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.