zompist bboard

Here's a bit of Elkar?l morphology. One oddity of the language is that it uses continuous variation, not just separated phonemes.

For instance, take these words:

<b>khul</b> dark red
<b>kh?l</b> darkish red
<b>khil</b> red

There are only these three vowels at this tongue height (u, ?, i), but there really aren't just three words: the backness of the vowel can be varied continuously, to indicate the precise darkness of the red. Similarly with the tongue height:

<b>khil</b> red
<b>khel</b> rose
<b>kh?l</b> pink

Any color between red and pink can be indicated, using tongue height to indicate white-saturation.

All the color terms work this way, and quite a few adjectives; e.g. <b>rul</b> 'old' ... <b>r?l</b> young.

That's a novel idea.
Is there a single Terran language that works like this?

It sounds a little like the Semitic roots, but at the same time different. SO i guess no. Aweosme idea zompist!

That's just what I was gonna say, Jaaaaaa. ((I'm not going to keep typing six a's, so please note that afterward you will be referred to as Ja ))

I've seen languages that change root vowels before. Example Khuzdul, the language of the Dwarves of Tolkein. Bi- or triconsonantal roots which change their vowels to inflect. Pretty taxing if you ask me, but if that's what you're raised with...


[[Yay, I'm a "Horselord" now!]]

ranskaldan wrote:That's a novel idea.
Is there a single Terran language that works like this?

I hope not, since it's intended to violate a human universal.

Human languages do use continuous variables-- notably length, pitch, and stress-- but the same phonological factor isn't similarly discrete and analog, as in Elkar?l.

but I've never seen a single language that varies vowels along a continuum, not even Semitic languages.

This is really a very novel idea.

But now that I think about it, why aren't all human languages like this? It's so logical!

ranskaldan wrote:But now that I think about it, why aren't all human languages like this? It's so logical!

Perhaps that's why.

Although I personally prefer digital to analog in my daily life, the Elkar?l system is very interesting.

I *think* I understand this idea, and, yes, I really like the whole discrete rather than continuous variation thing. I assume that this idea is a recurring theme throughout the language.

What kind of phonemic inventory are we dealing with? Do the elcari have different speech production capabilities to our own?

It seem that Elcarin speech is quite developed . . . it woud be interesting to see interaction between this language and uesti toungues . . .

Rhisto Filipei

If I may come in here...

Good idea using the property of the vowel to denote level of intensity. Almost like mixing colors with hexadecimal codes. Almost.

But here's an interesting thought. Reading the LCK, it is noted that some races may differentiate not only in location and openness of a vowel, but in tone. Not tone as in the rising, falling, etc, but as in whether or not it sounds like a trombone, or a violin, or some other slight variation in tone that we unlucky English speakers can't interpret. Similar situation: the elves trying to understand the ents in Tolkeinian mythology.

This could also be used in this similar way. A little bit of this tone, a little bit more, a little bit more, and then moving into another sound category, etc.

Thoughts? I know you have them.

Mmm... then we'll have a language that totally violates all Terran rules.

Which is exactly what Mark is looking for, right?

It seems that Elkar?l can be spoken by non-Elkari, though, with difficulty.

This aspect doesn't seem that hard to grasp, but I'm sure there are other, more difficult oddities (difficult to humans at least).

As for the Iliu and Ktuvok tongues, I can't wait to see how they will turn out.

Iscun wrote:It seems that Elkar?l can be spoken by non-Elkari, though, with difficulty.

This aspect doesn't seem that hard to grasp, but I'm sure there are other, more difficult oddities (difficult to humans at least).

As for the Iliu and Ktuvok tongues, I can't wait to see how they will turn out.

They might both contain many slurping sounds.

So Haleza Grise wrote:What kind of phonemic inventory are we dealing with? Do the elcari have different speech production capabilities to our own?

Not really, unless you count it as a bit inhuman to not only pronounce words like p-t??ch?ngmsh 'and full of iron ore' but to retain such clusters in the language for thousands of years.

Elkar?l does make use of voiced implosives, which makes it sound even more exotic and guttural, but those are found in human languages too; they're common in Africa, for instance.

So Haleza Grise wrote:It seem that Elcarin speech is quite developed . . . it woud be interesting to see interaction between this language and uesti toungues . . .

There's been some borrowing-- mining terms, for instance. Now that I know more about the language, I may introduce more.

Emai! I don’t know of any human languages that indicate meaning using a vowel gradient, but according to my encyclopedia, Korean sometimes does so using a “consonant gradient” of sorts. I’ll quote the relevant passage:

“Korean is rich in sound symbolism (a set of sounds having specific meanings). For example, the gently pronounced voiceless consonant k in the word kamkam (meaning “dark, unclear, far-away looking”) can be replaced by strongly aspirated or tense consonants to change the connotation of the word, although all of them will have the basic meaning that has to do with darkness. Strongly aspirated consonants, such as p’, t’, and k’, carry rough, heavy, and strong meanings, as in the word k’amk’am (meaning “spooky and desolately dark”). These consonants are pronounced with widely open vocal cords. Pronounced with the vocal cords tense and almost touching each other, the consonants pp, tt, and kk carry meanings of tight, compact, and dense, as in the word kkamkkam (meaning “pitch dark”). Korean vowels are considered either dark (Yin) or bright (Yang). Yang vowels (o, a, oe, ae) symbolize something bright, light, small, or cheerful, in contrast with dark Yin vowels (u, ŏ, wi, e). For example, the words kkogijak and kkugijŏk both mean “crumpling,” but the former has the Yang meaning while the latter has the Yin one.”

The consonant gradient described above sounds a bit reminiscent of Elcaril, but the “gradient” consists of discrete jumps, rather than a continuum (which is Elcaril’s real innovation); the vowel distinction reminds one of the less formal perceptions sometimes attributed to front and back vowels (as noted in the Language Construction Kit).

Korean speakers? Any comments? (Korean itself is a language I’ve only started learning a bit about, but find highly interesting; I love the writing system).

Ad onlelan,
Glenn

Testing. Tho' I'd might as well say that I was working on Elkaril last night. Now you can ask questions or deny things. And there's only one true pronoun so far!

"True" pronoun? what's a false pronoun?

JonathanaTegire wrote:"True" pronoun? what's a false pronoun?

A sufficiently vague noun. Some linguists argue that Japanese doesn't really have pronouns, only nouns conventionally used to refer to oneself or the listener.

zompist wrote:

JonathanaTegire wrote:"True" pronoun? what's a false pronoun?

A sufficiently vague noun. Some linguists argue that Japanese doesn't really have pronouns, only nouns conventionally used to refer to oneself or the listener.

But if you have a noun that refers to the speaker - isn't that, well, a PROnoun?

ranskaldan wrote:

zompist wrote:A sufficiently vague noun. Some linguists argue that Japanese doesn't really have pronouns, only nouns conventionally used to refer to oneself or the listener.

But if you have a noun that refers to the speaker - isn't that, well, a PROnoun?

No... the "pro" part refers to a pronoun replacing any arbitrary noun; the prototypical use is "he" referring to any male mammal.

Even in English, speakers can refer to themselves without pronouns:

The present writer is convinced that...
The undersigned agree to...
Management has decided that...
This boy is having none of that!
Signed, your friend.

zompist wrote:

ranskaldan wrote:

zompist wrote:A sufficiently vague noun. Some linguists argue that Japanese doesn't really have pronouns, only nouns conventionally used to refer to oneself or the listener.

But if you have a noun that refers to the speaker - isn't that, well, a PROnoun?

No... the "pro" part refers to a pronoun replacing any arbitrary noun; the prototypical use is "he" referring to any male mammal.

Even in English, speakers can refer to themselves without pronouns:

The present writer is convinced that...
The undersigned agree to...
Management has decided that...
This boy is having none of that!
Signed, your friend.

Well then, by the same logic, neither "you" nor "I" are pronouns. They certainly do not refer to arbituary objects. Instead, they are just very short nouns.

ranskaldan wrote:Well then, by the same logic, neither "you" nor "I" are pronouns. They certainly do not refer to arbituary objects. Instead, they are just very short nouns.

Nah. In English, their morphology and syntax is clearly different from nouns. (They have a different case structure than nouns; they don't take articles or adjectives; they trigger different verb inflections, etc.)

In Japanese, it's a lot harder to tell the difference. There are many 'personal pronouns', they have no morphology peculiar to themselves, and in most cases they're clearly derived from nouns-- e.g. boku 'I' originally meant 'servant'.

Now, I'm no expert in Japanese, so I can't say for sure if 'pronoun' is a reasonable category in Japanese or not.

zompist wrote:
Even in English, speakers can refer to themselves without pronouns:

The present writer is convinced that...
The undersigned agree to...
Management has decided that...
This boy is having none of that!
Signed, your friend.

I have a co-worker, a native English speaker, who very frequently avoids the third-person pronouns in favor of saying "this one" and "that one", with appropriate gestures to the person she's talking about.

I haven't read any particular theory on the development of pronouns in the IE group; all I know is that they're extremely old, and have been different from regular nouns for thousands of years. But surely they all must have started out as regular nouns, I can't think of how else they could have come to be. Any other theories?

eodrakken wrote:I have a co-worker, a native English speaker, who very frequently avoids the third-person pronouns in favor of saying "this one" and "that one", with appropriate gestures to the person she's talking about.

I haven't read any particular theory on the development of pronouns in the IE group; all I know is that they're extremely old, and have been different from regular nouns for thousands of years. But surely they all must have started out as regular nouns, I can't think of how else they could have come to be. Any other theories?

Actually, you just gave one! Personal pronouns can develop out of demonstrative pronouns. E.g. French il(s)/elle(s) came from the Latin demonstrative ('that', IIRC).

Second-person pronouns can develop out of third-person ones-- this has happened in a number of European languages.

I don't know of any real-world examples, but I could imagine pronouns developing out of numbers-- 'I' am 'number one'! If that seems unlikely, there are instances of numbers becoming demonstratives, a development I borrowed for Kebreni.

as another example, Spanish Usted originally comes from vuestra merced. I think that means something to the effect of "your mercy." Not exactly sure on vosotros / vuestra.

Chinese third-person pronouns have a convoluted history themselves, and are also linked to demonstrative adjectives.

In modern Chinese, the third-person pronoun, ta1 (he/she), is still avoided when referring to inanimate objects/ideas (where English uses "it"). It's more preferrable to either skip the noun, use a demonstrative, or just repeat the noun. In other words, paraphrase.

As a side-note, I've heard that linguists have detected the existence of case forms in personal pronouns, in the most ancient attested Chinese (15~ century BC). Weird, since Chinese is the last language where you'd expect to see case forms.