Print

Print


On 6 November 2016 at 15:40, uakci <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello there!
>
> My recent (and quite successful) draft for a conlang was based on one
> feature: a rather weird way verbs are conjugated from their roots. It kind
> of resembles the Semitic roots, but instead of a consonantal frame for
> vowels to be inserted, the root is a legitimate word lacking two
> consonants/vowels (one being the evidentiality, the other—tense). There are
> some rules regarding when to put what, but otherwise it's quite
> straightforward.
> For example, t·t·a means "to love". Because I've decided to have a very
> simple CV phonology, both of the slots must be occupied by a vowel. If I
> want to say "I love you", I'd need the observative evidential and the
> factual 'tense', both of which happen to be -a-. Putting that into a
> sentence,
>
> t___<a>t_<a>à___lao
> love<OBS><FACT>_I.TO.YOU
> [I observe that, in reality,] I love you.
> (-lao signifies that "I" is the subject and "you" is the direct object)
>
> Obviously, this system allows for many different meaning nuances without
> making the word too long: tetaàlao would make it "I think I love you";
> tiatoaàlao—"It's generally accepted that I'll love you" (as a speculation),
> totaoàlao—"I've heard that I was loving you"... and so on.
> A better example would be ·e·u, 'to talk'. Since both a consonant and a
> vowel can be inserted into the slots, the OBS-FACT meaning can be expressed
> as je'ù, jeaù, aeaù or ae'ù, the first one being the most preferable.

That feels wrong to me. The idea that there's a vowel option and a
consonant option for each inflection makes sense, but then I would
expect which one you use to be entirely determined by the phonotactic
/ morphotactic environment.If there are multiple allowed forms, I want
to know what differences in meaning go along with them; even if the
literal denotation is the same in each case, maybe different options
are more common in particular dialects, or indicate different levels
of formality, or something like that.

> ____<j>e_<'>u___sàa
> talk<OBS><FACT>_I.RECP
> [I observe that, in reality,] We talk to each other.
> (-sã (here -sàa because of the accenting rules) means "I to each other")
>
> What interesting root mechanisms do you have? Has any of you had a similar
> idea before? If so, how has it been implemented? I'm very interested in
> such unconventional solutions.

I have tried templatic morphology a few times, but I've yet to be
entirely satisfied with how it turns out. My favorite idea so far has
been dicluster roots- like triconsonant roots, but where each
consonant slot can be filled by an inseparable consonant cluster, not
necessarily just a single phonemic consonant. And, where there're only
two consonant slots, instead of three.

-l.