Does my grammar make sense?
-
- rupestrian
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 27 Mar 2017 00:48
Does my grammar make sense?
So I'm pretty new to this whole conlang business, and I've been trying to teach myself, but I've gotten to a point where I really could use some expert opinion. I have a working draft at this link: http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Mahali. It functions pretty well, but I'm not entirely sure that it's naturalistic. Particularly my verb structure. I guess I'd describe it as a agreeing to five arbitrary noun genders that in turn correspond to the each of the five vowels in my phonology? It's not a structure I've seen reflected elsewhere, and that makes me kind of nervous.
I'm not particularly attached to any of my grammar rules, and my goal IS to make something natural, so if there is anything that seems odd, please give me suggestions for improvement! Or if there are any areas that need to be fleshed out more, point them out to me! I really want to get this right.
I'm not particularly attached to any of my grammar rules, and my goal IS to make something natural, so if there is anything that seems odd, please give me suggestions for improvement! Or if there are any areas that need to be fleshed out more, point them out to me! I really want to get this right.
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Having taken a quick view, I think they look ok (: don't worry (:
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
You don't have /w/ in your phoneme inventory but you use <w> in your vocabulary.
g
o
n
e
o
n
e
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
/w/ is in their phoneme inventory, but it's below the table.
Just so you know, /w/ is usually classified as a velar approximant for convenience on phoneme tables.
Just so you know, /w/ is usually classified as a velar approximant for convenience on phoneme tables.
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Either velar or labial. I've honestly seen velar used more, even though a labial classification is more accurate.GrandPiano wrote:/w/ is in their phoneme inventory, but it's below the table.
Just so you know, /w/ is usually classified as a velar approximant for convenience on phoneme tables.
Spoiler:
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Define more accurate.
-
- rupestrian
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 27 Mar 2017 00:48
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Thanks everyone. I do have /w/ down as a phoneme in my personal notes but it must have gotten lost in the transfer
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
More accurate in the sense that /w/ is more labial than it is velar articulation-wise.MrKrov wrote:Define more accurate.
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
I mean it's the approximant equivalent to [k͡p]. You could call it a labialized velar approximant [ɰʷ] or a velarized labial approximant [β̞ˠ]. Whether you classify the phoneme as anything in particular only matters if it takes part in alterations that are restricted to a certain PoA.Frislander wrote:More accurate in the sense that /w/ is more labial than it is velar articulation-wise.MrKrov wrote:Define more accurate.
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
There we go.
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
One point worth noting is that [w] in most languages is pronounced with lip rounding, whereas all consonants described as purely labial with no secondary articulation to my knowledge do not have lip rounding. A [p] with lip rounding would probably be transcribed [pʷ] rather than just be regarded as another way of saying [p].Adarain wrote:I mean it's the approximant equivalent to [k͡p]. You could call it a labialized velar approximant [ɰʷ] or a velarized labial approximant [β̞ˠ]. Whether you classify the phoneme as anything in particular only matters if it takes part in alterations that are restricted to a certain PoA.Frislander wrote:More accurate in the sense that /w/ is more labial than it is velar articulation-wise.MrKrov wrote:Define more accurate.
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
I just would like to mention that there IS actually a language called Mahali. It's spoken in the Indian state of West Bengalia and is a Munda language. ;)
Wipe the glass. This is the usual way to start, even in the days, day and night, only a happy one.
-
- rupestrian
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 27 Mar 2017 00:48
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Oh dear. Well, I'm not terribly attached to the name. I'll come up with something elseIyionaku wrote:I just would like to mention that there IS actually a language called Mahali. It's spoken in the Indian state of West Bengalia and is a Munda language. ;)
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Don't worry, there's plenty of languages that go by the same name. Take Chinese, vs Chinese, vs Chinese, vs Chinese. Of course they all have their own subname...Willowdove wrote:Oh dear. Well, I'm not terribly attached to the name. I'll come up with something elseIyionaku wrote:I just would like to mention that there IS actually a language called Mahali. It's spoken in the Indian state of West Bengalia and is a Munda language. ;)
Spoiler:
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
I'm pretty sure that languages which contrast /k͡p/ and /kʷ/ *riffles around* OK, they contrast in Igbo and a few other languages of the area.GrandPiano wrote:One point worth noting is that [w] in most languages is pronounced with lip rounding, whereas all consonants described as purely labial with no secondary articulation to my knowledge do not have lip rounding. A [p] with lip rounding would probably be transcribed [pʷ] rather than just be regarded as another way of saying [p].Adarain wrote:I mean it's the approximant equivalent to [k͡p]. You could call it a labialized velar approximant [ɰʷ] or a velarized labial approximant [β̞ˠ]. Whether you classify the phoneme as anything in particular only matters if it takes part in alterations that are restricted to a certain PoA.Frislander wrote:More accurate in the sense that /w/ is more labial than it is velar articulation-wise.MrKrov wrote:Define more accurate.
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Good old Igbo!
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
that being said, I think the point here is that the subarticulation of w is often predicated on lip rounding. It's more common that say in a default generic inventory, that w is replaced with /β/ or /ʋ/ compared to /ɣ/ or /ɰ/Frislander wrote:I'm pretty sure that languages which contrast /k͡p/ and /kʷ/ *riffles around* OK, they contrast in Igbo and a few other languages of the area.GrandPiano wrote:One point worth noting is that [w] in most languages is pronounced with lip rounding, whereas all consonants described as purely labial with no secondary articulation to my knowledge do not have lip rounding. A [p] with lip rounding would probably be transcribed [pʷ] rather than just be regarded as another way of saying [p].Adarain wrote:I mean it's the approximant equivalent to [k͡p]. You could call it a labialized velar approximant [ɰʷ] or a velarized labial approximant [β̞ˠ]. Whether you classify the phoneme as anything in particular only matters if it takes part in alterations that are restricted to a certain PoA.Frislander wrote:More accurate in the sense that /w/ is more labial than it is velar articulation-wise.MrKrov wrote:Define more accurate.
Based on PHOIBLE
w occurs in 1812 languages, of a set of 2155
What we are trying to find is the phonemes that best bridge the gap between 1812 and 2155 (roughly 340 languages)
Velar phones
ɰ occurs in 34 languages out of 2155
ɣ occurs in 295 languages out of 2155
329 languages
β occurs in 281 languages out of 2155*
ʋ occurs in 34 languages out of 2155
315 languages
*including β̞
This is essentially inconclusive on the issue of which is the primary articulation. PHOIBLE isn't the best source, it lacks the ability to map the phonemes over each other (for example w∪β - w∩β would be a better comparison point. Same with w∪ɣ - w∩ɣ)
Spoiler:
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Honestly, I don't think I've anyone just say "Chinese" and mean Cantonese or Hokkien. They may be referred to as "Chinese dialects" (which, as I'm sure you know, is inaccurate), but if usually if someone just says "Chinese", they're either referring specifically to Mandarin or to all Sinitic languages regarded as dialects of a single language.qwed117 wrote:Don't worry, there's plenty of languages that go by the same name. Take Chinese, vs Chinese, vs Chinese, vs Chinese. Of course they all have their own subname...Willowdove wrote:Oh dear. Well, I'm not terribly attached to the name. I'll come up with something elseIyionaku wrote:I just would like to mention that there IS actually a language called Mahali. It's spoken in the Indian state of West Bengalia and is a Munda language. ;)
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Well, in certain contexts there might be one salient "Chinese" language, that is not Mandarin. If you are in certain countries in Soth East Asia for example.GrandPiano wrote:Honestly, I don't think I've anyone just say "Chinese" and mean Cantonese or Hokkien. They may be referred to as "Chinese dialects" (which, as I'm sure you know, is inaccurate), but if usually if someone just says "Chinese", they're either referring specifically to Mandarin or to all Sinitic languages regarded as dialects of a single language.qwed117 wrote:Don't worry, there's plenty of languages that go by the same name. Take Chinese, vs Chinese, vs Chinese, vs Chinese. Of course they all have their own subname...Willowdove wrote:Oh dear. Well, I'm not terribly attached to the name. I'll come up with something elseIyionaku wrote:I just would like to mention that there IS actually a language called Mahali. It's spoken in the Indian state of West Bengalia and is a Munda language. ;)
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Does my grammar make sense?
Indeed: in that context it's normally Hokkien which is being referred to, or possibly Cantonese or Hakka.Creyeditor wrote:Well, in certain contexts there might be one salient "Chinese" language, that is not Mandarin. If you are in certain countries in Soth East Asia for example.GrandPiano wrote:Honestly, I don't think I've anyone just say "Chinese" and mean Cantonese or Hokkien. They may be referred to as "Chinese dialects" (which, as I'm sure you know, is inaccurate), but if usually if someone just says "Chinese", they're either referring specifically to Mandarin or to all Sinitic languages regarded as dialects of a single language.qwed117 wrote:Don't worry, there's plenty of languages that go by the same name. Take Chinese, vs Chinese, vs Chinese, vs Chinese. Of course they all have their own subname...Willowdove wrote:Oh dear. Well, I'm not terribly attached to the name. I'll come up with something elseIyionaku wrote:I just would like to mention that there IS actually a language called Mahali. It's spoken in the Indian state of West Bengalia and is a Munda language. ;)