In search of isolating conlangs

[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.

[Drydic]

Sandhi say hi.

[Eyowa]

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".

[Yng]

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.

[Maharba]

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]

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.

[Drydic]

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

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.

[Curlyjimsam]

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.

[Imralu]

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.

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.

Incidentally, the isolating-synthetic distinction seems to me rather fake

[Yng]

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.

[TaylorS]

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

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.

[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.

[Eyowa]

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.

[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.

#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.

[Imralu]

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!

[roninbodhisattva]

bump.

[Lithray]

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

[MisterBernie]

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.

[Imralu]

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!

[WeepingElf]

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.

[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".

[roninbodhisattva]

Bump bump!

[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...

[Wattmann]

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?

[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.