ejective) _p_ > /b_</ (bilabial voiced implosive) _b_ > > /d'/ (retroflex voiced plosive) _d_ > /t'/ (retroflex unvoiced plosive) _t_ > > /q_>/ (uvular unvoiced ejective) _q_ > /g\_</ (uvular voiced implosive) _g_ Yeah! That's wild. But why aren't the retroflexes glottalized? > /m/ (bilabial nasal) _m_ > /F/ (labiodental nasal) _w_ > /n'/ (retroflex nasal) _n_ > /N\/ (uvular nasal) _ng_ > > /r'/ (retroflex rhotic) _r_ > > /K/ (alveolar lateral unvoiced fricative) _lh_ > /K\/ (alveolar lateral voiced fricative) _lz_ > /|\|\/ (lateral alveolar click) (I use || below > since it's easier) _!_ > > /?/ (glottal stop) _'_ > > /f_>/ (labiodental unvoiced ejective fricative) _f_ > /v_</ (labiodental voiced implosive fricative) _v_ > > (While the last two dont seem like the actual > descriptions, they are distinct sounds.) Funky! > Some words: > > [snup] > > (more will be given below) > > NOUNS: > Nouns are inflected only for regular plural and for > collective or mass plural. > > the "regular" plural is formed as follows: > > A nasal is prefixed to the beginning of the word that > assimilates in place of articulation to the first > sound. (Thus, uvular with uvualr, bilabial with > bilabial, retroflex with retroflex, labiodental with > labiodental). Where things get tricky is with > laterals, nasals and vowels. Before front vowels, the > sound /F/ is used as a plural marker, before back > vowels the sound /N\/ is used. Before laterals the > retroflex nasal /n'/ is used. > > Before nasals the nasal itself is reduplicated and > then followed by the vowel /i/. I must say that this rule is not bizarre at all; nasals tend to assimilate to the POA of the following consonant, and epenthetic vowels in order to break up same-consonant clusters aren't uncommon either. > [examples and collective plural snup] > > Verbs: > > These guys are pretty interesting. The tense system is > pretty easy. There's just an inflected past tense. The > bare stem is used as the present. Other verbal ideas > are derived by means of particles. The past tense is > formed by reduplicating the verbal root. > > [examples snup] > > Some verbs are compounds, these still just > reduplicate the verbal root: > > [examples snup] > > From this basis however, different directional and > manner prefixes can be added to the root to talk about > different types of action. > > lh(e)- /K(E)/ adds a meaning of _fast and random_ > i'- /i?/ adds a meaning of _slow and deliberate_ > da- /d'a/ adds a meaning of _roundtrip_ Wild! > [examples snup] > > In all of these cases, the past tense is formed by > reduplicating only the root. > ------------------------------------------------ > > Particles: > > These come divided into three types. First there are > proclitic role particles which help define a noun's > role in the sentence. Then there are enclitic clausal > particles that show how the phrase or clause that > preceded them is viewed by the speaker. The third is a > grab bag. > > The role particles so far are: > > o' commitative with > nga benefactive for, to (or untranslatable) > mi experiencer > pe source from So these are, essentially, prepositions, it seems. > The clausal particles so far are: > > ea~ emphatic or contrastive (and vocative with > people) > lha interrogative > pe causal > be volitional > lhovi softener particle _so be it, anyway, you know_ > olhelh regret particle > > The other particles so are are: > > ge negative particle (precedes the word/phrase like > a proclitic) > qa future tense particle > te malefactive particle > > ---------------------------------------------- > SENTENCES AND NOTES > > Nouns may be marked with any proclitic particle if the > semantics of the sentence allows: > > Examples: > efaa~ nga ngalh du' > take ben. I fish > > "I eat fish" (where the fact that you're being > benefited by eating, nourished etc, is being marked by > the benefactive). Ah! I wouldn't say that _nga_ is not a preposition, but used in an unusual way. > You can further change this sentence by applying an > enclitic: > > nga ngalh ea~ efaa~ du' > be. I emph. take fish > > "I am eating fish for myself" > > Or you can emphasize and deemphasize the subject the > object: > > du' ea~ efaa~ ngalh > fish emph. take I > "the fish are eaten by me" > > Another sentence: > lhpaa nga ngalh "I am being rained on" > rain ben. I > > This specifies that the rain is falling down upon you. > If you want to specify that you and the rain were in > the same set of circumstances and setting, then you'd > say: > > lhpaa mi ngalh "It's raining, I (am there)" > rain exp. I > > Or you can emphasize the fact that you're being > adversely affected by the rain: > > lhpaa nga ngalh te "It's raining on me" > rain ben. I mal. > > And you can further emphasize this with the emphatic > particle: > > lhpaa nga ngalh tea~ (contraction of te ea~) > rain be. I mal.emph. > "It's raining on me!!" > > I think that's okay for right now, since this is a > large post, and I need to do some actual work now.. Nice ideas! I enjoyed this. Unlikely as a natlang, but fun! Greetings, Jörg.