Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]

[Adarain]

I don't see why not. If you have a grammatical difference between the tense and lax, instead of length, how about this instead:

Originally, there was no distinction between tense and lax vowels. Vowels then became lax everyehere except when followed by certain clusters, say for example geminates.

Now say that the plural marker geminated the previous consonant:

tak
take
takke

In the first two, the a becomes lax à but not before the double k:

tàk
tàke
takke

Gemination is lost, making the contrasting vowels phonemic

tàk
tàke
take

Final -e weakens and is lost, causing compensatory lengthening in the previous syllable:

tàk
tààk
taak

Lax long vowels diphthongize

tàk
tajk
taak

What I'm getting at is, yea. Basically everything is plausible, you just need to think of a good excuse and think of the implications. Here, for example, having a diphthong in a root would imply that the word at some point must have had some reason to lengthen a vowel ... or it already had a diphthong.

I like thinking about how language changes a lot.

Also, if you notice something doesn't fit in, well, it's a loanword :P

[loglorn]

What I'm getting at is, yea. Basically everything is plausible, you just need to think of a good excuse

That's one of the reasons i do diachronics.

(The other is that i can unleash my overdose of ideas that don't work together by using one in each branch, and in the end that's actually doing things right)

[HoskhMatriarch]

It seems plausible enough. Here is one way it could arise: metathesis and compensatory lengthening and then analogy. Let’s say these patterns are used for Sg, Du and Pl:

Sg: tak
Du: taki → ta.ik (metathesis) → tajk (killing the hiatus)
Pl: takə → tāk (dropping -ə and lengthening the vowel, as happened in english)

And then later by analogy, the diphthong pattern spread to words that had CC codas as well and didn’t directly undergo metathesis, and those where the root vowel wasn’t next to the plural ending and possibly didn’t get affected by lengthening therefore.

That's nice, except that the patterns are used for words with tense vowels, words with lax vowels, and words with diphthongs, so it would be like tak, tuk, tik for tak.

Edit: I think I'm just going to have one group for long vowels (including diphthongs) and one for short vowels, which will be different even if vowels are the same quality. That seems like it makes sense, although I don't know why...

[Ahzoh]

At the present, I have gender-case ending for nouns in this way:
NOM/ACC: -i (masc), -a (feminine), -0 (neuter;zero-marked)
GEN: -ir (masc), -ash (feminine), -un (neuter)
PL NOM/ACC: -il (masc), -an (feminine), -ad (neuter;zero-marked)
PL GEN: -iru (masc), -ashu (feminine), -unu (neuter)
And the construct state would have similar:
NOM/ACC: -i (masc), -a (feminine), -u (neuter)
GEN: -is (masc), -ag (feminine), -ul (neuter)
PL NOM/ACC: -ib (masc), -at (feminine), -um (neuter;zero-marked)
PL GEN: -isi (masc), -agi (feminine), -uli (neuter)

I'm wondering if I should instead indicate the construct state with the zero marking of gender and simultaneously add some genderless plural suffix for the construct state.

[loglorn]

At the present, I have gender-case ending for nouns in this way:
NOM/ACC: -i (masc), -a (feminine), -0 (neuter;zero-marked)
GEN: -ir (masc), -ash (feminine), -un (neuter)
PL NOM/ACC: -il (masc), -an (feminine), -ad (neuter;zero-marked)
PL GEN: -iru (masc), -ashu (feminine), -unu (neuter)
And the construct state would have similar:
NOM/ACC: -i (masc), -a (feminine), -u (neuter)
GEN: -is (masc), -ag (feminine), -ul (neuter)
PL NOM/ACC: -ib (masc), -at (feminine), -um (neuter;zero-marked)
PL GEN: -isi (masc), -agi (feminine), -uli (neuter)

I'm wondering if I should instead indicate the construct state with the zero marking of gender and simultaneously add some genderless plural suffix for the construct state.

I like what you have now, but in no way oppose to the change.

[felipesnark]

I'm wondering if I should instead indicate the construct state with the zero marking of gender and simultaneously add some genderless plural suffix for the construct state.

I like what you have now, but in no way oppose to the change.

[zyma]

I'm wondering if I should instead indicate the construct state with the zero marking of gender and simultaneously add some genderless plural suffix for the construct state.

I like what you have now, but in no way oppose to the change.

I feel that way as well. Although I am curious as to what situation would call for a noun to be genitive and in the construct state. I suppose if a noun is both modifying/possessing one thing and being modified/possessed by something else at the same time…?

[Ahzoh]

I'm wondering if I should instead indicate the construct state with the zero marking of gender and simultaneously add some genderless plural suffix for the construct state.

I like what you have now, but in no way oppose to the change.

I feel that way as well. Although I am curious as to what situation would call for a noun to be genitive and in the construct state. I suppose if a noun is both modifying/possessing one thing and being modified/possessed by something else at the same time…?

Yes, especially if you wanted to say "king of the mountain of thorns" or "thorn's mountain's king".
I decided on the new changes, because I have no way to diachronically innovate all of the affixes, especially for the neuter gender, since Taksheyut only has Masculine and Feminine.

So I decided to simplify things and make them more regular:

See, now has a simple formula:
MASC -i
MASC PL -il
FEM -a
FEM PL -an
NEUT -u
NEUT -ud

NOM -0-
ACC tu-/t-
GEN -uts-
ALL -ech-
ABL -if-

For construct state:
NEUT -0
NEUT -um

NOM -0-
ACC tu-/t-
GEN -al-
ALL -ej-
ABL -iv-

[Alomar]

I'm thinking about making "plosive voicing harmony/assimiliation":
e.g.
ka when appended with -bi would yield:
gabi

Does this seem absurd?
Would such a system also bleed into the fricatives?

Background(maybe): I think my brain is somehow channeling the elimination of multiple voiced aspirates when PIE became Greek (if I am remembering properly), but as I write this down, this seems obviously not related at all...

[Ahzoh]

I'm thinking about making "plosive voicing harmony/assimiliation":
e.g.
ka when appended with -bi would yield:
gabi

Does this seem absurd?
Would such a system also bleed into the fricatives?

Background(maybe): I think my brain is somehow channeling the elimination of multiple voiced aspirates when PIE became Greek (if I am remembering properly), but as I write this down, this seems obviously not related at all...

I think Japanese does something like this...

[zyma]

I'm thinking about making "plosive voicing harmony/assimiliation":
e.g.
ka when appended with -bi would yield:
gabi

Does this seem absurd?
Would such a system also bleed into the fricatives?

Background(maybe): I think my brain is somehow channeling the elimination of multiple voiced aspirates when PIE became Greek (if I am remembering properly), but as I write this down, this seems obviously not related at all...

I think Japanese does something like this...

No, not as far as I know. Rendaku may be what you're thinking of, but that's when a word's initial voiceless consonant becomes voiced when that word follows another in a compound word… see the link for a better explanation.

As for the original question, I can't think of any natlang examples, but perhaps someone else can?

[loglorn]

I'm thinking about making "plosive voicing harmony/assimiliation":
e.g.
ka when appended with -bi would yield:
gabi

Does this seem absurd?
Would such a system also bleed into the fricatives?

Background(maybe): I think my brain is somehow channeling the elimination of multiple voiced aspirates when PIE became Greek (if I am remembering properly), but as I write this down, this seems obviously not related at all...

I think you mean Grassmann's Law. Grassmann's kinda did the opposite, it is a dissimilatory process. But, the opposite, assimilatory sound change that would lead to such a system sounds feasible. I think it doesn't need to extend to fricatives, but may extend to voiceless plosives (i.e. ga + pi = kapi).

[zyma]

I'm thinking about making "plosive voicing harmony/assimiliation":
e.g.
ka when appended with -bi would yield:
gabi

Does this seem absurd?
Would such a system also bleed into the fricatives?

Background(maybe): I think my brain is somehow channeling the elimination of multiple voiced aspirates when PIE became Greek (if I am remembering properly), but as I write this down, this seems obviously not related at all...

I think you mean Grassmann's Law. Grassmann's kinda did the opposite, it is a dissimilatory process. But, the opposite, assimilatory sound change that would lead to such a system sounds feasible. I think it doesn't need to extend to fricatives, but may extend to voiceless plosives (i.e. ga + pi = kapi).

Perhaps they were thinking of Bartholomae's law? Grassmann's law is certainly a possibility as well, though, and there are probably some other IE sound change laws I'm forgetting about.

Anyway, loglorn's explanation makes sense to me, and in case you want it to affect fricatives too, I'd think it could, but as has been said, it wouldn't have to.

Edit: Dahl's law could possibly also be relevant.

[Alomar]

I'm thinking about making "plosive voicing harmony/assimiliation":
e.g.
ka when appended with -bi would yield:
gabi

Does this seem absurd?
Would such a system also bleed into the fricatives?

Background(maybe): I think my brain is somehow channeling the elimination of multiple voiced aspirates when PIE became Greek (if I am remembering properly), but as I write this down, this seems obviously not related at all...

I think you mean Grassmann's Law. Grassmann's kinda did the opposite, it is a dissimilatory process. But, the opposite, assimilatory sound change that would lead to such a system sounds feasible. I think it doesn't need to extend to fricatives, but may extend to voiceless plosives (i.e. ga + pi = kapi).

Perhaps they were thinking of Bartholomae's law? Grassmann's law is certainly a possibility as well, though, and there are probably some other IE sound change laws I'm forgetting about.

Anyway, loglorn's explanation makes sense to me, and in case you want it to affect fricatives too, I'd think it could, but as has been said, it wouldn't have to.

Edit: Dahl's law could possibly also be relevant.

Y'all are great! I was definitely thinking Grassmann's law, but the other two are super interesting!

[Adarain]

Before I go to sleep, here is an idea I've had for the alignment of Semũr:

As posted elsewhere, Semũr has quite a bunch of noun classes. Depending on the animacy of the classes, these trigger different alignment:

The most animate (Humans, Animals and possibly spiritual) will always trigger nom-acc alignment. A class of less animate ones (Plants, Deadly Things, maybe some others) trigger nom-acc when used as pronouns but erg-abs as nouns. The others are always erg-abs.

Yay or nay?

[zyma]

Before I go to sleep, here is an idea I've had for the alignment of Semũr:

As posted elsewhere, Semũr has quite a bunch of noun classes. Depending on the animacy of the classes, these trigger different alignment:

The most animate (Humans, Animals and possibly spiritual) will always trigger nom-acc alignment. A class of less animate ones (Plants, Deadly Things, maybe some others) trigger nom-acc when used as pronouns but erg-abs as nouns. The others are always erg-abs.

Yay or nay?

Yay.

[QuantumWraith]

Before I go to sleep, here is an idea I've had for the alignment of Semũr:

As posted elsewhere, Semũr has quite a bunch of noun classes. Depending on the animacy of the classes, these trigger different alignment:

The most animate (Humans, Animals and possibly spiritual) will always trigger nom-acc alignment. A class of less animate ones (Plants, Deadly Things, maybe some others) trigger nom-acc when used as pronouns but erg-abs as nouns. The others are always erg-abs.

Yay or nay?

Yay.

I'll see your yay and raise you yay

[All4Ɇn]

I started working on the Islogian naming customs and wanted to know what people thought:

Typically people have 4 names in Islogian. A given name, 2 middle names, and a last name. The given and last name work much the same way they do in the rest of the world. However, as last names were only added fairly recently most names are either borrowed from Arabic, Turkish, or French or come from the words for various professions. Women never change their last name to their husband's.

The first middle name is patriarchial. It consists of the word bĭn (m) or bĭnt (f) followed by the given name of the person's father. When the given name ends with a consonant and the first middle name starts with a vowel, bĭn/bĭnt become the prefixes ibn (m) or ibnat (f). When the father's name is unknown the mother's name is used, if the mother's name is unknown the main caregiver of the child's name is used.

The second middle name is based on location and marital status. Before marriage the name consists of the word De/D' prefixed before the name of the city where the child was born. When the city is unknown or if the person is from a very small town, typically the name of the country is used instead. After marriage, the De/D' is kept but the city name is replaced with the given name of the spouse. When divorced, the name returns back to its original form.

Sample name: Iussĕph IbnAbdullah DeSara Cantante

Does this seem too Arabic for a language unrelated to (but heavily influenced by) Arabic?

[Keenir]

I started working on the Islogian naming customs and wanted to know what people thought:

Typically people have 4 names in Islogian. A given name, 2 middle names, and a last name. The given and last name work much the same way they do in the rest of the world. However, as last names were only added fairly recently most names are either borrowed from Arabic, Turkish, or French or come from the words for various professions. Women never change their last name to their husband's.

they sorta do - you say so below: After marriage, the De/D' is kept but the city name is replaced with the given name of the spouse.
...so, not taking the husband's surname, but it is changed.

But in a way that's novel; I like it.

Sample name: Iussĕph IbnAbdullah DeSara Cantante

Does this seem too Arabic for a language unrelated to (but heavily influenced by) Arabic?

I can see the Arabic influence, but I'm not sure its too Arabic. (what would that be?) it has, after all, differences from Arabic as well.

[zyma]

I started working on the Islogian naming customs and wanted to know what people thought:

Spoiler:

Typically people have 4 names in Islogian. A given name, 2 middle names, and a last name. The given and last name work much the same way they do in the rest of the world. However, as last names were only added fairly recently most names are either borrowed from Arabic, Turkish, or French or come from the words for various professions. Women never change their last name to their husband's.

The first middle name is patriarchial. It consists of the word bĭn (m) or bĭnt (f) followed by the given name of the person's father. When the given name ends with a consonant and the first middle name starts with a vowel, bĭn/bĭnt become the prefixes ibn (m) or ibnat (f). When the father's name is unknown the mother's name is used, if the mother's name is unknown the main caregiver of the child's name is used.

The second middle name is based on location and marital status. Before marriage the name consists of the word De/D' prefixed before the name of the city where the child was born. When the city is unknown or if the person is from a very small town, typically the name of the country is used instead. After marriage, the De/D' is kept but the city name is replaced with the given name of the spouse. When divorced, the name returns back to its original form.

Sample name: Iussĕph IbnAbdullah DeSara Cantante

Does this seem too Arabic for a language unrelated to (but heavily influenced by) Arabic?

Interesting! Also, I personally don't think it's too heavily based on Arabic naming customs. To me, it actually seems like direct linguistic and cultural (I believe you've said that most Islogians are Muslim, and naming customs can have a lot to do with religion) influence would be more likely to result in multiple languages/cultures having similar naming customs than multiple cultures just happening to speak languages that share familial/genetic relationships. Hopefully I've stated that in a way that makes sense.