Another triconsonantal conlang

[Plusquamperfekt]

Verbal morphology

Code: Select all

1u2u3 = 1SG agent - 1SG patient (reflexive)
1u2i3 = 1SG agent - 2SG patient
1u2a3 = 1SG agent - 3SG patient
1u23u = 1SG agent - 1PL patient
1u23i = 1SG agent - 2PL patient
1u23a = 1SG agent - 3PL patient

1i2u3 = 1SG agent - 1SG patient
1i2i3 = 1SG agent - 2SG patient (reflexive)
1i2a3 = 1SG agent - 3SG patient
1i23u = 1SG agent - 1PL patient
1i23i = 1SG agent - 2PL patient
1i23a = 1SG agent - 3PL patient

1a2u3 = 3SG agent - 1SG patient
1a2i3 = 3SG agent - 2SG patient 
1a2a3 = 3SG agent - 3SG patient
1a23u = 3SG agent - 1PL patient
1a23i = 3SG agent - 2PL patient
1a23a = 3SG agent - 3PL patient

u12u3 = 1PL agent - 1SG patient
u12i3 = 1PL agent - 2SG patient 
u12a3 = 1PL agent - 3SG patient
u12e3ur = 1PL agent - 1PL patient (reflexive)
u12e3ir = 1PL agent - 2PL patient
u12e3ar = 1PL agent - 3PL patient

i12u3 = 2PL agent - 1SG patient
---
i12a3 = 2PL agent - 3SG patient 
i12e3ur = 2PL agent - 1PL patient
i12e3ir = 2PL agent - 2PL patient (reflexiv)
i12e3ar = 2PL agent - 3PL patient

a12u3 = 3PL agent - 1SG patient
a12i3 = 3PL agent - 2SG patient 
a12a3 = 3PL agent - 3SG patient
a12e3ur = 3PL agent - 1PL patient 
a12e3ir = 3PL agent - 2PL patient
a12e3ar = 3PL agent - 3PL patient

1u23or = 1SG (intransitive)
1i23or = 2SG (intransitive)
1a23or = 3SG (intransitive)
u12e3or = 1PL (intransitive)
i12e3or = 2PL (intransitive)
a12e3or = 3PL (intransitive)

1a2a3on = 3SG agent - 3SG patient (reflexive)
a12e3aon = 3PL agent - 3PL patient (reflexive)

Usuable consonants for verb roots: /p/ /t/ /k/ /m/ /n/ /l/ /f/ /s/ /š/ /h/

Other suffixes:
-ei (imperfective simultaneity)
-et (imperfective anteriority)
-el (imperfective posteriority)
-est (imperfective potential)
-els (imperfective irrealis)

-oi (perfective simultaneity)
-ot (perfective anteriority)
-ol (perfective posteriority)
-ost (perfective potential)
-ols (perfective irrealis)

- only 30 different verb stems with very basic meanings, other verbs are formed by attaching prefixes to the basic verb
- absolute tense can only be expressed with conjunctions and adverbs

[Drydic]

And how did this system evolve?

[Plusquamperfekt]

This is going to be an experimental conlang and not designed to be naturalistic... I just want to try out if such a regular and systematic system can work

Example word

p-k-n - see


pukin = I see you
pikan = you see him/her
Pukan ak pikanot. = I saw him after you had seen him/her.
Pukan ak pikanol. = I see him before you had seen him/her.
Pukan ak pikanei! = I saw him when you saw him/her (too.)

[Plusquamperfekt]

OK people, this time I need your help... With this limited number of available phonemes for tri-consonantal roots I can only form about 30 verbs. These verbs need to have very genenal and unspecific meanings so that I can derive more verbs with more specific meanings by adding prefixes to the verb. However, as I am not a native speaker of English, I need your suggestions: If you were allowed to use only 30 verbs in English, which verbs would you choose in order to remain able to express most of your ideas despite having such small vocabulary?

[Hallow XIII]

at least have the decency to not post it here if you're not only doing this but also aren't taking it seriously so we can't flame you for it

like, I mean, surely you know that a) we can give you no useful feedback and b) are deathly allergic to these

NE: in response to the above post, this is why the system CANNOT work. oligosynthesis has been tried, it does not end well.

[Plusquamperfekt]

I don't see the problem, really. I think it's an interesting concept and I wanted to share this idea with you, as I can't imagine a more efficient way to have both subject and object agreement in a language which is not fusional. I apologize for causing allergic reactions, but I really do not understand what I did wrong.

Edit:
Frankly, I didn't even know the term "oligosynthesis" and had to look it up in Wikipedia. In fact, I don't want this conlang to be entirely oligosynthetic, but my conjugation system works only with a very limited number of verbs as I would need an infinite number of phonemes. Natlangs have thousands of verbs, so my idea was to derive all verbs from only 30 basic verbs. Why shouldn't that work?

[Hallow XIII]

Nonconcatenative morphology is fusional.

Also given the fact that you joined here years ago I thought you would be aware of the fact that every dolt and their dog makes this exact thing as soon as they learn about semitic languages, if learn is the right word for it because if they actually *learnt* about them they would be more aware of the fact that this is not how they work, so even if a person such as yourself, who is perfectly aware of the fact that this is unnatural and does it as a sort of experimental thing does it, it is still kind of grating.

But, well, okay, that is unfair. So now that I've gotten that out of my system, I really don't think you can construct a useful language out of only 30 basic verbal roots. I would guess you can try but this is really the big reason why natlangs don't work like this. It consumes the available phonological space far too quickly.

[Drydic]

my conjugation system works only with a very limited number of verbs as I would need an infinite number of phonemes.

10 is a number rather far from infinity...

Natlangs have thousands of verbs, so my idea was to derive all verbs from only 30 basic verbs. Why shouldn't that work?

Because languages do not in fact work that way.

Also what H13 said about fusion.

[Plusquamperfekt]

I see your point, but I honestly disapprove of your initial reaction. Conlanging is a hobby which requires a lot of creativity and innovation and this means that sometimes you just have to be allowed to experiment with things that are completely absent in the languages you know well, because every failure takes you closer to being successful. I'm a quite experienced conlanger and happy that I found my way to this forum, but sometimes I really wonder which attitude people have here towards beginners. I think people trying to deal with new linguistic concepts should be supported and not critisized for their attempt to gain knowledge in a new field, even when they make mistakes.

OK, now back to my conlang:
Maybe it would be better if the 30 roots conveyed grammatical information too, for example evidentiality. If I combined a verb with a prefixed noun stem, I would get thousands of verbs without problems.

[Yng]

I mean sort of - but we also don't need to applaud everybody's efforts at doing an overdone thing that every single noob has at some point tried to do. It's fine to experiment obviously, but publishing it on the forum for all to see when you know it is nothing more than a slightly silly thought experiment (that you apparently hadn't even thought through far enough to work out that it was unsustainable for exactly the reasons you're bringing up now) is probably a bad idea given the general attitude amongst the populace here

You know, keep on trucking and everything, but err

[Plusquamperfekt]

I mean sort of - but we also don't need to applaud everybody's efforts at doing an overdone thing that every single noob has at some point tried to do. It's fine to experiment obviously, but publishing it on the forum for all to see when you know it is nothing more than a slightly silly thought experiment (that you apparently hadn't even thought through far enough to work out that it was unsustainable for exactly the reasons you're bringing up now) is probably a bad idea given the general attitude amongst the populace here

You know, keep on trucking and everything, but err

It may be difficult, but not impossible.

I understand that you are tired of having threads in this forum which contain only vague ideas instead of well-developed conlangs and thought-out projects and in fact I planned to post this thread into another sub-forum, but I accidentally posted it here (maybe someone could move the thread so that you feel less molested ).
Nevertheless I think some people should really reconsider their general attitude.

So what is the main objective of this forum? Only presenting finished projects in order to show off and demonstrate how smart we are? What about conlangs that are still in construction? Or ideas for conlangs? Exchange of ideas for conlangs?

The last thing I want to say is that my intention to create this thread was not to get applause, but rather some advice.

[Particles the Greek]

Nevertheless I think some people should really reconsider their general attitude.

So what is the main objective of this forum? Only presenting finished projects in order to show off and demonstrate how smart we are? What about conlangs that are still in construction? Or ideas for conlangs? Exchange of ideas for conlangs?

The last thing I want to say is that my intention to create this thread was not to get applause, but rather some advice.

Obviously there's a happy balance somewhere between posting every idea you've ever had and only showing the finished article, but nobody seems to know where it is Perhaps unleashing a flood of very regular-looking morphology on us wasn't the best way to start, especially since your difficulty isn't with the morphology anyway.

Anyway, if I understand you you're trying to create a comprehensive verbal system with only 30 basic roots, which is only really possible - whatever the roots you start with - if you use a *lot* of analogy, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire along with a great deal of derivative morphology. I think if you get the derivations worked out comprehensively enough you could start with *any* 30 reasonably common verbal roots, and the results would no doubt be most interesting.

[KathTheDragon]

You actually have 720 roots. 900 if you allow roots to repeat a single consonant, or 1000 if you let all three consonants be the same. Going with 720, you have half a million if you only combine two roots to form a new word.

[Drydic]

Obviously there's a happy balance somewhere between posting every idea you've ever had and only showing the finished article, but nobody seems to know where it is Perhaps unleashing a flood of very regular-looking morphology on us wasn't the best way to start, especially since your difficulty isn't with the morphology anyway.

Anyway, if I understand you you're trying to create a comprehensive verbal system with only 30 basic roots, which is only really possible - whatever the roots you start with - if you use a *lot* of analogy, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire along with a great deal of derivative morphology. I think if you get the derivations worked out comprehensively enough you could start with *any* 30 reasonably common verbal roots, and the results would no doubt be most interesting.

Actually the concept, if not the exact form, might be feasible if you allow massive serial verb use, and meaning drift. With fossilization, analogy, and syncope, that could lead to some interesting forms which are barely predictable.

I understand that you are tired of having threads in this forum which contain only vague ideas instead of well-developed conlangs and thought-out projects and in fact I planned to post this thread into another sub-forum, but I accidentally posted it here (maybe someone could move the thread so that you feel less molested ).

Meh I for one don't have any problem with which forum you posted this in. Sure I have an inkling that C&C is for slightly more substantial stuff, but also it isn't subject to the vagaries of imminent deletion.

[Plusquamperfekt]

OK then report this thread, maybe you should also ask someone to ban me for spamming only unsubstantial stuff.

[cromulant]

OK then report this thread, maybe you should also ask someone to ban me for spamming only unsubstantial stuff.

I'm quoting this because this is the fourth time you've changed your post. This time it stays.

[Plusquamperfekt]

OK then report this thread, maybe you should also ask someone to ban me for spamming only unsubstantial stuff.

I'm quoting this because this is the fourth time you've changed your post. This time it stays.

So what? It's hard to choose the right words when people insult you for no good reason.

[Rhetorica]

You actually have 720 roots. 900 if you allow roots to repeat a single consonant, or 1000 if you let all three consonants be the same. Going with 720, you have half a million if you only combine two roots to form a new word.

...yeah, I was gonna point this out. The only way a triconsonantal system would be limited to "about thirty" roots is if you only have 3 consonants. (3^3 = 27) Syllabaries have more glyphs than this, and generally with a smaller inventory of possible combinations than triplets of consonants permit.

[Plusquamperfekt]

It's not that easy Rhetorica, some sounds are so similar that speakers could confuse the roots, therefore not all possible combination should be used.

[Drydic]

It's not that easy Rhetorica, some sounds are so similar that speakers could confuse the roots, therefore not all possible combination should be used.

Code: Select all

/p/ /t/ /k/ /m/ /n/ /l/ /f/ /s/ /š/ /h/

[Plusquamperfekt]

OK people, let me try to categorize the semantic features of verbs


First consonant (lexical)

<f> - other category
<h> -physical change of structure, state or constitution of object
<k> - production
<l> - physical change of structure, state or constitution of subject
<n> - direction, movement of body parts
<p> - emotions and unintentional perception
<s> - origin, reception
<š> - intentional cognitive processes
<t> - position

Second consonant (inflection)

<f> - habit
<h> - repetition
<k> - result
<l> - successful termination
<n> - persistency
<p> - begin
<s> - neutral
<š> - cancelation
<t> - sudden event

Third consonant (inflection)

<f> - imperative
<h> - present tense + no evidentiality
<k> - past tense + no evidentiality
<l> - past tense + reportative evidentiality
<n> - present tense + reportative evidentiality
<p> - past tense + sensory evidentiality
<s> - present tense + sensory evidentiality
<š> - past tense + interential evidentiality
<t> - present tense + inferential evidentiality

Infinitive prefix-a1sa (after consonants), prefix-1sa (after vowels)

Example words:
roč - eye
nel - ear
tup - mouth
alna - hand
bira - foot

Verbs:
ročapsa - to see
nelapsa - to hear
tupansa - to say
alnansa - to give
alnassa - to take
alnatsa - to hold
birassa - to come
biransa - to go

[DePaw]

Why <š> why not <z> or something simpler?

It also might be worth using affixes for those inflection you're currently using consonants for inside the root, currently you really only have a uniconsonantal language

[Plusquamperfekt]

Very simple reason: When there are consonant sequences like [bt] or [zk], it's very likely that people would either voice or devoice all consonants and then there would be many homophones..

Edit:
On the other hand, instead of avoiding voicing contrasts, it would also be possible to use only use stops and let them become fricatives in clusters with mixed voicing.... Example <p b t d č dž k g m n l>

/pt/ => [pt]
/bd/ => [bd]
/pd/ => [ft]
/bd/ => [vd]

[Herr Dunkel]

...When there are consonant sequences like [bt] or [zk]...

Which you, um, do not have.

[Plusquamperfekt]

...When there are consonant sequences like [bt] or [zk]...

Which you, um, do not have.

That's why I don't have them, to avoid such sequences.