(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2020]

[Creyeditor]

I am really not sure, what exactly you are asking for, so I'll just give all possible answers that come to my mind. Both sentences that you gave involve predicative copula construction. The general scheme of these constructions is X BE Y, where BE is a form of the copula 'to be' and Y is a noun or an adjective.
Both of these sentences also involve a gerund construction. These are generally of the form (POSSR) VERB-ing (of THEME), where POSS is an optional possessor or agent, VERB is a verb root and THEME is an optional agent/possessor or patient. Of course optional adjunts like in your case 'to the store' can modify participle constructions.
The only way this relates to case is, that different languags choose different strategies for case marking of the predicate. Some languages use a default case like nominative, some languages use an oblique case and in yet other languages it might depend on different factors which case to use.
Oh and of course the possessor and the theme of the gerund can be marked by different cases. Some languages only use genitive case, in some languages the theme gets a special case and in yet other languages the case marking stays the same for gerunds and finite verbs.

Edit: Action nominal and gerund are very similar concepts. So no disagreement with Iyionaku here. Action nominal is more used in the typological literature, IIRC and gerund more in language specific literature.

[Taurenzine]

So there's something that I want to add into my language and know that I will add into my language, but before doing so I want to understand and classify it so that I use it properly. I think that it's a noun case, but I'm not very sure. Its very common in Japanese when quoting somebody else during speech. basically, I want a suffix to follow a sentence so that the entire statement is viewed as a noun, sort of like the way that english uses quotation marks in english, but in speech. So for an english example, Imagine if I said "He said quote, "that's not very funny" unquote" I want the quote and unquote part explained. Another example, this time in Japanese: 彼「それは冗談ではありません」って言った。(kare "sore jodan dewa-arimasen" tte itta) in this sentence, the word/particle/thing って (tte) marks that the previous statement is a quote of a different statement.

If you understand, I just need explanations and examples from both univesral linguistics and some languages (real or conlang)

[eldin raigmore]

So there's something that I want to add into my language and know that I will add into my language, but before doing so I want to understand and classify it so that I use it properly. I think that it's a noun case, but I'm not very sure. Its very common in Japanese when quoting somebody else during speech. basically, I want a suffix to follow a sentence so that the entire statement is viewed as a noun, sort of like the way that english uses quotation marks in english, but in speech. So for an english example, Imagine if I said "He said quote, "that's not very funny" unquote" I want the quote and unquote part explained. Another example, this time in Japanese: 彼「それは冗談ではありません」って言った。(kare "sore jodan dewa-arimasen" tte itta) in this sentence, the word/particle/thing って (tte) marks that the previous statement is a quote of a different statement.

If you understand, I just need explanations and examples from both universal linguistics and some languages (real or conlang)

Words that signal that a particular clause is subordinate* to some matrix clause, might be called "subordinators" -- or maybe "subordinating X" where "X" is some part of speech, for instance "subordinating conjunctions" or "subordinating pronouns".
If the subordinate clause plays the role of a noun in its matrix clause, it is a complement clause, and the subordinator is called a "complementizer".
If the subordinate clause plays the role of an adjective in its matrix clause, it is a relative clause, and the subordinator is called a "relativizer".
If the subordinate clause plays the role of an adverb in its matrix clause, it is an adjunct clause, and I would call the subordinator an "adjunctivizer"; although as far as I know I'm the only one who would.

*(A clause is subordinate to another clause, if it is both dependent on it, and is embedded in it (plays a role in it).)

Quotations usually -- or, at least, often -- aren't dependent on the clause in which they are embedded; and therefore aren't subordinate to them.
Nevertheless, since they are embedded as nouns (or "as if nouns", at any rate), they are complements of their containing clause; and the words that mark them as such are still (at least AFAIK, and at least sometimes) called "complementizers".
For instance, consider the English word "that" used in indirect quotation: "He said that they weren't coming". I believe, IIANM, the underlined "that" is a complementizer there.
In your posted English example, maybe "quote" and "endquote" are being used as complementizers too, bracketing the clause being used as a noun. (Although "quote" is usually either a verb or a noun, and "end quote" is usually a verb-phrase.)


_____________________

Does that help?
I hope so.

[Imralu]

A friend of mine who is a native Turkish speaker often says "that" and then follows with a direct quote which used to confuse the hell out of me till I got used to it and it still gets me sometimes. She'll say things like "I met a guy at the bar and he told me that you are very beautiful but I told him that sorry you are not my type." I don't think Turkish does this though (although I'm not quite sure of all the ways ki is used), so I'm not really sure what's going on, but it's a fairly consistent thing she does.

[Thrice Xandvii]

I'm looking to use /a i o/ as the basis for a vowel system, but want to end up in the neighborhood of 10 distinct vowels plus some diphthongs. Currently I just have a few additional qualities added in there around the vowel space but dodging /u/ and it just doesn't seem quite right, as if it just doesn't hang together as I'd like. I would rather skip tones, but adding nasality as a distinguishing feature is fine... any suggestions or comments?

(As an aside, I started by looking at Vietnamese and Cheyenne... Vietnamese for consonants and Cheyenne for vowels, but that hasn't really gotten me to where I wanted so I am asking here in hopes of some inspiration.)

[DesEsseintes]

I'm looking to use /a i o/ as the basis for a vowel system, but want to end up in the neighborhood of 10 distinct vowels plus some diphthongs. Currently I just have a few additional qualities added in there around the vowel space but dodging /u/ and it just doesn't seem quite right, as if it just doesn't hang together as I'd like. I would rather skip tones, but adding nasality as a distinguishing feature is fine... any suggestions or comments?

(As an aside, I started by looking at Vietnamese and Cheyenne... Vietnamese for consonants and Cheyenne for vowels, but that hasn't really gotten me to where I wanted so I am asking here in hopes of some inspiration.)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but as I understand it you want 10 phonemic monophthongs built up from a system where the areas around cardinal /e u/ are avoided?

Or, are you deriving the 10-vowel system diachronically from an /a i o/ proto?

Here's something:
/a i o ə/
/aː iː oː/
/ã ĩ õ/

[Thrice Xandvii]

Your first interpretation was what I was going for. What's silly is, my first attempt was basically exactly what you suggested, but it seemed too on the nose at first. Perhaps it was actually just right!

[DesEsseintes]

Your first interpretation was what I was going for. What's silly is, my first attempt was basically exactly what you suggested, but it seemed too on the nose at first. Perhaps it was actually just right!

Well here are some variants for you to play with:

1. The Ojibwe way is to add a long /e/ instead of having schwa so you get:

/a i o/
/aː eː iː oː/
/ã ẽ ĩ õ/

(I added a nasalised /e/ as well)

2. Alternatively, keeping the schwa, long /a/ might front:

/a i o ə/
/eː iː oː/
/ã ĩ õ/

3. A twist on Cheyenne:

/a e o/
/aː iː uː/
/ã ẽ õ/

(I've got a bit of a crush on this last one.)

[jimydog000]

Thank you Iyionaku and Creyeditor.

[Taurenzine]

So there's something that I want to add into my language and know that I will add into my language, but before doing so I want to understand and classify it so that I use it properly. I think that it's a noun case, but I'm not very sure. Its very common in Japanese when quoting somebody else during speech. basically, I want a suffix to follow a sentence so that the entire statement is viewed as a noun, sort of like the way that english uses quotation marks in english, but in speech. So for an english example, Imagine if I said "He said quote, "that's not very funny" unquote" I want the quote and unquote part explained. Another example, this time in Japanese: 彼「それは冗談ではありません」って言った。(kare "sore jodan dewa-arimasen" tte itta) in this sentence, the word/particle/thing って (tte) marks that the previous statement is a quote of a different statement.

If you understand, I just need explanations and examples from both universal linguistics and some languages (real or conlang)

Words that signal that a particular clause is subordinate* to some matrix clause, might be called "subordinators" -- or maybe "subordinating X" where "X" is some part of speech, for instance "subordinating conjunctions" or "subordinating pronouns".
If the subordinate clause plays the role of a noun in its matrix clause, it is a complement clause, and the subordinator is called a "complementizer".
If the subordinate clause plays the role of an adjective in its matrix clause, it is a relative clause, and the subordinator is called a "relativizer".
If the subordinate clause plays the role of an adverb in its matrix clause, it is an adjunct clause, and I would call the subordinator an "adjunctivizer"; although as far as I know I'm the only one who would.

*(A clause is subordinate to another clause, if it is both dependent on it, and is embedded in it (plays a role in it).)

Quotations usually -- or, at least, often -- aren't dependent on the clause in which they are embedded; and therefore aren't subordinate to them.
Nevertheless, since they are embedded as nouns (or "as if nouns", at any rate), they are complements of their containing clause; and the words that mark them as such are still (at least AFAIK, and at least sometimes) called "complementizers".
For instance, consider the English word "that" used in indirect quotation: "He said that they weren't coming". I believe, IIANM, the underlined "that" is a complementizer there.
In your posted English example, maybe "quote" and "endquote" are being used as complementizers too, bracketing the clause being used as a noun. (Although "quote" is usually either a verb or a noun, and "end quote" is usually a verb-phrase.)


_____________________

Does that help?
I hope so.

I believe it helps. In my language I'm only going to have 3 separate markers for subordinate clauses: one that modifies nouns (relative), one that modifies verbs (adjunct), and one that takes anything put into it and counts it as a noun (complement)

[Taurenzine]

So, There's something I might wanna add into my language but once again I'm going to ask the more educated crowd about it before I go and screw it up:

Its easier to give you an English example, so here, "He punched him" so my question is this. have there been languages that mark the two pronouns he and him as representing different people? I mean in english you don't need it because we have reflexive pronouns. If I wanna say that I punched myself I say I punched myself. but if there is no word for myself or himself, then the sentence he punched him can mean either that he punched himself or that he punched someone else. would the easiest way to do this just be to add reflexive pronouns? If I don't want to can I just add numbered adjectives or something? like "He#1 punched him#2" or "He#1 punched him#1"?

I'm thinking reflexive pronouns maybe aren't as useless as I initially thought...

But I'm curious: are there natural languages out there that do it differently? I know there are plenty that only rely on context to determine whether the two phrases are different or not, but are there some languages that don't use reflexive pronouns and are still able to differentiate this?

[zyma]

This might be what you're looking for.

[Taurenzine]

This might be what you're looking for.

Reflexive pronouns it is.

[zyma]

This might be what you're looking for.

Reflexive pronouns it is.

Not a fan of the proximate/obviative distinction, I take it?

[Thrice Xandvii]

[Cool Suggestions]

Thanks much for those!

I like that last one too... I wonder if adding /ɪ ɔ/ to it as a remnant of an older three-way length distinction could be plausible? Maybe /ɛ/ instead of /ɪ/? I feel like you could justify either choice.

[DesEsseintes]

[Cool Suggestions]

Thanks much for those!

I like that last one too... I wonder if adding /ɪ ɔ/ to it as a remnant of an older three-way length distinction could be plausible? Maybe /ɛ/ instead of /ɪ/? I feel like you could justify either choice.

Sure. You could have /a e o/ reduce to /ə ɪ ɔ/ or /ə ɪ ʊ/ or /ə ɛ ɔ/ as you see fit. Don't be scared of adding asymmetry.

You might also consider having fronting diphthongs /ae oe/ realised as [eɪ øʏ] or sth. (That's similar to what happens in Híí.)

[Trebor]

So, There's something I might wanna add into my language but once again I'm going to ask the more educated crowd about it before I go and screw it up:

Its easier to give you an English example, so here, "He punched him" so my question is this. have there been languages that mark the two pronouns he and him as representing different people? I mean in english you don't need it because we have reflexive pronouns. If I wanna say that I punched myself I say I punched myself. but if there is no word for myself or himself, then the sentence he punched him can mean either that he punched himself or that he punched someone else. would the easiest way to do this just be to add reflexive pronouns? If I don't want to can I just add numbered adjectives or something? like "He#1 punched him#2" or "He#1 punched him#1"?

I'm thinking reflexive pronouns maybe aren't as useless as I initially thought...

But I'm curious: are there natural languages out there that do it differently? I know there are plenty that only rely on context to determine whether the two phrases are different or not, but are there some languages that don't use reflexive pronouns and are still able to differentiate this?

A lack of distinct reflexive pronouns is attested in Oceania. Here is a good paper on the issue: "Reflexives and middle in some Polynesian and New Caledonian Languages".

[Lambuzhao]

So, There's something I might wanna add into my language but once again I'm going to ask the more educated crowd about it before I go and screw it up:

Its easier to give you an English example, so here, "He punched him" so my question is this. have there been languages that mark the two pronouns he and him as representing different people? I mean in english you don't need it because we have reflexive pronouns. If I wanna say that I punched myself I say I punched myself. but if there is no word for myself or himself, then the sentence he punched him can mean either that he punched himself or that he punched someone else. would the easiest way to do this just be to add reflexive pronouns? If I don't want to can I just add numbered adjectives or something? like "He#1 punched him#2" or "He#1 punched him#1"?

I'm thinking reflexive pronouns maybe aren't as useless as I initially thought...

But I'm curious: are there natural languages out there that do it differently? I know there are plenty that only rely on context to determine whether the two phrases are different or not, but are there some languages that don't use reflexive pronouns and are still able to differentiate this?

A lack of distinct reflexive pronouns is attested in Oceania. Here is a good paper on the issue: "Reflexives and middle in some Polynesian and New Caledonian Languages".

Interesting read!

The use of ADV like 'alone' or 'only' makes a lot of sense to me as an alternate for RFLX '-self'.
Perhaps a way to show non-reflexivity may be to use a PRN like '(the/an) other'?
Ex.

John hit him = John hit himself
John hit another = John hit him/her

Unless it gets clunky, a lang might say a translation of 'and no other', or 'and none else' to mean 'self'.
John hit him and no other = John hit himself.

[jimydog000]

So, There's something I might wanna add into my language but once again I'm going to ask the more educated crowd about it before I go and screw it up:

Its easier to give you an English example, so here, "He punched him" so my question is this. have there been languages that mark the two pronouns he and him as representing different people? I mean in english you don't need it because we have reflexive pronouns. If I wanna say that I punched myself I say I punched myself. but if there is no word for myself or himself, then the sentence he punched him can mean either that he punched himself or that he punched someone else. would the easiest way to do this just be to add reflexive pronouns? If I don't want to can I just add numbered adjectives or something? like "He#1 punched him#2" or "He#1 punched him#1"?

I'm thinking reflexive pronouns maybe aren't as useless as I initially thought...

But I'm curious: are there natural languages out there that do it differently? I know there are plenty that only rely on context to determine whether the two phrases are different or not, but are there some languages that don't use reflexive pronouns and are still able to differentiate this?

A lack of distinct reflexive pronouns is attested in Oceania. Here is a good paper on the issue: "Reflexives and middle in some Polynesian and New Caledonian Languages".

Interesting read!

The use of ADV like 'alone' or 'only' makes a lot of sense to me as an alternate for RFLX '-self'.
Perhaps a way to show non-reflexivity may be to use a PRN like '(the/an) other'?
Ex.

John hit him = John hit himself
John hit another = John hit him/her

Unless it gets clunky, a lang might say a translation of 'and no other', or 'and none else' to mean 'self'.
John hit him and no other = John hit himself.

Or a (almost pompous) construction like "John hit his namesake", or mark John as both patient and agent somehow.

[masako]

I'm writing what I hope will be a "full" grammar. I hope to have it done by the end of the year. I'm gonna use this thread to ask a few questions about format.

1) Once I have the phonology and phonetics section fleshed-out, do I need to include IPA in example sentences?