zompist bboard
http://www.incatena.org/

The Sqtséemsekáskwto language
http://www.incatena.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=39329
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Risla [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:08 am ]
Post subject:  The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Okay, Sqtséemsekáskwto is a language I've been working on for the last...hour or so. I did invent this basic phonology a while back, though.

PHONOLOGY

Phoneme inventory:
Code:
m   n       ŋ
pʰ  tʰ      kʰ kʷʰ qʰ qʷʰ
p   t       k  kʷ  q  qʷ  ʔ
b   d       g  gʷ
    s              χ      h
    ɬ
    r
    l   j      w

Code:
i:              u:
  ɪ           ʊ
  e:            o:
   ɛ ɛː   ɐ   ɔ ɔː
     a:


There are three phonemic tones on the long vowels /iː uː eː oː ɛː ɔː aː/: low, high and falling. There are two phonemic tones on the short vowels /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ ɐ/: low and high.

Orthography:

Consonants:
/m n ŋ/ <m n ŋ>
/pʰ tʰ kʰ kʷʰ qʰ qʷʰ/ <ph th kh khw qh qhw>
/p t k kʷ q qʷ ʔ/ <p t k kw q qw '>
/b d g gʷ/ <b d g gw>
/s ɬ χ h/ <s ł x h>
/r l j w/ <r l y w>

Vowels:
/ɪ˩ ʊ˩ ɛ˩ ɔ˩ ɐ˩/ <i u e o a>
/iː˩ uː˩ eː˩ oː˩ ɛː˩ ɔː˩ aː˩/ <ii uu ee oo êe ôo aa>

/ɪ˥ ʊ˥ ɛ˥ ɔ˥ ɐ˥/ <í ú é ó á>
/iː˥ uː˥ eː˥ oː˥ ɛː˥ ɔː˥ aː˥/ <íi úu ée óo êé ôó áa>

/îː ûː êː ôː ɛ̂ː ɔ̂ː âː/ <ì ù è ò êè ôò à>

Phonotactics:

The maximal syllable structure is rather horrific. I'm defining it in feature notation for now, will talk about what this all means later.

s[C/[+obs][+son +cont]/[-cont -voi -asp]s/[-cont -cor -glot][[-cont -son +cor]/ts]]V[C/[-cont -voi -asp]s]

This makes for some fairly terrifying consonant clusters, as seen in the name of the language.

/ʔ/ is only contrasted with null intervocalically and syllable-finally. Similarly, /ŋ/ only occurs intervocalically and syllable-finally.

Allophony:

Obstruents within clusters assimilate in laryngeal features to following obstruents. A word like /sdɔ̂ːgʷo/ <sdôògwo> "tree" is thus pronounced [.zdɔ̂ː.ɣʷo˩.]

Labialized consonants completely labialize any cluster they occur in. /sqtseː˥msɛ˩ka˥skʷto˩/ "Sqtséemsekáskwto" is pronounced [.sqtẽː˥m.sɛ˩.ka˥.sʷkʷtʷo˩.]

Word-final consonants are devoiced and undergo fortition: /b d g/ become [p t k], /r l/ become [ʂ ɬ] and /j w/ become [ç xʷ]. The sonorants also undergo these changes preceding or following an aspirated stop.

Intervocalically, voiced stops are lenited to [β ð ɣ ɣʷ].

Immediately preceding or following any of /i: ɪ e: j/, /s/ is realized as [ʃ].

/n/ place-assimilates to any following obstruent. /ŋ/ only assimilates to dorsal obstruents. /m/ only assimilates when the following obstruent is labialized; the rule above that labializes clusters is relevant here.

The high vowels /iː ɪ uː ʊ/ lower to [eː e oː o] before uvular consonants, and /j/ is lowered to [e̯].

Vowels nasalize before syllable-final nasals.

MORPHOSYNTAX

Word order is Topic Focus Verb. This is pretty rigid, and verbs never come in anything but clause-final position. Verbs are marked for aspect and evidentiality.

Sqtséemsekáskwto uses a direct/inverse system based on an animacy hierarchy:

Né sebáaysikaŋał.
/né sebáay-si-k-ŋ-ł-Ø/
TOP.1PS see-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-2PS-DIR
"I see you."

Ło sebáaysikaŋłákh.
/ło sebáay-si-k-ŋ-ł-ákh/
TOP.2PS see-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-2PS-INV
"You see me."

The hierarchy is as follows: 1InclP > 1InclS > 1P > 1S > 2P > 2S > 3P > 3ObvP > 3S > 3ObvS > Inan.

Obliques, when not topicalized, come after all verb arguments and take case marking.

When something is topicalized, it is treated as if it is higher on the animacy hierarchy than non-topics:

Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìxsikaŋ.
Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìx-si-k-ŋ-Ø-Ø
Psáalqhwê(.TOP) hit-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-3PS-DIR
"Psáalqhwe is hitting me." (topic = Psáalqhwe)

Né Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìxsikaŋ.
Né Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìx-si-k-ŋ-Ø-Ø
1PS.TOP Psáalqhwê hit-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-3PS-DIR
"I am hitting Psáalqhwê." (topic = 1PS)

Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìxsikaŋákh
Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìx-si-k-ŋ-Ø-ákh
Psáalqhwê(.TOP) hit-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-3PS-DIR
"I am hitting Psáalqhwe." (topic = Psáalqhwe)

Né Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìxsikŋákh.
Né Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìx-si-k-ŋ-Ø-ákh
1PS.TOP Psáalqhwê hit-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-3PS-DIR
"Psáalqhwe is hitting me." (topic = 1PS)

When obliques are topicalized, the animacy hierarchy remains intact:

Gwinskwadisige Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìxsikaŋ.
gwinskwadisi-ge Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìx-si-k-ŋ-Ø-Ø
anger-ADV-TOP Psáalqhwê hit-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-3PS-DIR
Angrily, I am hitting Psáalqhwê.

Gwinskwadisige Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìxsikaŋákh.
gwinskwadisi-ge-Ø Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìx-si-k-ŋ-Ø-ákh
anger-ADV-TOP Psáalqhwê hit-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-3PS-INV
Angrily, Psáalqhwê is hitting me.

There is always something in the topic position of a clause; when the topic is marked on the verb and not explicitly stated, the topic slot is filled in with a particle that takes the (null) topic marker.

Ge Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìxsikaŋákh.
ge-Ø Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìx-si-k-ŋ-Ø-ákh
ADV-TOP Psáalqhwê hit-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-3PS-INV
In that manner Psáalqhwê hit me.

Aŋí sebáaysikaŋ.
aŋí-Ø sebáay-si-k-ŋ-Ø-Ø
3PS-TOP see-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-3PS-DIR
S/he sees me.

Number is expressed by the suffix -hée on animate nouns and -gìi on inanimate nouns. These may attach to topic markers and also may occur alone or with case marking when not topicalized (I have really no idea how to analyze these yet...).

Né hée sebáaysikaŋał.
né-Ø hée sebáay-si-k-ŋ-ł-Ø
1PS-TOP PL see-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-2PS-DIR
I see you(pl).

Béhée hée sebáaysikaqwłákh.
bé-hée-Ø hée sebáay-si-k-qw-ł-ákh
2PS-PL-TOP PL see-IMPERF-EVID-1PP.INCL
You(pl) see us(incl).

Mood and tense are expressed by special tense verbs that subordinate the main verb. These are then marked for aspect and evidentiality rather than the main verb.

Né sebáaysikaŋał.
né sebáay-si-k-ŋ-ł-Ø
TOP.1PS see-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-2PS-DIR
I see you.

Né sebáayaŋał á wêqáasik
né sebáay-ŋ-ł-Ø á wêqáa-si-k
TOP.1PS see-1PS-2PS-DIR TOP.TENSE PAST-IMPERF-EVID
I saw (=was seeing) you.

That's baaaasically what I've got so far. It's obviously still extremely rough and I know I've left a bunch of stuff unexplained, so I'll probably fill that in later. Please give feedback and say what's confusing or what seems weird, and I'll see if I can fill it in.

Author:  Bob Johnson [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Quote:
sqts
Ow my throat.

I can't decode your syllable expression right now -- is there any ambiguity between, say <qh> /qh/ /qʰ/ for various values of q? Does /h/ even count as an obstruent?

Author:  Rodlox [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

very impressive. I imagine the Romanization is impressive...*looks*...yep, very much so.

Bob Johnson wrote:
Quote:
sqts
Ow my throat.


what, that's like saying "scoots" (as in "he scoots over") in your throat and rear of the mouth. not that hard.

now, attaching sylables to it, maybe, maybe not, harder.

Author:  Xephyr [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Bob Johnson wrote:
Quote:
sqts
Ow my throat.


Pansy! Your homework for the weekend is to practice pronouncing mlmalqʷxts, ssmnsátšitm, x̌əlʔtns, n̓sxʷqʷəyaʔčáy, skʷɬʔúyɬs, aksnaq̓ʷmɬtəm, q̓lsxʷ, ʔacsúxʷɬtls, and suʔəsxʷəyk̓ʷtxʷs.

Author:  Risla [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Bob Johnson wrote:
Quote:
sqts
Ow my throat.

I can't decode your syllable expression right now -- is there any ambiguity between, say <qh> /qh/ /qʰ/ for various values of q? Does /h/ even count as an obstruent?

Hey, I've had it with languages that are actually pronounceable. This one's phonology is inspired by a horrible mixture of Classical Greek and Salishan.

/h/ contrasts with null and with the glottal stop intervocalically and finally, but I'm going to have it be identical to aspiration on a preceding voiceless stop, devoicing a preceding voiced stop and just not actually be realized in clusters in any other way. Same thing goes for /w/ and labialization; it labializes the entire cluster but isn't actually realized as a separate segment.

I'll try to make the syllable thing make more sense now:

s[C/[+obs][+son +cont]/[-cont -voi -asp]s/[-cont -cor -glot][[-cont -son +cor]/ts]]V[C/[-cont -voi -asp]s]

  • A syllable onset may consist of /s/ followed by one of the following: 1) any single consonant, 2) an obstruent followed by a liquid or glide, 3) an unvoiced, unaspirated stop followed by /s/, or 4) any non-glottal, non-coronal obstruent followed by a coronal plosive or /ts/.
  • A syllable nucleus may be occupied by a vowel.
  • A syllable coda may consist of 1) any consonant or 2) any unvoiced, unaspirated stop followed by /s/.

Author:  finlay [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

I'm having more trouble with -skwto than sqts-, tbh.

ehh, dunno... seems alright, but your named character has -ê at the end of his name which isn't explained in the orthography.

also you should totally write it in greek i dare you

Author:  Risla [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Yeah, am seriously considering writing it in Greek. :P Not sure how I'll handle the uvulars, though.

And oops, <ê ô> are supposed to be /ɛː˩ ɔː˩/, not <êe ôo>.

Author:  Cedh [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

I like this. Pacific NW inspired phonologies are cool, and the grammar bits sound promising too. (You've forgotten to change a few copypasted "-DIR" to "-INV" though.)

Risla wrote:
A syllable onset may consist of /s/ followed by one of the following: 1) any single consonant, 2) an obstruent followed by a liquid or glide, 3) an unvoiced, unaspirated stop followed by /s/, or 4) any non-glottal, non-coronal obstruent followed by a coronal plosive or /ts/.

This sounds like every syllable must have a /s/ in the onset, which is probably not what you have in mind...

finlay wrote:
I'm having more trouble with -skwto than sqts-, tbh.

[sʷkʷtʷo] shouldn't be too difficult: Just start rounding your lips for the [o] while your tongue is pronouncing the [s]... :)

Author:  Risla [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

cedh audmanh wrote:
I like this. Pacific NW inspired phonologies are cool, and the grammar bits sound promising too. (You've forgotten to change a few copypasted "-DIR" to "-INV" though.)

Risla wrote:
A syllable onset may consist of /s/ followed by one of the following: 1) any single consonant, 2) an obstruent followed by a liquid or glide, 3) an unvoiced, unaspirated stop followed by /s/, or 4) any non-glottal, non-coronal obstruent followed by a coronal plosive or /ts/.

This sounds like every syllable must have a /s/ in the onset, which is probably not what you have in mind...

Yeah, I was doing this in the middle of the night, so I probably need to fix the glosses and stuff to make it more coherent.

With the syllable onset thing, you're correct; those are the maximal onset parameters. A syllable onset can consist of any of those things preceded by an /s/, any of them without an /s/, or a syllable can lack an onset entirely.

I'm mostly interested in what people think of the rather meager grammar I have so far. I seem to have combined some of the aspects of Austronesian alignment with direct/inverse alignment, and I want to know how unrealistic it is before I forge ahead with it. :P

Author:  Nortaneous [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

I have to say, I like this trend of agglutinative languages with consonant rounding contrasts. 8)

Risla wrote:
Yeah, am seriously considering writing it in Greek. :P Not sure how I'll handle the uvulars, though.

<ϙ ϟ>

Ło sebáaysikaŋłákh.
Λ̔ο σεβᾶισικαγ̇λ̔άκ̔.

Author:  TomHChappell [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Risla wrote:
... animacy hierarchy:
... > 3P > 3ObvP > 3S > 3ObvS > Inan.
....


Pretty sure that should be
... > 3P > 3S > 3ObvP > 3ObvS > Inan.

Non-obviatives are usually higher than obviatives in natlangs like this, aren't they?
And if both obviation and grammatical number count for the hierarchy, non-obviative > obviative usually counts more than plural > singular, doesn't it?

Is there a natlang you know of where
... > 3P > 3ObvP > 3S > 3ObvS > Inan.
is indeed the rule (both obviation and number mattering, but number mattering more than obviation)?

Author:  Bristel [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Risla, are we soul sisters?

I love it!

It seems the only Salishan language that would have similar consonants and clusters along with tone would be Upriver Halkomelem, which I didn't know until now. (I should have, I've read a bit about Halkomelem) :)

Author:  Risla [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

TomHChappell wrote:
Risla wrote:
... animacy hierarchy:
... > 3P > 3ObvP > 3S > 3ObvS > Inan.
....


Pretty sure that should be
... > 3P > 3S > 3ObvP > 3ObvS > Inan.

Non-obviatives are usually higher than obviatives in natlangs like this, aren't they?
And if both obviation and grammatical number count for the hierarchy, non-obviative > obviative usually counts more than plural > singular, doesn't it?

Is there a natlang you know of where
... > 3P > 3ObvP > 3S > 3ObvS > Inan.
is indeed the rule (both obviation and number mattering, but number mattering more than obviation)?

That was intentional. :P I don't think it's attested anywhere, but I figure I can get away with some implausible things as long as I don't go too overboard.

Author:  Nortaneous [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

hmm

/m n ŋ/ <μ ν γ̇>
/pʰ tʰ kʰ kʷʰ qʰ qʷʰ/ <φ τ χ χö ϟ ϟö>
/p t k kʷ q qʷ ʔ/ <π τ κ κö ϙ ϙö ?>
/b d g gʷ/ <β δ γ γö>
/s ɬ χ h/ <σ λ̔/ƛ/λ̣ χ̇/ͱ *>
/r l j w/ <ρ λ ι υ>

* spiritus asper?

I'm not sure how to do the vowels and glottal stop.

Author:  Risla [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

hahaha awesome, if you make me a decent Greek orthography I'll definitely try to use it. I'm afraid the vowels will be a giant asspain in whatever orthography I try with them, though.

Author:  finlay [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

vowels? not too hard...
/ɪ˩ ʊ˩ ɛ˩ ɔ˩ ɐ˩/ <ι υ ε ο α>
/iː˩ uː˩ eː˩ oː˩ ɛː˩ ɔː˩ aː˩/ <ει ου εε οο η ω αα>

/ɪ˥ ʊ˥ ɛ˥ ɔ˥ ɐ˥/ <ί ύ έ ό ά>
/iː˥ uː˥ eː˥ oː˥ ɛː˥ ɔː˥ aː˥/ <εί ού εέ οό ή ώ αά>

/îː ûː êː ôː ɛ̂ː ɔ̂ː âː/ <ὶ ὺ ὲ ὸ ὴ ὼ ὰ>

However, the last line is so incredibly neat that I want to find a way to generalise it to the other lines. You've got one or two diacritics left over, should you choose to use them.

Author:  Nortaneous [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

or

Vowels:
/ɪ˩ ʊ˩ ɛ˩ ɔ˩ ɐ˩/ <ι υ ε ο α>
/iː˩ uː˩ eː˩ oː˩ ɛː˩ ɔː˩ aː˩/ <ἰ ὐ η ω ἐ ὀ ἀ>

/ɪ˥ ʊ˥ ɛ˥ ɔ˥ ɐ˥/ <ί ύ έ ό ά>
/iː˥ uː˥ eː˥ oː˥ ɛː˥ ɔː˥ aː˥/ <ἴ ὔ ή ώ ἔ ὄ ἄ>

/îː ûː êː ôː ɛ̂ː ɔ̂ː âː/ <ῖ ῦ ῆ ῶ ε̃ ο̃ ᾶ>

Examples:

Σϙτσήμσεκάσκöτό
Sqtséemsekáskwto

Αγ̇í σεβἄισικαγ̇.
Aŋí sebáaysikaŋ.

Γöινσκöαδισιγε Ψἄλϟöἐ σϙτσωμσῖχ̇σικαγ̇άχ.
Gwinskwadisige Psáalqhwê sqtsoomsìxsikaŋákh.

βέἥ ἥ σεβἄισικαϙöλ̣άχ.
Béhée hée sebáaysikaqwłákh.

Author:  TomHChappell [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Risla wrote:
That was intentional. :P I don't think it's attested anywhere, but I figure I can get away with some implausible things as long as I don't go too overboard.

Absolutely so! I just recommend letting us know explicitly that it was intentional.

Author:  Risla [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Hm. I think I'll use finlay's vowels, and also make a few modifications to Nort's system:

/m n ŋ/ <μ ν γ̇>
/pʰ tʰ kʰ kʷʰ qʰ qʷʰ/ <φ θ χ χö ϟ ϟö>
/p t k kʷ q qʷ ʔ/ <π τ κ κö ϙ ϙö '>
/b d g gʷ/ <β δ γ γö>
/s ɬ χ h/ <σ ƛ χ̇ x>
/r l j w/ <ρ λ ι υ>
/ps ks kʷs/ <ψ ξ ξö>

/ɪ˩ ʊ˩ ɛ˩ ɔ˩ ɐ˩/ <ι υ ε ο α>
/iː˩ uː˩ eː˩ oː˩ ɛː˩ ɔː˩ aː˩/ <ει ου εε οο η ω αα>
/ɪ˥ ʊ˥ ɛ˥ ɔ˥ ɐ˥/ <ί ύ έ ό ά>
/iː˥ uː˥ eː˥ oː˥ ɛː˥ ɔː˥ aː˥/ <εί ού εέ οό ή ώ αά>
/îː ûː êː ôː ɛ̂ː ɔ̂ː âː/ <ὶ ὺ ὲ ὸ ὴ ὼ ὰ>

Couldn't resist throwing in psi and xi, and I'll just use <x> for /h/ for now even though it's ambiguous in uppercase with <χ>. So:

Mígwehéesni psáaqsoŋkaŋał! Sqtséemsekáskwtoge ło'áq qwêèsisikegaŋał.
Μίγöεxεέσνι ψαάϙσογ̇καγ̇αƛ! Σϙτσεέμσεκάσκöτογε ƛο'άϙ ϙöὴσισικεγαγ̇αƛ.

Author:  Shrdlu [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

While you're at it, why not make an Georgian script?

Author:  Risla [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Go right ahead. :mrgreen:

Author:  Whimemsz [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

I really like the look of a lot of this. The phonology seems to be a good homage to Salishan without trying to go all the way overboard to Salishan's level (which would almost certainly result in something that looked like you were trying too hard, rather than something good) [although, I'll reserve fuller comment since there isn't actually that much phonology info here yet]. And the DIR/INV + Austronesian-y flavor for constituent reference is cool. Some comments:

Quote:
Number is expressed by the suffix -hée on animate nouns and -gìi on inanimate nouns. These may attach to topic markers and also may occur alone or with case marking when not topicalized (I have really no idea how to analyze these yet...).

Né hée sebáaysikaŋał.
né-Ø hée sebáay-si-k-ŋ-ł-Ø
1PS-TOP PL see-IMPERF-EVID-1PS-2PS-DIR
I see you(pl).

Béhée hée sebáaysikaqwłákh.
bé-hée-Ø hée sebáay-si-k-qw-ł-ákh
2PS-PL-TOP PL see-IMPERF-EVID-1PP.INCL
You(pl) see us(incl).

To judge from these examples (or at least the first one?), the person-marking pronouns and affixes don't seem to be specified for number at all (except the inclusive 1pl in the second sentence). Is there a reason you're still glossing them with things like "2PS"?

(Also note that the second sentence there probably shouldn't be possible, since it's like a half-reflexive/reciprocal. At least, I would expect the language probably would lack forms where inclusive pl and second person are both participants in the action, or that it would have some sort of special marking or be treated as some sort of reflexive or reciprocal or something?)



As for the proximate/obviative thing THC brought up...I'm not sure that it even makes sense to describe obviative as higher on a prominence hierarchy than proximate. All you're really doing is calling a proximate "obviative" and an obviative "proximate", because the whole point is that the proximate third person is the more salient or topicalized or important or whatever. I could be wrong, but from everything I know it seems to me that what you've got now is literally just a reversal of definitions, rather than a new way of treating proximate/obviate marking in a hierarchy.

I'm also a little concerned about how Algonquian-y it is overall, grammar-wise. A prominence hierarchy, direct/inverse alignment, and proximate/obviate pretty much just occur in Algonquian and the isolate Kutenai (and Kutenai's system seems to be connected to the Algonquian one somehow--presumably through an old period of contact). At least as far as I'm aware. And even Kutenai isn't really to the level of Algonquian. There are other systems that are kind of like it, but even if there are others it's an extremely rare system. Or at least a system advanced to this extent is extremely rare. Plus you've got an animacy distinction for noun gender, and overt plural marking on nouns, and a clusivity distinction. There's nothing inherently wrong about all that (one of my conlangs is heavily influenced by Algonquian in certain aspects of the grammar and phonology) ... just, make sure you realize that's what you're doing, I guess? (I'm not 100% sure what I originally intended my point to be...)

Author:  ---- [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Did somebody say Georgian? :3

/m n ŋ/ მ ნ ღ
/pʰ tʰ kʰ kʷʰ qʰ qʷʰ/ ფ თ ქ ქვ ჴვ
/p t k kʷ q qʷ ʔ/ პ ტ კ კვ ყ ყვ
/b d g gʷ/ ბ დ გ გვ
/s ɬ χ h/ ს შ ხ ჰ
/r l j w/ რ ლ ი უ
/ps ks kʷs/ ჭ ჩ ჩვ

/ɪ˩ ʊ˩ ɛ˩ ɔ˩ ɐ˩/ ი უ ე ო ა
/iː˩ uː˩ eː˩ oː˩ ɛː˩ ɔː˩ aː˩/ იძ უძ ეძ ოძ ჲძ ჳძ აძ

Low tone is default. Long low vowels marked with <ძ>, high tone marked with <ც>, long high tone vowels marked with <ჟ>, and long falling tone is marked with <ზ>. Example text:

ნეც სებაჟისიკაღაშ.
Né sebáaysikaŋał.

Author:  Xephyr [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Whimemsz wrote:
I'm also a little concerned about how Algonquian-y it is overall, grammar-wise. A prominence hierarchy, direct/inverse alignment, and proximate/obviate pretty much just occur in Algonquian and the isolate Kutenai...


"Concerned"? Man, IMO we don't see nearly enough Direct-Inverse systems in conlangs. At least I haven't. Which is a shame cause it's cool. I've been trying to get a Direct-Inverse-style conlang off the ground fo ra couple years now. Accusative, Ergative, even Active systems are boring; let's see more conlangs like Tagalog, Ojibwe, or Aleut dammit!

Author:  Nortaneous [ Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Sqtséemsekáskwto language

Xephyr wrote:
Whimemsz wrote:
I'm also a little concerned about how Algonquian-y it is overall, grammar-wise. A prominence hierarchy, direct/inverse alignment, and proximate/obviate pretty much just occur in Algonquian and the isolate Kutenai...


"Concerned"? Man, IMO we don't see nearly enough Direct-Inverse systems in conlangs. At least I haven't. Which is a shame cause it's cool. I've been trying to get a Direct-Inverse-style conlang off the ground fo ra couple years now. Accusative, Ergative, even Active systems are boring; let's see more conlangs like Tagalog, Ojibwe, or Aleut dammit!


Tagalog? I thought there were a lot of trigger system conlangs, and trigger was a simplification of Austronesian?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/