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

[loglorn]

Wow, which language was that on? Unconditional? Got me curious.

https://chridd.nfshost.com/diachronica/all#Palauan-ʀ_2

To Palauan, unconditional. Only example like that.

Seems like Palauan had a tendency to turn everything into s, as it also displays the peculiar change ɟ → s. If anyone has a source for the reconstructed phoneme inventory of Proto-Malayo-Polinesian i'd be interested in it.

[DesEsseintes]

Wow, which language was that on? Unconditional? Got me curious.

https://chridd.nfshost.com/diachronica/all#Palauan-ʀ_2

To Palauan, unconditional. Only example like that.

Seems like Palauan had a tendency to turn everything into s, as it also displays the peculiar change ɟ → s. If anyone has a source for the reconstructed phoneme inventory of Proto-Malayo-Polinesian i'd be interested in it.

ɟ → s is actually not that unusual. I've seen it several times, but I don't remember in which languages.

[Isfendil]

Wow, which language was that on? Unconditional? Got me curious.

https://chridd.nfshost.com/diachronica/all#Palauan-ʀ_2

To Palauan, unconditional. Only example like that.

Seems like Palauan had a tendency to turn everything into s, as it also displays the peculiar change ɟ → s. If anyone has a source for the reconstructed phoneme inventory of Proto-Malayo-Polinesian i'd be interested in it.

ɟ → s is actually not that unusual. I've seen it several times, but I don't remember in which languages.

I don't get it. How does a voiced stop become a voiceless fricative? Are there points or weight attached to specific kinds of lenition and fortition?

[loglorn]

Seems like Palauan had a tendency to turn everything into s, as it also displays the peculiar change ɟ → s. If anyone has a source for the reconstructed phoneme inventory of Proto-Malayo-Polinesian i'd be interested in it.

ɟ → s is actually not that unusual. I've seen it several times, but I don't remember in which languages.

I don't get it. How does a voiced stop become a voiceless fricative? Are there points or weight attached to specific kinds of lenition and fortition?

That one can be explained by intermediate steps, easier if the voicing distinction is dubious:

ɟ > c > ts > s

And i guess you can assign weight by how many intermediate steps it needs to be reasonable (since with enough of them everything is reasonable)

[DesEsseintes]

Note that, in a related development, Blackfoot had nearly unconditional j → s. This process whereby non-sibilant phonemes become sibilants is called assibilation.

Edit: I guess I should explicitly point out that this gives you an alternative path to get s from ɟ, namely ɟ → j → s

[loglorn]

Note that, in a related development, Blackfoot had nearly unconditional j → s. This process whereby non-sibilant phonemes become sibilants is called assibilation.

Edit: I guess I should explicitly point out that this gives you an alternative path to get s from ɟ, namely ɟ → j → s

I get assibilation of fricatives, but straight from voiced approximants is not something I'd have thought of.

[Auvon]

How should I diachronically evolve affixes, as relevant sound changes will often be dependent on what they're attached to? Just regularize them after doing normal sound changes?

[Creyeditor]

How should I diachronically evolve affixes, as relevant sound changes will often be dependent on what they're attached to? Just regularize them after doing normal sound changes?

Yes. Thi is often called change by analogy.

[Isfendil]

How should I diachronically evolve affixes, as relevant sound changes will often be dependent on what they're attached to? Just regularize them after doing normal sound changes?

Yes. Thi is often called change by analogy.

I don't understand this but feel like I'd benefit from it. Could this be illustrated using a hypothetical example?

[Salmoneus]

How should I diachronically evolve affixes, as relevant sound changes will often be dependent on what they're attached to? Just regularize them after doing normal sound changes?

Yes. Thi is often called change by analogy.

I don't understand this but feel like I'd benefit from it. Could this be illustrated using a hypothetical example?

Let's say the accusative is shown by the suffix -gal, giving paradigms like:

NOM: muma; saki; venko; ran
ACC: mumagal; sakigal; venkogal; rangal
DAT: mumator; sakitor; venkotor; rantor
GEN: mumanuns; sakinuns; venkonuns; rannuns.

Plain and regular. But now there is a sound change: g > j /i_ - and that is then followed by neutralisation of unstressed vowels...

That means that we now have:
NOM: mume; sake; venku; ran
ACC: mumegel; sakejel; venkugel; rangel
DAT: mumetur; saketur; venkutur; rantur
GEN: mumenuns; sakenuns; venkununs; rannuns.

This regular sound change has given declension paradigms that are perfectly regular except that a small number of words (those formerly ending in -i) have the irregular accusative ending -jel, while all other nouns have the ending -gel, and there is no way for speakers to know which ending is appropriate other than memorisation.

So speakers can do one of two things: they can memorise the fact that certain words fall into a second 'declension', or they can just remember that the accusative is always '-gel', and start saying 'sakegel'. This is called levelling (making the same) by analogy (copying from one place into another - here, from one declension into another).

When people pick levelling and when they pick making a new declension seems hard to predict. It probably is partly random, and perhaps also has to do with sociology (languages spoken by many language-learners in egalitarian societies will probably simplify by levelling more quickly, whereas languages spoken by small numbers of monolingual speakers who show elaborate social distinctions through their language use are probably more likely to memorise complicated paradigms).

It's also of course to do with how much variation there is. If sound changes have produced only a tiny amount of variation - a small number of rare words have abnormal forms in one case - then it's likely that these variations will be ignored and levelled. If, on the other hand, every single word has an entirely unique declension (or conjugation) pattern that has to be memorised individually, it's again likely that this complexity will be levelled through analogy - although it can take quite a long time due to the shear complexity (see how weirdnesses inherited from PIE's verbal system have been gradually filed down over millennia - e.g. we still have "stood" as the past tense of "stand", though no other verb loses a nasal in the past tense).

In between those extremes are situations where there is a lot of variation - to the extent that no single paradigm is overwhelmingly common - but the variations fall into easily-remembered groups, which become fixed declensions and conjugations.

[Odkidstr]

In OV languages, what is the typical word order for complement clauses and conjunctions? Say a sentence like: He ate the apple because she told him to or He ate an apple and she ate an orange.

I imagine in SOV such sentences would read as: He the apple because she him told ate and He an apple ate and she an orange ate?

[Isfendil]

-snip-

So this is like over-generalization except it can choose to be done consciously by adults when an irregularity calls for it?

I mean I understand but I wanna see if my comparison is correct.

Thank you Salmoneus!

[Creyeditor]

-snip-

So this is like over-generalization except it can choose to be done consciously by adults when an irregularity calls for it?

I mean I understand but I wanna see if my comparison is correct.

Thank you Salmoneus!

More like over-generalization that becomes acceptable when the children grow up.

[LinguoFranco]

Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?

[Isfendil]

Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?

Is this a general question asked to all of us?

[LinguoFranco]

Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?

Is this a general question asked to all of us?

Yes.

[Ebon]

Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?

I'll take both, but I lean towards agglutinative a little more, I think.

[Isfendil]

Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?

I prefer agglutinative but my first language is dear to my heart and it is fusional IE. Also if languages with Nonconcatenative morphology are fusional then I like that just as much in that case.

[qwed117]

Note that, in a related development, Blackfoot had nearly unconditional j → s. This process whereby non-sibilant phonemes become sibilants is called assibilation.

Edit: I guess I should explicitly point out that this gives you an alternative path to get s from ɟ, namely ɟ → j → s

I get assibilation of fricatives, but straight from voiced approximants is not something I'd have thought of.

The thing at hand is the precision of the tongue and lips. It's really hard to have an approximant, and not a fricative or cardinal vowel (that is; if there is a difference between the two). As a vocalic realization would have a longer length, and language on part of the speaker is all about being as short as possible, the approximant quickly hardens to a fricative. This process is happening in Spanish, and is attested elsewhere, as mentioned before, Blackfoot and Palauan. This same occurence likely affected the development of the satemization in IE languages, Greco-Romance vetacism. In some cases, the reverse can occur, quite notably the Italo-Romanian isogloss, which has the change s>j, which later monophthongizes.

[gestaltist]

Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?

I prefer isolating languages. I don't have a preference between agglutinative and fusional. Now that I think of it, most of my conlangs are at a stage of transformation from isolating to agglutinative.