zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:09 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Arve
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:52 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Arve [ˈhɛu̯wɪj]

Another development thread. I have one over on the CBB, so I may as well put it here also. Starting with what I already have, and I'll keep this thread updated with the development process from there. Also, I'm writing most things in [brackets] because this is very hard to analyze.

Consonants:
Code:
pʰ  tʰ          cʰ  kʰ
p   t   ts  ʈʂ  c   k       q   (ʔ)
        s   ʂ   ç   x   xʷ  χ   (h)
ⱱ   l               ɣ
w   (ð̞)         j
    r̥
   r                       ʀ

ʔ only appears in limited environments that I haven't worked out yet. (Probably between the constituent parts of compounds, between a verb and an incorporated noun, etc.) When it appears directly after a vowel, it gives that vowel creaky voice and disappears, except before another vowel; in that case, it forms a diphthong when it can (satte [ˈsʌ̤i̯˧˥]) and remains when it can't. It's also an allophone of syllable-final /t/.
h only appears word-initially (en [hen˩]) and word-finally from earlier */β ð ɣ/ (zigg [ˈt͡sɛh˩]).
ð̞ is an allophone of /t/ in unstressed position. The other approximants, /w j ɣ/, also appear as allophones of stops, but they can also appear in stressed position. (No examples in vocabulary yet, but hypothetical examples are easy to come up with: ebvonn [hɪˈwɞn˩], echdon [hɪˈjøn˩], echdonn [hɪˈɣɞn˩].)
Also, ɣ palatalizes to [j] before nonlow front vowels. Not sure whether this will happen with other consonants. t palatalizes to ts.
There will probably be some sort of allophony with r̥ since I don't like it.

Vowels:
Code:
iy ʊ u

ɛ  ɞʌɔ
  a
 
aɔ ʊi ɛa ɛɔ ie yø uo ʌi øy ɔu

This can get a bit complicated. There are three series of stressed vowels in Arve:
* short vowels, [ɛ ɞ ʌ ɔ ø ʊ], are written as followed by double consonants. I'm probably going to explain this as some sort of areal feature where weird things happen to geminates, since a neighboring lang had geminates > preaspirates. Maybe preglottalization, whatever.
* long vowels, [a aɔ e ø ʊi i y u], are the default.
* overlong vowels, [ɛa ɛu ie yø uo ʌi øy ɔu], are... well, that's a bit complicated. Basically, they came from diphthongization of vowels given compensatory lengthening from the loss of a resonant in a consonant cluster. It's safe to assume that, when you see a consonant cluster, it's probably pronounced as only one consonant, and if the cluster starts with a resonant (<l r v j m n> and maybe <b d g>; I'm not sure about them yet), the preceding vowel is overlong.

Also, note that [ø] can be both a short vowel and a long vowel.

[ɛɔ] is [ɛu] before labials and velars.

Now, how do you write those vowels, you ask? Well, that's pretty simple:
Code:
    short   long    overlong
ä   ʌ      a       ɛa
a   ɔ      aɔ      ɛu
e   ʌ      e       ie
ö   ʊ      ʊi      yø
o   ɞ      ø       uo
i   ɛ      i        ʌi
y/ü ø      y       øy
u   ʊ      u       ɔu

Note that historical *o fronted in the short and long forms.

The mid/high diphthongs, [ie yø uo ʌi øy ɔu], can also be written <ie yö uo ei öy ou>. This is the only case where <y> and <ü> aren't interchangeable. My excuse here is that they originally represented two different vowels, which eventually merged.

There are also four unstressed vowels, [ɐ ɪ ʏ ʊ], written <a e y u>. (The <e> is probably a result of orthographic influence from Serhes Kettw, which only has two vowels, written <a e>.) [ɐ] can also come from <er el> (satteger [ˈsʌ̤i̯˧˥jɐ]). The last three take glides when word-final: Arve [ˈhɛu̯wɪj], not *[ˈhɛu̯wɪ].

Prosody:
Arve doesn't allow two adjacent syllables in a word to both be unstressed. When that happens, one of the syllables drops out, but it leaves its tone behind. I'll work this out more later.

Tone:
Every word has an underlying sequence of tones. That sequence is mostly predictable from the orthography: if a syllable ends in a voiced consonant, it has a low tone; if not, it has a high tone. But it's much more complicated than that, because only stressed syllables can carry phonemic tone (realized unstressed syllables can carry their tone, but it's always predictable), and stressed syllables can only carry two tones. Two-tone sequences are realized as contours; there are four tone contours: low rising, low falling, high rising, and high falling. I'm not sure how to write this up, so here are some examples, drawn from the copula conjugation chart that I've been writing up: (Also, tone is assigned from left to right, stress is marked here with an underline, and dropped syllables are italicized, as are dropped tones in the tone syllabification. There are more dropped syllables here than there would be in most other places.)

en tegnas
Syllabification: en tegnas
Tone sequence: LLH
Tone syllabification: (LL)H
Realization: [ˈr̥ɛŋs˩˧]

die tegnan
Syllabification: die tegnan
Tone sequence: HLL
Tone syllabification: (HL)L
Realization: [ˈt͡sɛŋ˧˩ɐ̃n]

satte
Syllabification: satte
Tone sequence: HH
Tone syllabification: (HH)
Realization: [ˈsʌ̤i̯˧˥]

en sattes
Syllabification: en sattes
Tone sequence: LHH
Tone syllabification: (LH)H
Realization: [ˈr̥ʌ̤i̯s˧˥]

Orthography:
I'll get around to this later. It's complicated, and I haven't worked it out that much yet. Just remember the consonant cluster rule that I mentioned earlier. Also, it's probably safe to guess that anything with <s> is either [ʂ] or [ç], anything with two alveolars is a trill, anything that's obviously palatal is palatal, and anything else is some sort of uvular.

Copula:
Arve uses periphrastic constructions with the copula for most things. What I have so far is here, although that's out of date. Here's the perfective active conjugated for person and number:
Code:
SINGULAR
positive past       tegna           ˈt͡sɛŋ˩˧        en tegnas   ˈr̥ɛŋs˩˧       die tegnan  ˈt͡sɛŋ˧˩ɐn   kes tegnar   ˈçɛŋ˧˩ɐχ
positive present    satte           ˈsʌ̤i̯˧˥         en sattes   ˈr̥ʌ̤i̯s˧˥       die satten  ˈsʌ̤i̯n˥˧     kes satter   ˈçʌ̤i̯˥˧jɐ
positive future     terch           ˈt͡sʌχ˥         en terches  ˈr̥ʌχ˧˥ɪs      die terchen ˈt͡sʌχɪn˥˧   kes tercher  ˈçʌχ˥˧ɐ
negative past       san             ˈsaɔ̯n˩         en sanz     ˈr̥aɔ̯nt͡s˧˥     die sann    ˈsʌn˧˩      kes sander   ˈçɛɔ̯r˧˩ɐ
negative present    zigg            ˈt͡sɛh˩         en ziggs    ˈr̥ɛç˩˧        die ziggen  ˈt͡sɛj˧˩ɪn   kes zigger   ˈçɛj˧˩ɐ
negative future     sambe           ˈsɛɔ̯f˩˧        en sambes   ˈr̥ɛɔ̯vɪs       die samben  ˈsɛɔ̯v˧˩ɪn   kes samber   ˈçɛɔ̯v˧˩ɐ

PLURAL
positive past       tegnes          ˈt͡sɛŋks˩˧      vön tegnes  vʏˈr̥ɛŋs˩˧     den tegnes  ð̞ɪˈr̥ɛŋs˩˧    kors tegnes  ˈʂɛŋ˧˩ɪs
positive present    sattes          ˈsʌ̤i̯s˧˥        vön sattes  vʏˈr̥ʌ̤i̯s˧˥     den sattes  ð̞ɪˈr̥ʌ̤i̯s˧˥    kors sattes  ˈʂʌ̤i̯s˥˧
positive future     terches         ˈt͡sʌχ˥ɪs       vön terches vʏˈr̥ʌχ˧˥ɪs    den terches ð̞ɪˈr̥ʌχ˧˥ɪs   kors terches ˈʂʌχ˥˧ɪs
negative past       sanz            ˈsaɔ̯nt͡s˩       vön sanz    vʏˈr̥aɔ̯nt͡s˧˥   den sanz    ð̞ɪˈr̥aɔ̯nt͡s˧˥  kors sanz    ˈʂɛɔ̯nt͡s˧˩
negative present    ziggs           ˈt͡sɛç˥         vön ziggs   vʏˈr̥ɛç˩˧      den ziggs   ð̞ɪˈr̥ɛç˩˧     kors ziggs   ˈʂɛç˧˩
negative future     sambes          ˈsɛɔ̯v˩ɪs       vön sambes  vʏˈr̥ɛɔ̯vɪs     den sambes  ð̞ɪˈr̥ɛɔ̯vɪs    kors sambes  ˈʂɛɔ̯v˧˩ɪs


I am obviously going to simplify this a lot once I get more done on it and figure out how it works well enough to run analogy on it. Also, I'm considering changing the 1P and 2P pronouns so they don't end in -n, so I get different mutation patterns.

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:11 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
It looks like German orthography grafted onto a phonological nightmare, but I think it's excellent... Need moar.

_________________
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:10 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Bristel wrote:
It looks like German orthography grafted onto a phonological nightmare, but I think it's excellent... Need moar.

Awesome; that's exactly what I was trying to do. Except the phonology was inspired more by Danish than anything else, except maybe Tibetan.

Anyway, here are some more charts, along with a few updates:

Deleting the tone system. They're not as useful as I originally thought they'd be. I might add a better tone system later. Also, I'm changing the 2P pronoun from die to zeu so I get better consonant alternation patterns. I'll explain the <u> away by saying it's /w/ or something. I don't like this from an aesthetic perspective, though, so I'll probably change it again if I find something better.

Updated charts, now with more things:
Code:
PERFECTIVE:
ACTIVE SINGULAR
positive past       tegna           ˈt͡sɛŋ        en tegnas     ˈr̥ɛŋs       die tegnan    ˈt͡sɛŋɐn    kes tegnar     ˈçɛŋɐ
positive present    satte           ˈsʌ̤i̯         en sattes     ˈr̥ʌ̤i̯s       die satten    ˈsʌ̤i̯n      kes satter     ˈçʌ̤i̯jɐ
positive future     terch           ˈt͡sʌχ        en terches    ˈr̥ʌχɪs      die terchen   ˈt͡sʌχɪn    kes tercher    ˈçʌχɐ
negative past       san             ˈsaɔ̯n        en sanz       ˈr̥aɔ̯nt͡s     die sann      ˈsʌn       kes sander     ˈçɛɔ̯rɐ
negative present    zigg            ˈt͡sɛh        en ziggs      ˈr̥ɛç        die ziggen    ˈt͡sɛjɪn    kes zigger     ˈçɛjɐ
negative future     sambe           ˈsɛɔ̯v        en sambes     ˈr̥ɛɔ̯vɪs     die samben    ˈsɛɔ̯vɪn    kes samber     ˈçɛɔ̯vɐ
ACTIVE PLURAL           
positive past       tegnes          ˈt͡sɛŋks      vön tegnes    vʏˈr̥ɛŋks    zeu tegnes    ˈxʷɛŋks    kors tegnes    ˈʂɛŋks
positive present    sattes          ˈsʌ̤i̯s        vön sattes    vʏˈr̥ʌ̤i̯s     zeu sattes    ˈxʷʌ̤i̯s     kors sattes    ˈʂʌ̤i̯s
positive future     terches         ˈt͡sʌχɪs      vön terches   vʏˈr̥ʌχɪs    zeu terches   ˈxʷʌχɪs    kors terches   ˈʂʌχɪs
negative past       sanz            ˈsaɔ̯nt͡s      vön sanz      vʏˈr̥aɔ̯nt͡s   zeu sanz      ˈxʷaɔ̯nt͡s   kors sanz      ˈʂaɔ̯nt͡s
negative present    ziggs           ˈt͡sɛç        vön ziggs     vʏˈr̥ɛç      zeu ziggs     ˈxʷɛç      kors ziggs     ˈʂɛç
negative future     sambes          ˈsɛɔ̯vɪs      vön sambes    vʏˈr̥ɛɔ̯vɪs   zeu sambes    ˈxʷɛɔ̯vɪs   kors sambes    ˈʂɛɔ̯vɪs
PASSIVE SINGULAR
positive past       tegnager        ˈt͡sɛɲjɐ      en tegnasger  ˈr̥ɛɲc͡çɐ     die tegnanger ˈt͡sɛɴʀɐ    kes tegnarger  ˈçɛɴʀɐ
positive present    satteger        ˈsʌ̤i̯jɐ       en sattesger  ˈr̥ʌ̤i̯çɐ      die sattenger ˈsʌ̤i̯ʀɐ     kes satterger  ˈçʌ̤i̯ʀɐ
positive future     terger          ˈt͡sie̯ʀjɐ     en tersger    ˈr̥ie̯çɐ      die ternger   ˈt͡sie̯ʀɐ    kes terger     ˈçie̯ʀjɐ
negative past       sanger          ˈsɛɔ̯ʀɐ       en sanzger    ˈr̥aɔ̯ɲc͡çɐ    die sannger   ˈsʌʀɐ      kes sandger    ˈçɛɔ̯rjɐ
negative present    zeijer          ˈt͡sʌi̯jɐ      en zeisger    ˈr̥ʌi̯çɐ      die zeinger   ˈt͡sʌi̯ʀɐ    kes zeierger   ˈçʌi̯ʀɐ
negative future     sambeger        ˈsɛɔ̯vjɐ      en sambesger  ˈr̥ɛɔ̯fçɐ     die sambenger ˈsɛɔ̯vʀɐ    kes samberger  ˈçɛɔ̯vʀɐ
PASSIVE PLURAL     
positive past       tegnesger       ˈt͡sɛɲc͡çɐ     vön tegnesger vʏˈr̥ɛɲc͡çɐ   zeu tegnesger ˈxʷɛɲc͡çɐ   kors tegnesger ˈʂɛɲc͡çɐ
positive present    sattesger       ˈsʌ̤i̯çɐ       vön sattesger vʏˈr̥ʌ̤i̯çɐ    zeu sattesger ˈxʷʌ̤i̯çɐ    kors sattesger ˈʂʌ̤i̯çɐ   
positive future     tercheger       ˈt͡sʌçɐ       vön tercheger vʏˈr̥ʌçɐ     zeu tercheger ˈxʷʌçɐ     kors tercheger ˈʂʌçɐ   
negative past       sanzger         ˈsaɔ̯nt͡sjɐ    vön sanzger   vʏˈr̥aɔ̯ɲc͡çɐ  zeu sanzger   ˈxʷaɔ̯ɲc͡çɐ  kors sanzger   ˈʂaɔ̯ɲc͡çɐ
negative present    zeisger         ˈt͡sʌi̯çɐ      vön zeisger   vʏˈr̥ʌi̯çɐ    zeu zeisger   ˈxʷʌi̯çɐ    kors zeisger   ˈʂʌi̯çɐ   
negative future     sambesger       ˈsɛɔfçɐ      vön sambesger vʏˈr̥ɛɔ̯fçɐ   zeu sambesger ˈxʷɛɔ̯fçɐ   kors sambesger ˈʂɛɔ̯fçɐ   


This is starting to seem a bit like Arabic in reverse: vocalic roots with different consonants depending on what's going on. Except obviously it's nowhere near that clean.

I'm working out the imperfective now, and that starts getting into periphrastic forms. The negative past, for example, is san trei. How realistic would it be to have the pronoun move to right before the nonfinite form: sanz en trei instead of en sanz trei? It seems aesthetically better to me that way, but I can't think of a good way to justify it.

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Last edited by Nortaneous on Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:56 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Tokyo
Don't you think there would come a point where users of this orthography would go "fuck it" and start writing things in the IPA or equivalent? :|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:48 am 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:48 pm
Posts: 142
I don't have time to say anything more in depth right now, but this is kickass.

_________________
p_>-ts_>k_>-k_>k_>-pSSSSS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:09 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Posts: 2974
Location: Israel
I'm with finlay... This orthography makes me want to hurt something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:14 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Tokyo
Especially in this case, you haven't given us any orthography rules besides a non-committal vague cluster rule. So all we can go on is the phonetic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:35 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
finlay wrote:
Don't you think there would come a point where users of this orthography would go "fuck it" and start writing things in the IPA or equivalent? :|

Tibetan seems to have managed.

finlay wrote:
Especially in this case, you haven't given us any orthography rules besides a non-committal vague cluster rule. So all we can go on is the phonetic.

That's because there's no real way to describe the orthography besides listing digraphs, trigraphs, etc. and the sound they represent. I guess I could post the list that I have now, but it's messy as hell and hard to read. (° ☾ = front/back vowels)

Code:
pʰ: p
tʰ: t
cʰ: k° tg tj kj
kʰ: k☾
p:  b
t:  d
ts: z ts tz ds dz tl dl lt  ld
ʈʂ: rz° zr° kr° gr° rg°
c:  jj dg dj gj (P = any voiced plosive)
k:  k°
s:  s
ʂ:  rs° sr° rst° skr° str° [rz° zr° in unstressed syllables]
ç:  st sts sz sk ks stj sjt jst js jz hj jh jhk jkh jht jth htj thj tjh hjt sg gs chs ls sl ʂj ʂg°
x:  ch dh
xʷ: fric+w w+fric hb bh kp pk kb bk gp pg gb bg hv vh hbv etc chv rchv gv vg sv chb
χ:  rch☾ rh☾ hr☾ rk
h:  d#  g#
v:  vV' mb  pv  vp
l:  l
ɣ:  hd chd
w:  vV" :rv bv  vb  vuV
j:  j   rj  lj  jr  jl  g°
r̥:  rh° chr° rch° tr° r[-voice]° nt tr° ntr nz
r:  nd ndr
ʀ:  :rk :rg :ng

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:01 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 10:24 pm
Posts: 125
Location: UK
Yep, when I first looked at this, my first thought was 'Tibetan gone even more badass'

I like it, but you're definitely gonna have to apply a heavy dose of analogy because it doesn't yet seem like a language that anyone could learn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:04 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Tokyo
The impression I get with Tibet, though, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the literate population is a minority, and the script is heavily tied with religious tradition...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:04 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Lordshrew wrote:
I like it, but you're definitely gonna have to apply a heavy dose of analogy because it doesn't yet seem like a language that anyone could learn.

Really? It seems pretty simple.

Look at the passive, for example. The general patterns are obvious:
1S = first consonant > r̥, j > ç
2S = j > ʀ
3S = first consonant > ç, j > ʀ
1P = add vʏ-, first consonant > r̥, j > ç
2P = first consonant > xʷ, j > ç
3P = first consonant > ʂ, j > ç

Keeping in mind nasal assimilation, voicing assimilation, and NF epenthesis, there are only three exceptions: kes terger, die sannger, and kes sandger would be [ˈt͡sie̯ʀɐ], [ˈsɛɔ̯ʀɐ], and [ˈçɛɔ̯ʀɐ]. (The tercheger and sanzger rows are wrong because I overapplied a rule, but I think they'd be completely regular also.) I'll probably regularize those and hope like hell that I never need to distinguish die sannger from sanger because that'd make them sound the same.

The active... well, the zeu column is also wrong there. I forgot to update it when I changed the pronouns. Now that I've edited the chart to fix that...

1S = first consonant > r̥, add -ɪs if there's a word-final fricative or stop, add -s otherwise
2S = add -ɪn if there's a word-final fricative or stop, add -n otherwise
3S = first consonant > ç, add -ɐ
1P = add vʏ-, first consonant > r̥, add -ɪs if there's a word-final fricative or stop, add -s otherwise
2P = first consonant > xʷ, add -ɪs if there's a word-final fricative or stop, add -s otherwise
3P = first consonant > ʂ, add -ɪs if there's a word-final fricative or stop, add -s otherwise

The only exceptions are the zigg row, kes sander, die sann, and trivially, kes satter. The zigg row isn't that bad, since all three forms have the same irregularity: /j/ instead of /h/, which makes sense because /h/ can't appear word-medially. I'll probably regularize die sann and kes sander to [ˈsaɔ̯n] (again, hoping I never need to distinguish it from the base form, san) and [ˈçaɔ̯nɐ].

Notice that a lot of the rules are the same between the active and passive. The initial mutations and additions are always the same, and 1S shares a rule with all three plural forms. There's a clean way to analyze this: if palatalization of /s/ to /ç/ is still active, it is the same rule in both cases. And that also takes care of en ziggs, which would otherwise have to be analyzed as irregular.

finlay wrote:
The impression I get with Tibet, though, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the literate population is a minority, and the script is heavily tied with religious tradition...

I tried to find literacy rates in Tibet and got a lot of different numbers, ranging from ~15% to 50%.

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:24 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Tokyo
yeah, that's a minority.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:46 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:30 pm
Posts: 385
*how do you say bump in arve*

_________________
The Conlanger Formerly Known As Aiďos


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:16 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Urgh, I got distracted with another conlang, and then IRL shit. I'll have the imperfective charts done by the end of spring break, and once I finish those, I can start regularizing things.

Also, some phonetic/dialectal details:

Arve distinguishes all of /ç x xʷ χ h/, with a vowel system large enough that those distinctions can't easily get pushed onto allophony in vowels. Instead, they are kept distinct by varying the level of frication. /ç χ/ are pronounced as heavily fricated, with /χ/ approaching a voiceless trill, whereas /x/ is pronounced more as an approximant [ɰ̥]. Most dialects merge /x/ with /h/; in the standard language, /x/ can only appear word-medially and /h/ can only appear word-initially and word-finally.

The diphthongs /aɔ ɛa ɛɔ ie yø uo/ are commonly pronounced as centering diphthongs [aə̯ eə̯ eə̯ iə̯ yə̯ uə̯]; however, some dialects keep /ɛɔ/ distinct by realizing it as [øə̯] or even [oə̯]. The frontness of the first element of [aə̯] varies heavily across dialects, from [æ] to [ɔ], but the other first elements are relatively stable. Also, one of the most obvious markers of a Serhes Kettw accent is the collapse of those diphthongs into vowel+semivowel or semivowel+vowel combinations: [ɔw jə ɞw jɪ ɥʏ wʊ]. Note that the [ɛu̯] allophone of /ɛɔ/ is not affected by any of this.

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:37 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
Posts: 1542
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada
I would definitely want to see more of this. It's such a standard practice among conlangers to make shallow orthographies that this has a special something to it.

_________________
ZBB Conlang Index (check first post)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:18 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:30 pm
Posts: 385
Me too, my orthographies are usually phonemic (for protolanguages), and slightly etymological for the rent.

_________________
The Conlanger Formerly Known As Aiďos


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:04 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Orthographical note: <g> in the passive affix -ger is pronounced /j/.

The Arve verb complex

Without an applicative, the verb complex takes the following form:
PRON AUX SECAUX MANNER MODAL CONJ

And with an applicative:
AUX SECAUX APPL MANNER MODAL CONJ

The only mandatory units are PRON and AUX.

A description of each unit in the complex:
* PRON - Pronoun: en, die, kes, vön, zeu, kors (1S, 2S, 3S, 1P, 2P, 3P). All except vön are realized only as mutations of the initial consonant of the verb.
* AUX - Primary auxiliary. The perfective auxiliary suppletes for time and positive/negative status (is there a better term for this), but the rest are mostly regular. (-je for past, -ve for future; the only exception so far is that the future tense of the positive hypothetical auxiliary voss is vosse, not vossve. There will probably be other exceptions later.)
* SECAUX - Secondary auxiliary. Not all auxiliaries have negative forms; the most notable of these is the imperfective auxiliary trei. In order to form the negative, the auxiliary is bumped down to secondary status, and the primary auxiliary slot is filled by the negative perfective. For example, the negative present active singular of trei is zigg trei, using the negative perfective auxiliary zigg with the positive imperfective auxiliary trei. Trei can also be used in secondary auxiliary position to mark the imperfective aspect on other auxiliaries. Secondary auxiliaries only mark for number, except in the Southern dialect, where, as with normal verbs, the -s ending is also added to verb complexes headed by a 1S pronoun.
MANNER - includes particles such as seig 'to completion', zed ast 'for that', kjan 'now'. Time and place are expressed with applicatives, so there's no slot for them; the few particles that discuss time that take this slot can co-occur in any order with the other manner particles.
MODAL - Modal particle, similar to those in German and Dutch. Most of these were borrowed from Kett, and therefore occur most in the Northern dialect and barely at all in the Southern.
CONJ - Conjunction: 'and', 'but', etc.
APPL - Applicative phrase. Formed with an applicative particle (usually dan, which I call the instrumental, but there are others: y LOC, de 'in', etc. It's important here to note that applicative particles beginning in /ð/ absorb the -s ending of a verb in the plural or 1S and are realized as [θ]. (This is the main occurrence of [θ] in Arve.)

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 188
Ughghg this is so cool. I love everything about this conlang so far—the phonology, the orthography, the morphology. All super original.

I'm confused about a few things, though. What is the first column in your charts? The stem? Does it ever appear independently?
And the verbal complex—do these elements come together as a word, or are each/some separate words? Or are they orthographically different words but phonologically one/fewer word(s)? And where's the lexical root? Or is Arve like Basque in conjugating pretty much only auxiliaries? In general I'm just having a hard time picturing things. Examples, plx!! Tell us more about applicatives!

BTW, "positive/negative status" = polarity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 11:57 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
ná'oolkiłí wrote:
What is the first column in your charts? The stem? Does it ever appear independently?

That's the stem. I'm not quite sure what to do with it yet; it was originally put there so I had something to reference.

Quote:
And the verbal complex—do these elements come together as a word, or are each/some separate words? Or are they orthographically different words but phonologically one/fewer word(s)?

Heh, that's the fun part. It's possible for two stressed syllables to occur next to each other in a verb complex (grammatical words can drop stress and reduce, but lexical words never can), and that doesn't happen within a word anywhere else, besides compounds. And then there's the pronoun movement in verbs with applicative arguments, which lends more weight to the separate words analysis. But on the other hand, there's no other way for the order to change, so it could be analyzed as one word.

Quote:
And where's the lexical root? Or is Arve like Basque in conjugating pretty much only auxiliaries?

Lexical root? Arve prety much only conjugates auxiliaries, although verbs can be left out a lot more than they could be in English.

Quote:
In general I'm just having a hard time picturing things. Examples, plx!! Tell us more about applicatives!

Applicatives are used to incorporate indirect objects into the verb complex; so far, there's no other way to include an IO in a sentence.

Some examples: (note: grum, the verb I'm using in most of these examples, means both 'eat' and 'drink')

En sattes grum.
[ˈr̥ʌtɪs ˈʀum]
1S PFV-1S eat
I am eating.

En treis grum.
[ˈr̥ʌi̯s ˈʀum]
1S IPFV-1S eat
I eat.

En ziggs grum.
[ˈr̥ɛç ˈʀum]
1S PFV.NEG-1S eat
I am not eating.

En ziggs trei grum.
[ˈr̥ɛç ʈʂɪ ˈʀum] (note the reduction of trei)
1S PFV.NEG-1S IPFV eat
I do not eat.

Tegnas bär svött en grum.
[ˈtseŋɐs ˈpær ˈxʷʊt ɪn ˈʀum]
PFV.PAST-1S PART.APPL cheese 1S eat
I ate some cheese.

En tegnas svött.
[ˈr̥eŋɐs ˈxʷʊt]
1S PFV.PAST-1S cheese
I ate (a unit of) cheese.

Sandger dan en kes svött.
[ˈçɛu̯ʀɪr ðɐn ˈen kɪs ˈxʷʊt] (note the stress pattern; [ˈçɛu̯ʀɪr ðɐn ɪn ˈkes ˈxʷʊt] can't happen because Arve doesn't like putting two stressed syllables next to each other)
PFV.PAST-3S-PASS INSTR.APPL 1S 3S cheese
The cheese was eaten by me.

Sandger trei dan en kes svött.
[ˈçɛu̯ʀɪr ˈʈʂʌi̯ ðɐn ˈen kɪs xʷʊt]
PFV.PAST-3S-PASS IPFV INSTR.APPL 1S 3S cheese
Cheese was eaten by me.

Kes tegnar svött en-scheng, kes zigger aröy teck schurrei.
[ˈçeŋɐr ˈxʷʊt ɪnʔːˈçie̯ʀ | ˈçɛjɪr ɐˈrøy̯ tɪk çʊˈrʌi̯]
3S PFV.PAST-3S cheese 1S-dog 3S PFV.PAST.NEG-3S MODAL but coffee
My dog ate the cheese, but he didn't drink the damn coffee.

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:21 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 188
I've been trying to wrap my head around possible syntactic explanations for these phenomena all day, but I'm stumped (but keep in mind I'm only one semester into syntax!). The pronoun movement especially fascinates me. Some comments that I can articulate:

Quote:
Applicatives are used to incorporate indirect objects into the verb complex; so far, there's no other way to include an IO in a sentence.

I get the sense that diachronically the Arve verb has just disintegrated, its recent ancestor having a much more contiguous complex that could more definitively said to have application/integration or what have you. Is this what you were going for? I ask because from my perspective, which is necessarily synchronic and limited (me not knowing what's going in your head), I'm not convinced these are applicatives, per se, especially since the verbal complex is looking like it comprises several words rather than being a whole. Rather, perhaps they could be said to be particles that trigger movement? For example, why don't you gloss bär as an atelicity marker (what does PART stand for, btw?) and dan as "by", or something? Maybe I just need to see more examples. How do you say "I ate the cheese with a fork" (assuming "fork" would be an instrumental applicative) or "The cheese was eaten"? And what about the IOs you keep mentioning? What's "I gave the book to him"? Are there verbs that select a subject and an IO without a DO, and if so how would they work?

This is really such an intriguing language. Keep it up!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 1:40 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
ná'oolkiłí wrote:
I've been trying to wrap my head around possible syntactic explanations for these phenomena all day, but I'm stumped (but keep in mind I'm only one semester into syntax!).

I haven't really bothered with actual explanations, especially for the pronoun movement, but I could probably bullshit them if I had to.

Arve was originally SVO, but it gradually shifted to VOS; presumably, this happened first in more complex clauses and percolated down from there. The same process then happened within VPs, but only within more complex VPs -- that is, VPs containing applicatives.

Quote:
I get the sense that diachronically the Arve verb has just disintegrated, its recent ancestor having a much more contiguous complex that could more definitively said to have application/integration or what have you. Is this what you were going for?

The exact opposite. I didn't even know verbs could disintegrate like that. I figure that Arve was originally a lot more isolating (as the orthography shows), but sound changes across word boundaries and fossilization of word order in VPs made it vaguely approach agglutinativity. I wouldn't say it's there yet, but, considering the sandhi in the verb complex, it's getting pretty close.

Quote:
ask because from my perspective, which is necessarily synchronic and limited (me not knowing what's going in your head), I'm not convinced these are applicatives, per se, especially since the verbal complex is looking like it comprises several words rather than being a whole.

Why not? (In case it's not obvious, syntax is not my field at all. I have no clue what I'm doing.)

Quote:
Rather, perhaps they could be said to be particles that trigger movement? For example, why don't you gloss bär as an atelicity marker (what does PART stand for, btw?)

Partitive. I don't gloss them as that because... well, they were intended to add a core argument to the verb, but I'm not quite sure how to show that.

Quote:
How do you say "I ate the cheese with a fork" (assuming "fork" would be an instrumental applicative) or "The cheese was eaten"? And what about the IOs you keep mentioning? What's "I gave the book to him"?

I don't have a word for 'fork' yet, so I'll just borrow it.

Tegnas dan fork en svött.
PAST.PFV-1S INSTR fork 1S cheese
I ate the cheese with a fork.

Kes tegnarger svött.
3S PAST.PFV-3S-PASS cheese
The cheese was eaten.

Tegnas y kes en jäntyd rakjune.
PAST.PFV-1S LOC 3S 1S give book
I gave the book to him.

Quote:
Are there verbs that select a subject and an IO without a DO, and if so how would they work?

Not sure yet. The one problem that I see is that I have absolutely no idea how I'd make them passive. Is there any way that could work? (edit: How do natlangs handle passivization of ditransitive or ditransitivized verbs? Are there natlangs that have ways to put either of the two objects into subject position?)

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 8:19 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 188
Nortaneous wrote:
Arve was originally SVO, but it gradually shifted to VOS; presumably, this happened first in more complex clauses and percolated down from there. The same process then happened within VPs, but only within more complex VPs -- that is, VPs containing applicatives.

That's pretty interesting. What's the word order for a transitive sentence with no applicative and a lexical verb? Would you have "En tegnas svött grum" or "En tegnas grum svött"?

Nortaneous wrote:
The exact opposite. I didn't even know verbs could disintegrate like that. I figure that Arve was originally a lot more isolating (as the orthography shows), but sound changes across word boundaries and fossilization of word order in VPs made it vaguely approach agglutinativity. I wouldn't say it's there yet, but, considering the sandhi in the verb complex, it's getting pretty close.

Yeah, that actually makes a lot more sense. Now that I think about I don't think verbs can disintegrate either.
About sandhi, do the pronouns trigger initial mutations on anything besides the auxiliaries?

Nortaneous wrote:
Partitive. I don't gloss them as that because... well, they were intended to add a core argument to the verb, but I'm not quite sure how to show that.

It's actually a really cool idea; I've never heard of a valence operation that does something like that. Is there a determiner "some" that you can modify plain nouns with without an applicative construction?

Nortaneous wrote:
Why not? (In case it's not obvious, syntax is not my field at all. I have no clue what I'm doing.)

Applicatives promote a oblique/noncore element to core argumenthood. I hesitate to call your partitive operation an applicative operation because the partitive element is already an argument: "some cheese" in the example above is already a DO, ie an argument, so if you're being pedantic it doesn't really make sense to say it has undergone application.

Your instrumental and locative operations look more like applicatives, but how do they differ from their nonapplied oblique counterparts? That is, what's the difference, if there is one, between "I ate the cheese with a fork.CORE" and "I ate the cheese with a fork.OBLIQUE? For some languages applicatives may have no counterparts; so an instrumental applicative is the only way to express an instrument, for instance. However, unlike in Arve, those languages' verbs agree with that argument, and do not agree with other obliques. I imagine applicatives are perfectly possible in languages with non-polypersonal verbs [EDIT: now that I'm looking into application, this doesn't seem to be necessarily true; however, the applied object is always testably a core argument], even in highly synthetic langs for that matter, but they are a bit harder to prove since their word order must in some way mark them as core rather than oblique arguments. So if you are dead-set in having applicatives, their position (or some other syntactic feature) must be markedly different from plain prepositional phrases, adverbial phrases, and other adjuncts.

Nortaneous wrote:
Not sure yet. The one problem that I see is that I have absolutely no idea how I'd make them passive. Is there any way that could work? (edit: How do natlangs handle passivization of ditransitive or ditransitivized verbs? Are there natlangs that have ways to put either of the two objects into subject position?)

Consider English: it has many verbs that select for a subject DP and an object PP (which might be argued to be an indirect object if that preposition is "to"). So we have "John talked to Mary" → "Mary was talked to (by John)"; "Bill slept in the bed" → "The bed was slept in (by Bill)". Actually, I'm not sure how how these are analyzed structurally, so I can't say how such cases differ from regular passivization.

A slightly different example is with passivized ditransitives with an omitted DO. "John donated books to the organization" → "John donated to the organization" → "The organization was donated to (by John)". But this construction is a little strange, and sounds even stranger for other verbs: "Jane gave a pencil to Caroline" → ?"Jane gave to Caroline" → ??"Caroline was given to (by Jane)". ((Maybe this has some connection with dative shift? Compare *"John donated the organization books" and "Jane gave Caroline a pencil"))

As for which objects can be promoted in passive constructions, look again at English.
Jane gave a pencil to Caroline / A pencil was given to Caroline (by Jane) / Caroline was given a pencil (by Jane)
but compare
John donated books to the organization / Books were donated to the organization (by John) / *The organization was donated books by John

Some languages allow double passivization, so you could conceivably have something like (but I don't know if this actually happens):
Caroline-NOM give-PASS-PASS (pencil-OBL1 (Jane-OBL2))

Likewise something that would be cool (but I don't know that it occurs) would be to promote an applied argument to subjecthood in a passive construction. (This toy language is SOV and places obliques after the verb for illustrative purposes)
(1) John-NOM went store-LOC / "John went to the store.OBL"
(2) John-NOM store-ACC went-LOC.APPL / "John went to the store.CORE"
(3) Store-NOM went-LOC.APPL-PASS John-OBL / "The store was gone to by John"

Or even double passivize applicatives.
(1) John-NOM door-ACC opened key-INST / "John opened the door with a key.OBL"
(2) John-NOM door-ACC key-DAT opened-INST.APPL / "John opened the door with a key.CORE"
(3) Door-NOM key-ACC opened-INST.APPL-PASS John-OBL / "The door was opened with a key by John"
(4) Key-NOM opened-INST.APPL-PASS-PASS door-OBL1 John-OBL2 / (not translatable)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 4:04 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
I haven't been awake enough to answer those questions, but I'll get to them sometime soon. In the meantime, here's a thing on the script. It starts by describing the Kett script because that's where the Arve script comes from.

-------------------

Some information on the Kett/Arve script. I start off only covering Kett, because Arve gets very complicated, as is to be expected.

The script is vaguely a syllabary, but there are only two vowels, transliterated <a e>, and one null vowel column. All other vowels/diphthongs (depending on how you want to analyze them) are written by adding an extra syllable containing a semivowel. So, for example, the Kett word keréu 'wait' is written ke-re-w. The rules are different for unstressed vowels, but I'll get to that later.

Consonant clusters are also written with the null-vowel column: céck 'rule' is written ce-c-k.

The null vowel column, however, is a relatively recent innovation. An older method of writing consonant clusters and vowels besides /a e/ is with an echo vowel and a vowel cancellation diacritic, transliterated by capitalizing the vowel canceled. The two previous examples would thus be written ke-re-wE and ce-cE-kE. This method is still used to a certain degree in Arve.

There is also a rounding diacritic, transliterated <W>. This is only used on the consonant columns /t k j/, to form the consonants /t͡ʙ̥ pʰ ɥ/. The words varétw 'good', pes 'but', and léyka 'think' are written va-re-tW, keW-s, and le-jW-ka.

The gemination diacritic, transliterated <:>, indicates that the next consonant is geminated.

The last diacritic, the consonant canceler, romanized C, only appears on word-initial characters, and cancels an inherent /h/. For example, the words ḩéng and abhéit are written He-ŋ and HaC-b-he-j-t. Native vocabulary contains only words with initial consonants, as does the native lexicon of Arve; all words with initial vowels come from Kannow or unknown languages. (However, Kannow later appended initial h- to vowel-initial consonants, presumably under influence from Kett.)

For a longer example: (this text is very old and probably not even close to grammatical anymore, but whatever)

Romanized
Transliterated

Ketwlá han cékcan máru.
ke-tW-la ha-n ce-k-ca-n ma-r-w (note: Kett has two vowels in stressed position, but five in unstressed position. The other five correspond to eC diphthongs / vowel+semivowel clusters. They are written as consonants.)

Ang láncapean ullá ammárung.
HaŋC la-n-ca-keW-ḩa-n w:-la HaC:-ma-r-w-ŋ

Láncakkoman cécak ve mebérra.
la-n-ca:-k-m-H-Ha-n ce-ca-k ve me-pe:-ra (note: <o> = next sonorant is syllabic. this is written by _ H)

And now for Arve. (Well, Proto-Arve.) Here's the fun part.

The system has to be stretched to write nine vowels (æ ɑ e ø o i y ɯ u) with two lengths (short, long -- overlong vowels developed entirely from compensatory lengthening after simplification of consonant clusters, so they're not relevant here), and six diphthongs (ei øy ou ie yø uo). Also, I should point out that <ü y> in the romanization are reversed from what you'd expect: <y> is /y/, and <ü> is /ɯ/. But the two vowels merged, so it shouldn't be much trouble.

Vowels:
æ - Ce DA
ɑ - Ca
e - Ce
ø - Ce DAW
o - Ca DAW
i - Ce DE
y - Ce DEW
ɯ - Ca DE
u - Ca DEW

The C slot is filled by the consonant directly before the vowel, and the D slot is filled by the consonant directly after it, if there is not a vowel directly after that. If there is, D is filled by H and the vowel gets a C diacritic.

For example, the word vöntus 'alcohol' is written ve-nAW-ta-sEW, and the word rätt 'place' is written re:-tA.

Length: The short length is written with the gemination diacritic. Steck 'wheat' is written s-te:-k. Long is default.

Diphthongs:
ei - Ca jA
øy - Ca jAW
ou - Ca wAW
ie - Ce jA
yø - Ce jEW
uo - Ce wEW

For example, the word huon 'hand' is written he-wEW-n, and the word zeis 'hope' is written ca-jA-s.

Eventually, the null diacritic will fuse with the characters and form a few new sets, although the modifications will be mostly predictable. I might do the same for W+null diacritic clusters, but probably not.

Consonants: The inventory is /p t ts k b d g v s x χ m n l r j w/. The voiceless stops, except /ts/, are written with a modified form of the gemination diacritic, transliterated <S>, but the rest are written with the characters for p t c k v s H h m n l r j w. There's also a glottal stop, but it's written with a diacritic transliterated <?> and applied to H_ characters.

For a longer example:

En enz sjö-tjargut, kes enter lauch.
He-n He-n-c s-je-HAW?-tS-ja-r-ka-tEWS, keS-s He-n-teS-r la-w-H

Kes treir räud skand ast.
keS-s tS-ra-jA-r re-wA-t s-kaS-n-t Ha-s-t

Now I just need to develop the actual characters.

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 12:18 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
and here's a draft, although it's probably shit

Image

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arve
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 1:22 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
Posts: 1542
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada
It looks a lot like a conscript of mine :o At least those particular glyphs. I'd like to see it to be developed further.

_________________
ZBB Conlang Index (check first post)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group