What did you accomplish today? [2011–2019]

[Micamo]

Having learned that I have been doing triconsonantal root languages completely wrong

Who told you that?

[Ahzoh]

Having learned that I have been doing triconsonantal root languages completely wrong

Who told you that?

Dewrad, on my post: http://www.incatena.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=42747

[Micamo]

Dewrad, on my post: http://www.incatena.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=42747

I'd take that advice with a grain of salt, really.

1. There are plenty of good reasons to analyze an imperative or causative morpheme as an aspect: It may not be one semantically, but that doesn't mean it can't behave like one morpho-syntactically. For example, if the morpheme cannot co-occur with the "proper" aspects like the inceptive.

2. More generally, the criticism of "That's not how the Semitic languages actually do that" is only valid if you actually intended to copy a Semitic language in that area. Think carefully about where you want to take inspiration from the semitic languages and where you want to diverge from them: Mithara, for example, is heavily modeled after Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, but diverges from the features of that family in lots of areas (picking up features I like from the Chumashan, Pomoan, Iroquoian, Caddoan, Tanoan, Salishan, and Wakashan families). If someone looked at a Mithara Grammar and said "Hey, you're doing this wrong, Athabaskan languages don't have productive noun incorporation!" I'd smack them upside the head and say "Yeah, I know, but I did it anyway."

[Ahzoh]

Dewrad, on my post: http://www.incatena.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=42747

I'd take that advice with a grain of salt, really.

1. There are plenty of good reasons to analyze an imperative or causative morpheme as an aspect: It may not be one semantically, but that doesn't mean it can't behave like one morpho-syntactically. For example, if the morpheme cannot co-occur with the "proper" aspects like the inceptive.

2. More generally, the criticism of "That's not how the Semitic languages actually do that" is only valid if you actually intended to copy a Semitic language in that area. Think carefully about where you want to take inspiration from the semitic languages and where you want to diverge from them: Mithara, for example, is heavily modeled after Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, but diverges from the features of that family in lots of areas (picking up features I like from the Chumashan, Pomoan, Iroquoian, Caddoan, Tanoan, Salishan, and Wakashan families). If someone looked at a Mithara Grammar and said "Hey, you're doing this wrong, Athabaskan languages don't have productive noun incorporation!" I'd smack them upside the head and say "Yeah, I know, but I did it anyway."

I wasn't interpreting it as "not how Semitic does that", but if so, perhaps, though my verbs were criticised for being too unnatural and engineered for a tricon root language...

I don't know what I'll do, but for sure hat book is worth reading...

[Thrice Xandvii]

I guess your plan of action depends on the answer to one question... okay, maybe two:

• Was your aim when making the 'lang to have it be as naturalistic as possible?
• Do you really want to re-do all you've done because some dude on a forum doesn't like it?

If you answered "no" to one or both of those questions, I think you have very little to worry about. Yes, there is definitely stuff to be learned from folks on this and "that other" forum... Lots and lots of the people here (and over there) are very knowledgeable. Only some of them are worth listening to though.

For me, I take all criticisms and suggestions with a grain of salt. I'd like to think I have learned a lot and that my 'langs have improved over time, but honestly it isn't really about pleasing the forum for me. I like the discussion I sometimes get in my threads on languages, but if I don't like what someone is saying about how I did something, it is totally okay to ignore them and do it your own way. Just because you didn't do it that way in your language does NOT mean that it is wrong, or for me, more importantly, that you didn't learn something in the process.

If you ask me, ONLY start over, or make significant changes if you want to. If you genuinely see a need.

[Xing]

1. There are plenty of good reasons to analyze an imperative or causative morpheme as an aspect: It may not be one semantically, but that doesn't mean it can't behave like one morpho-syntactically. For example, if the morpheme cannot co-occur with the "proper" aspects like the inceptive.

If you were just talking about linguistics in general, the most natural thing would be to call the imperative a "mood", and the causative a "voice". (Or perhaps the causative could be regarded as some kind of derivation, depending on its productivity and semantic transparency.) Within the context of a particular language, it could on the other hand make sense to group the imperative and the causative together with the aspects (or tenses, or whatever) - if the are formed by the same slot, or form a mutually exclusive set.

wasn't interpreting it as "not how Semitic does that", but if so, perhaps, though my verbs were criticised for being too unnatural and engineered for a tricon root language..

Well, in linguistic contexts, "three-consonantal roots" usually means roughly "the kind of roots found in Semitic languages". It could of course be extended to cover any kind root with three consonants - in that case, there are plenty of them in English. (Does that make English a "threecon lang"?)

There might be something to Dewrad's criticism. At least in the beginning of their "career", conlangers might create languages that are much cruder than real-world languages. They might have encountered some textbook examples of a Semitic root, and then they think that any Semitic word can be more or less mechanically analysed as a vowel pattern imposed on a three-consonantal root. It might not only happen with Semitic-style languages. It's the same thing when someone creates a "polysynthetic" language by just stacking a dozen morphemes representing every conceivable inflectional category onto each word.

I think I've said it before, but I think one underlying cause of the misconceptions about Semitic-style "threecon" languages that might flourish among some conlangers is the belief that "threecon" languages somehow make up a special kind of language. That there are certain ways in which "threecon" langs are supposed to work, and that these are somehow different from the ways in which non-threecon languages work.

[Micamo]

It's the same thing when someone creates a "polysynthetic" language by just stacking a dozen morphemes representing every conceivable inflectional category onto each word.

That's actually a stage 2 polylang. A stage 1 polylang is when the conlanger makes an analytic language, exceptwithoutanyspacesbetweenthewords.

I think I've said it before, but I think one underlying cause of the misconceptions about Semitic-style "threecon" languages that might flourish among some conlangers is the belief that "threecon" languages somehow make up a special kind of language. That there are certain ways in which "threecon" langs are supposed to work, and that these are somehow different from the ways in which non-threecon languages work.

One reason for this is that the characteristic "threecon" morphological strategy only arose in a realtively small group of related languages.

[Salmoneus]

1. There are plenty of good reasons to analyze an imperative or causative morpheme as an aspect: It may not be one semantically, but that doesn't mean it can't behave like one morpho-syntactically. For example, if the morpheme cannot co-occur with the "proper" aspects like the inceptive.

If you were just talking about linguistics in general, the most natural thing would be to call the imperative a "mood", and the causative a "voice". (Or perhaps the causative could be regarded as some kind of derivation, depending on its productivity and semantic transparency.) Within the context of a particular language, it could on the other hand make sense to group the imperative and the causative together with the aspects (or tenses, or whatever) - if the are formed by the same slot, or form a mutually exclusive set.

While this is true, I think it's important to understand the hierarchy of understanding here.

First, there are people who do not realise that imperative is not an aspect.
Then there are people who DO realise that imperative is not an aspect.
Then there are people who learn that there may be times when it can be useful to call imperative an aspect nonetheless.

While it's true that it's wrong to insist on keeping everyone at the second level of that hierarchy, it's also true that something very important is learnt in moving from the first level to the second. And blanketly meeting criticism by reassuring people by trying to move them along to the third level prematurely means that people avoid learning that lesson - and because the lesson learnt in moving from the second to the third is itself based on that first lesson, they can't learn that one either.

So yes, a person may list the imperative as an aspect in their language either because they're at the first level or because they've reached the third - but Ahzoh didn't give any reason to think that he had reached that third level, so Dew assumed he was still at the first: at which stage, the priority is to learn why you're basically wrong, before you can then learn why you might not always be wrong in all cases.

Or to put it another way, you have to learn the rules before you can learn when it's safe to break them. Or to put it a third way, you have to learn the general case before you learn the particular exceptions.

It's like superstition. First you concentrate on explaining to people that it's absolutely impossible for people to turn into wolves and that you can't tell somebody's personality by feeling the bumps of their head. Only when they've accepted that can you admit that actually quantum mechanics says that it IS possible for people to spontaneously turn into wolves (just very, very unlikely) and that since both head shape and many elements of personality have been shown to be inherited, it MAY in some cases be possible to judge, say, criminality from the shape of the skull (we just don't know how, and it's probable that the correlation is too small and too disguised by 'random' factors that it could only give generalisations over large populations and could say nothing meaningful about individual cases).
Because that would technically be more accurate - but if you leap to that stage when dealing with the superstitious, they'll just take it as reaffirming their belief in phrenology, or werewolves.

[Ahzoh]

Do you think it would help me to understand a tricon root system if I learn a Semitic language? Mind you, it would be Hebrew or Arabic, obscure or lesser known languages are not useful.

[Ceresz]

Honestly, all you need to do now is read the material you were linked to and gain some more experience. You're not gonna get it right the first time, but instead of getting depressed you should just power through and realize how exciting it is that you've got so much left to learn. However, if you want to learn a Semitic language that's all fine and well, but it seems like a counterproductive way to approach conlanging if you ask me.

[Avo]

Honestly, all you need to do now is read the material you were linked to and gain some more experience. You're not gonna get it right the first time, but instead of getting depressed you should just power through and realize how exciting it is that you've got so much left to learn. However, if you want to learn a Semitic language that's all fine and well, but it seems like a counterproductive way to approach conlanging if you ask me.

and also,

Mind you, it would be Hebrew or Arabic, obscure or lesser known languages are not useful.

a big what. for this sentence.

It's a conlang and it's your conlang. You can do whatever you want with it. However, reading about languages helps a lot if you're aiming for something naturalistic. In fact, I don't think one can make a plausible, naturalistic looking conlang without reading up about natlangs and knowing a bit what is going on in them. Of course this needs effort. And time. And patience. Whether this is worth it you have to decide yourself. You were linked some great resources over on the zbb, I can understand if it seems somewhat overwhelming for you at first sight, but you can still come back to either forum and ask about what you don't understand.

[Xing]

I found my old Wally Toxic pdf. I starded to develop an abugida/vowelled abjad/featural syllabary for it.

[Thrice Xandvii]

So what I'm hearing you say, Sal, is that Ahzoh believes in bumpy-headed werewolves.

[Ahzoh]

So what I'm hearing you say, Sal, is that Ahzoh believes in bumpy-headed werewolves.

No, but I should not assume that seeing "Causative" as a Binyan is an aspect when you see them grouped together (note: don't look at things at first glance).
It seems blatantly obvious that if, by definition, aspects refer to how something (habitually, continually, etc.) is done in a flow of time, then Causatives and Reflexives could not be aspects, because they are independant of time.

[eldin raigmore]

It seems blatantly obvious that if, by definition, aspects refer to how something (habitually, continually, etc.) is done in a flow of time, then Causatives and Reflexives could not be aspects, because they are independant of time.

Causative and Reflexive* are voices (like Xing said), not aspects, by the definitions usually used. (this is what Micamo meant by "semantically").
However, it may be that in some languages' verbs' morphology, it may be that the morpheme that communicates aspect can't be used if the morpheme that communicates causative or the one that communicates reflexive is used; in other words, they "occupy the same slot". (this is what Micamo meant by "morphologically").
If one is describing the grammar of such a language, one might need a single label for that "slot". Calling it "the aspect morpheme" might be the (or, at least, a) sensible thing.
(I say "morphologically" rather than "morphosyntactically", because, I think, any language must have some means to express anything that any other language could express. If a language's morphology doesn't allow it to express causativity and perfectivity (or whatever the combination is) on the same verb, then some syntactic means will allow that.)

I don't think that such a conflict is likely to be common. (If I'm wrong about that I'd like to see evidence? Thanks.)

There are languages in which tense and mood, for instance, do compete in such a way; perhaps typically, because all future clauses are irrealis.

But I don't see why a causative or a reflexive must or must not be perfective or be imperfective.

(And, btw, "intensive" is neither an aspect nor a voice semantically; it's (probably, usually) more of a mood.)

*Applied to verbs "reflexive" is a voice. Applied to pronouns "reflexive" is a person. Or at least that's my opinion. YMMV, I guess.

[hr][/hr]

Dewrad, on my post: http://www.incatena.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=42747

I'd take that advice with a grain of salt, really.

At least a grain. Half-a-dram (30 grains) might be more appropriate.

I guess your plan of action depends on the answer to one question... okay, maybe two:

• Was your aim when making the 'lang to have it be as naturalistic as possible?
• Do you really want to re-do all you've done because some dude on a forum doesn't like it?

If you answered "no" to one or both of those questions, I think you have very little to worry about. Yes, there is definitely stuff to be learned from folks on this and "that other" forum... Lots and lots of the people here (and over there) are very knowledgeable. Only some of them are worth listening to though.
For me, I take all criticisms and suggestions with a grain of salt. I'd like to think I have learned a lot and that my 'langs have improved over time, but honestly it isn't really about pleasing the forum for me. I like the discussion I sometimes get in my threads on languages, but if I don't like what someone is saying about how I did something, it is totally okay to ignore them and do it your own way. Just because you didn't do it that way in your language does NOT mean that it is wrong, or for me, more importantly, that you didn't learn something in the process.
If you ask me, ONLY start over, or make significant changes if you want to. If you genuinely see a need.

in a big way.

[Micamo]

While this is true, I think it's important to understand the hierarchy of understanding here.

First, there are people who do not realise that imperative is not an aspect.
Then there are people who DO realise that imperative is not an aspect.
Then there are people who learn that there may be times when it can be useful to call imperative an aspect nonetheless.

While it's true that it's wrong to insist on keeping everyone at the second level of that hierarchy, it's also true that something very important is learnt in moving from the first level to the second. And blanketly meeting criticism by reassuring people by trying to move them along to the third level prematurely means that people avoid learning that lesson - and because the lesson learnt in moving from the second to the third is itself based on that first lesson, they can't learn that one either.

I don't disagree with that, but I do think it's dangerous to make assumptions about a person's level of understanding about conlanging, especially from something as underdescribed as a simple list of morphemes. If you don't know whether they've made a mistake or if they have a reason for doing something slightly weird, the best way to go about it is to ask them instead of assuming they're idiots. Instead of saying "The imperative isn't an aspect, it's a mood", ask "Why is the imperative listed as an aspect? It's usually described as a mood."

[k1234567890y]

I have added many words of Qitatyattas which were posted in the Reverse Lexicon Building thread to let others help assign their meanings, however, some meanings of those words are adjusted to fit the grammar and the background culture of the Qitatyattas language.

[Chagen]

I FINALLY worked on the Sunbyaku number system. It's mostly like Japanese's, and is just as succinct (though Japanese derives its succinctness from Chinese loans). Some examples:

miro: one
hyoro: two
karo: three

sō-ka
ten-three
thirteen

kazō
three-ten
thirty

iyerzō-kele
eight-ten-sevent
eighty seven

rabigul kabūn iyerzō-bvū
four-thousand three-hundred eight-ten-five
four thousand three hundred eighty five

The number system goes up natively to 1 billion. The words, compared to English are...rather short:

būn: hundred
gul: thousand
vyūr: ten thousand
beul: hundred thousand (not actually būn and gul put together though it looks like it)
mū: million
mūkō: ten million
mūwa: hundred million
jīn: one billion

If Japanese can have chō for "one trillion", I can have short words for my numbers too.

All of this is, of course, subject to change. Does not represent final product.

[k1234567890y]

I FINALLY worked on the Sunbyaku number system. It's mostly like Japanese's, and is just as succinct (though Japanese derives its succinctness from Chinese loans). Some examples:

miro: one
hyoro: two
karo: three

sō-ka
ten-three
thirteen

kazō
three-ten
thirty

iyerzō-kele
eight-ten-sevent
eighty seven

rabigul kabūn iyerzō-bvū
four-thousand three-hundred eight-ten-five
four thousand three hundred eighty five

The number system goes up natively to 1 billion. The words, compared to English are...rather short:

būn: hundred
gul: thousand
vyūr: ten thousand
beul: hundred thousand (not actually būn and gul put together though it looks like it)
mū: million
mūkō: ten million
mūwa: hundred million
jīn: one billion

If Japanese can have chō for "one trillion", I can have short words for my numbers too.

All of this is, of course, subject to change. Does not represent final product.

looks to be good, is there a -ro suffix for numerals smaller than ten?

[Xing]

Now there are two numeral systems in בזקטבתי. One native, and one borrowed.