In search of isolating conlangs

Substantial postings about constructed languages and constructed worlds in general. Good place to mention your own or evaluate someone else's. Put quick questions in C&C Quickies instead.
User avatar
Maharba
Niš
Niš
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Maharba »

I will mention here my conlang Tulsimaj that I'm just starting on, and which appears so far to be fully isolating.

Incidentally, the isolating-synthetic distinction seems to me rather fake, because it is just, as far as I have seen, a matter of whether there is a space between the root and modifier.

User avatar
Drydic
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
Contact:

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Drydic »

Sandhi say hi.
Image Image
Common Zein Scratchpad & other Stuffs! OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.

User avatar
Eyowa
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: the coast of Merustan

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Eyowa »

Maharba wrote:Incidentally, the isolating-synthetic distinction seems to me rather fake, because it is just, as far as I have seen, a matter of whether there is a space between the root and modifier.
Well, it's not really arbitrary, although natlangs tend to blur the lines between morphemes being isolating or synthetic. You can tell if a modifier is actually an affix by trying to insert other modifiers between the root and the affix. If you can't stick arbitrary modifiers between two morphemes, they're probably part of the same word. For example, the English past-tense morpheme "-ed" is an affix because you can't insert an adverb (or anything else) between the verb and the tense marking. You can say "the man talked quickly" but not *"the man talk quickly ed". An example of where the lines get blurry is English's possessive -'s. You can insert prepositional phrases and maybe even relative clauses in between the noun and the possessive marker, e.g. "my friend from Chicago's house", and maybe even ?"the friend I saw yesterday's house".
/"e.joU.wV/
faiuwle wrote:
Torco wrote:yeah, I speak in photosynthetic Spanish
Sounds like it belongs in the linguistics garden next to the germinating nasals.

Yng
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Llundain

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Yng »

Eyowa wrote:An example of where the lines get blurry is English's possessive -'s. You can insert prepositional phrases and maybe even relative clauses in between the noun and the possessive marker, e.g. "my friend from Chicago's house", and maybe even ?"the friend I saw yesterday's house".
I wouldn't say that's the line getting blurry, anyway. It's an affix which attaches on the phrase level: a clitic.
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية

tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!

short texts in Cuhbi

Risha Cuhbi grammar

User avatar
Maharba
Niš
Niš
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Maharba »

Eyowa wrote:You can tell if a modifier is actually an affix by trying to insert other modifiers between the root and the affix. If you can't stick arbitrary modifiers between two morphemes, they're probably part of the same word.
Or it could be that they're isolated particles in a language with strict ordering for such particles.

Yng
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Llundain

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Yng »

In which case they're syntactically bound and either clitics or affixes, probably depending on how closely phonologically bound they are. Note that Chinese particles which are syntactically bound to e.g. verbs are frequently analysed as affixes.
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية

tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!

short texts in Cuhbi

Risha Cuhbi grammar

User avatar
Drydic
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
Contact:

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Drydic »

Maharba wrote:
Eyowa wrote:You can tell if a modifier is actually an affix by trying to insert other modifiers between the root and the affix. If you can't stick arbitrary modifiers between two morphemes, they're probably part of the same word.
Or it could be that they're isolated particles in a language with strict ordering for such particles.
If so, what's the difference between that and an agglutinating language? Here's your answer: zip. You just want there to be a difference. Spaces aren't important since written language isn't the only method of language use. It's one of the pitfalls of conlanging, you have to remember that the spoken language can be (and usually is) quite a different beast.

edit: also
YngNghymru wrote: Chinese isn't considered to be isolating because its agglutinative morphemes are written separately from the words they are syntactically and phonologically bound to. It's considered to be isolating because the number of those morphemes is so small!
Very much the truth. If an 'isolating' language has 5 or 6 'independent' clitics and particles per word, you're just fooling yourself into thinking it's isolating.
Image Image
Common Zein Scratchpad & other Stuffs! OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.

User avatar
Curlyjimsam
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:57 am
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Curlyjimsam »

Ulrike Meinhof wrote:
Curlyjimsam wrote:This can be a touch irritating sometimes when other people's grammars seem to loads longer than mine (and therefore likely to be thought of as superior at the most casual glance) but closer inspection reveals that they are three-quarters composed of tables for the various inflectional paradigms ...
If tables of inflectional paradigms signficantly affect the length ratio between your grammar and someone else's, then both are too short.
Possibly true. I find the space given to paradigms are often seriously inflated, though, by including a lot of redundant information (e.g. reproducing whole tables for what is essentially an agglutinative system (+ possibly a few morphophonological rules) that could be summed up in a couple of lines), or including full tables for every single irregular verb. My main objection is that these languages often have very little syntax at all - significantly less than mine do, in general.

My own grammars are often shortened considerably by the fact that I tend to be extremely brief in discussing phonology, so that I'm only really talking here about comparative lengths of the morphosyntax sections.

User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Imralu »

Maharba wrote:Incidentally, the isolating-synthetic distinction seems to me rather fake, because it is just, as far as I have seen, a matter of whether there is a space between the root and modifier.
Drydic Guy wrote:
Maharba wrote:
Eyowa wrote:You can tell if a modifier is actually an affix by trying to insert other modifiers between the root and the affix. If you can't stick arbitrary modifiers between two morphemes, they're probably part of the same word.
Or it could be that they're isolated particles in a language with strict ordering for such particles.
If so, what's the difference between that and an agglutinating language? Here's your answer: zip. You just want there to be a difference.
He doesn't think there is a difference at all. That's what he's saying.
Maharba wrote:Incidentally, the isolating-synthetic distinction seems to me rather fake
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

Yng
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Llundain

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Yng »

Imralu wrote: He doesn't think there is a difference at all. That's what he's saying.
No he isn't. He's saying that the difference between them is one of orthography. As I explained above, the reason Chinese is considered isolating is not because its bound morphemes are written as separate words; it's because it has comparatively few bound morphemes to speak of in the first place.
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية

tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!

short texts in Cuhbi

Risha Cuhbi grammar

TaylorS
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by TaylorS »

Drydic Guy wrote:
Maharba wrote:
Eyowa wrote:You can tell if a modifier is actually an affix by trying to insert other modifiers between the root and the affix. If you can't stick arbitrary modifiers between two morphemes, they're probably part of the same word.
Or it could be that they're isolated particles in a language with strict ordering for such particles.
If so, what's the difference between that and an agglutinating language? Here's your answer: zip. You just want there to be a difference. Spaces aren't important since written language isn't the only method of language use. It's one of the pitfalls of conlanging, you have to remember that the spoken language can be (and usually is) quite a different beast.

edit: also
YngNghymru wrote: Chinese isn't considered to be isolating because its agglutinative morphemes are written separately from the words they are syntactically and phonologically bound to. It's considered to be isolating because the number of those morphemes is so small!
Very much the truth. If an 'isolating' language has 5 or 6 'independent' clitics and particles per word, you're just fooling yourself into thinking it's isolating.
If French were some obscure language in some 3rd World country it would be considered a highly synthetic language with polypersonal agreement. :mrgreen:

TaylorS
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by TaylorS »

IMO a morpheme is an affix if:

1. It is bound to the word it modifies, another independent word cannot come in between the morpheme and the word root.

2. It has no independent stress.

User avatar
Eyowa
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: the coast of Merustan

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Eyowa »

TaylorS wrote:IMO a morpheme is an affix if:

1. It is bound to the word it modifies, another independent word cannot come in between the morpheme and the word root.

2. It has no independent stress.
#2 is problematic because... what if the language doesn't have phonemic stress? Also, it's not much help for languages like English which are stress timed and where affixes and function words alike are usually unstressed.
/"e.joU.wV/
faiuwle wrote:
Torco wrote:yeah, I speak in photosynthetic Spanish
Sounds like it belongs in the linguistics garden next to the germinating nasals.

TaylorS
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by TaylorS »

Eyowa wrote:
TaylorS wrote:IMO a morpheme is an affix if:

1. It is bound to the word it modifies, another independent word cannot come in between the morpheme and the word root.

2. It has no independent stress.
#2 is problematic because... what if the language doesn't have phonemic stress? Also, it's not much help for languages like English which are stress timed and where affixes and function words alike are usually unstressed.
Hmmm, good point.

User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Imralu »

YngNghymru wrote:
Imralu wrote: He doesn't think there is a difference at all. That's what he's saying.
No he isn't. He's saying that the difference between them is one of orthography.
*Rereads*
You're right!
Entschuldigung!
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

User avatar
roninbodhisattva
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:50 pm
Location: California

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by roninbodhisattva »

bump.

Lithray
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:37 am

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Lithray »

This is going to sound stupid but are isolating conlangs tonal or something along those lines? I am just asking.

User avatar
MisterBernie
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:46 am
Location: Oktoberfestonia

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by MisterBernie »

Lithray wrote:This is going to sound stupid but are isolating conlangs tonal or something along those lines? I am just asking.
Those that are isolating tonal languages are tonal.
Constructed Voices - Another conlanging/conworlding blog.
Latest post: Joyful Birth of the Oiled One

User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Imralu »

MisterBernie wrote:
Lithray wrote:This is going to sound stupid but are isolating conlangs tonal or something along those lines? I am just asking.

Those that are isolating tonal languages are tonal.

Reminds me of a movie I was watching, where one character mentions his deaf, autistic grandfather and asserts that that's a very rare combination among deaf people ... and I was like: "Yeah, but it's even rarer among hearing people." My friend laughed. You had to be there. Shut up!
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by WeepingElf »

Lithray wrote:This is going to sound stupid but are isolating conlangs tonal or something along those lines? I am just asking.
Not necessarily. You can build an isolating conlang without tones.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A

User avatar
Bryan
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:50 am
Location: Middlesex, England
Contact:

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Bryan »

ULRIKE,

Hi.

My current AuxLang is basically isolating.

"I saw them yesterday" = "mi i pas ve a hihi ayer" = 1Sg PRED before see to s/he-s/he [=they] yesterday

Was even thinking of changing "ayer", as "today" and "tomorrow" translate basically as "this day" and "next day".

User avatar
roninbodhisattva
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:50 pm
Location: California

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by roninbodhisattva »

Bump bump!

User avatar
Moanaka
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Moanaka »

My latest endeavour is basically all analytic, and mostly isolating. So far there is only one affix, for derivation.

It doesn't have a phonology right now, and I would feel weird throwing up random glosses, so, I guess I'll just work on this till it sticks, or is at least semi-presentable.

EDIT: it's also probably gonna have quite a bit of compound nouns...
creoles are pretty cool

Wattmann
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:50 am

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by Wattmann »

Moanaka wrote:My latest endeavour is basically all analytic, and mostly isolating. So far there is only one affix, for derivation.

It doesn't have a phonology right now, and I would feel weird throwing up random glosses, so, I guess I'll just work on this till it sticks, or is at least semi-presentable.

EDIT: it's also probably gonna have quite a bit of compound nouns...
How is that isolating then?
Warning: Recovering bilingual, attempting trilinguaility. Knowledge of French left behind in childhood. Currently repairing bilinguality. Repair stalled. Above content may be a touch off.

cromulant
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 402
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:12 pm

Re: In search of isolating conlangs

Post by cromulant »

The core design principle of Gac is that it's isolating with direct-inverse MSA (unattested), and all other decisions flow from that or tie in with features that flow from that.

Post Reply