zompist bboard

Why?
Why the hell not.

I'll update this whenever it suits me.

Elector Dark wrote:Why?
Why the hell not.

I'll update this whenever it suits me.

Alrighty then.

I'm expecting great things from you, Sir E. Dark. Great, great things.

Hoorah, let's hope I fulfill your expectations of me.

Well, my primary reason for this is "I wanted to work on my language more than I already am working on it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The language, named "Kti" or "Ktehenarā" (Ktarh language), is my "flagship" language.
The noun is "Kti", the adjective is "Ktarh".

Kti has twelve (monophthong) vowel and twelve consonant phonemes.
It has six vowel qualities that have a two-length contrast.

The vowel monophthongs are:

/i i: u u:/
/ɛ ɛː ɞ ɞː ɔ ɔː/
/a aː/

They are romanised as:

< i ī u ū >
< e ē æ ǣ o ō >
< a ā >

There are five diphthongs:

/ɒy uy uʌ ya iɞ/

They are romanised as:

< ai ui ua ia iæ >

There are three triphthongs:

/eʉɑ ɑɨɞ uʉɞ/

They are romanised as:

<eia aie uiæ>

Short vowels are one mora long, long vowels and diphthongs are two morae long and triphthongs are three morae long.

The twelve consonant phonemes are:

/t d k ʔ/
/s z ʃ ʒ x/
/m n r/

They are romanised as:

< t d k ' >
< s z sh zh h >
< m n r >

Ktarh monosyllables have a maximum size of "CCVC", and a minimal size of either "CV" or "VC" - no lone vowels are allowed. Examples: <æd> and <kti>
Here, "V" is any vowel, be it a monophthong, diphthong or triphthong.
Polysyllables in Kti can have syllables that contain no consonant. Example: <aranai>
The postvocalic glottal stop in Kti always belongs to the syllable of the vowel before it - it is rarely postconsonantal.

Special clusters violate the "CC" initial limitation. They are <s'mn>, <s'n>, <z'mn>, <z'n> and <k'n>. They cannot be preceeded by consonants if medial in words.

Kti places some restrictions on clusters:
/z/ and /ʃ/ cannot be next to a fricative
/t/ cannot be preceeded by a nasal or be followed by any plosive except /ʔ/
/d/ cannot be followed by any alveolars except /n/ and /ʃ/
/a/ cannot be followed by /ɞ/

In addition, geminates do not occur in roots but aren't forbidden when a result of morphology.

Therefore, these are all the possible "CC" combinations:

/md/ /mk/ /mʔ/ /ms/ /mz/ /mʃ/ /mʒ/ /mx/ /mr/ /mn/ /nd/ /nk/ /nʔ/ /ns/ /nz/ /nʃ/ /nʒ/ /nx/ /nm/ /nr/
/st/ /sd/ /sk/ /sʔ/ /sʒ/ /sx/* /sm/ /sn/ /sr/ /zt/ /zd/ /zk/ /zʔ/ /zm/ /zn/ /zr/ /xt/ /xd/ /xk/ /xʔ/ /xs/ /xʒ/ /xm/ /xn/ /xr/
/tʔ/ /ts/ /tn/ /tm/ /tr/ /tx/ /tʃ/ /tʒ/ /rt/ /rd/ /rk/ /rʔ/ /rs/ /rʃ/ /rx/ /rm/ /rn/ /tʔ/ /ts/ /tz/ /tʃ/ /tʒ/ /tx/ /tm/ /tn/ /dʃ/ /dn/ /dm/ /dr/
/ʃt/ /ʃd/ /ʃk/ /ʃʔ/ /ʃm/ /ʃn/ /ʃr/

*/sx/ is only a theoretical cluster - all instances of it invariably metathesise into /xs/

These are all the possible "VV" combinations:

/ae/ /au/ /aɔ/ /aɛ/ /ua/ /uɛ/ /uɔ/ /uɞ/ /ɛi/ /iɛ/ /iu/ /iɔ/ /ɔa/ /ɔɛ/ /uɛ/ /uɔ/ /uɞ/ /ɞa/ /ɞɛ/ /ɞi/ /ɞɔ/ /ɞu/

Stress is determined by syllable weight.
Syllables are counted as heavy if their nucleus is either a long monophthong, a diphthong or a triphthong, and as light otherwise.

Primary stress is always on one of the last three syllables.
If all three ultimate syllables are either fully heavy or fully light, stress falls on the penultimate.
If one of the three ultimate syllables is heavy and the rest light, stress falls on the heavy syllable.
If two of the three ultimate syllables is heavy and one is light, stress falls on the first of the heavy syllables.
Words of two syllables get their stress either on the heavy syllable, if the two are of unequal weight, or on the first syllable if both weigh equally.

Secondary stress always falls on the syllable that has a gap of one syllable between itself and the stressed syllable.
By this, if the primarily stressed syllable is antepenultimate, the secondarily stressed syllable is always the ultimate.
Secondary stress cannot fall on on the initial syllable except if it is heavy.

Tertiary stressings occur in relation to secondary stress in the same conditions as secondary stress does to primary.
Tertiary stress has a gap between itself and secondary stress of one syllable - if the secondarily stressed syllable is ultimate, tertiary stress falls on the syllable two behind primary stress.
Tertiary stress, unlike secondary, ''can'' fall on the initial syllable, regardless of its weight.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allophony is to come.

Elector Dark wrote:Awesome stuff.

Quite nice. Very thorough. Is there any historic reason that Ktarh lacks labials other than /m/, or is it just personal preference?

So with the glottal stop as a consonant phoneme, and syllables without initial consonants also possible, does that mean that the language contrasts syllables such as /ʔat/ and /at/? Also with diphthongs allowed in the language, does that mean that these contrast with two monophthongs in sequence e.g. /tiɞt/ (diphthong) vs. /ti.ɞt/ (hiatus)? And what about long vowels contrasting with two identical monophthongs in sequence e.g. /tɛːt/ (long vowel) vs. /tɛ.ɛt/ (hiatus)?

Also the vowel system seems a bit strange in that it has diphthongs and triphthongs containing /y/ and /ʉ/, but no monophthong like this.,

Care to spread some light on why the consonant system has /d/ as its only voiced stop? I can think of a reason for this (something like /g/ > /ɣ/ > /x/) but it still seems unusual especially as the system has two voiced fricatives.

Linguist Wannabe wrote:So with the glottal stop as a consonant phoneme, and syllables without initial consonants also possible, does that mean that the language contrasts syllables such as /ʔat/ and /at/?

A relevant further question is does the language insert phonetic on-glides for word initial vowels? And if it does so, doe sit do so constantly or only in quick speech?

ZMoring wrote:Quite nice. Very thorough. Is there any historic reason that Ktarh lacks labials other than /m/, or is it just personal preference?

Thanks! I'll explain it further in the next update, as it's both historical and personal preference (not to mention three marginal remnants); /m/ is disappearing in the language as well.

Linguist Wannabe wrote:So with the glottal stop as a consonant phoneme, and syllables without initial consonants also possible, does that mean that the language contrasts syllables such as /ʔat/ and /at/?

Yes, it contrasts /#ʔV/ and /#V/ where "#" is the word boundary.

Also with diphthongs allowed in the language, does that mean that these contrast with two monophthongs in sequence e.g. /tiɞt/ (diphthong) vs. /ti.ɞt/ (hiatus)? And what about long vowels contrasting with two identical monophthongs in sequence e.g. /tɛːt/ (long vowel) vs. /tɛ.ɛt/ (hiatus)?

It doesn't contrast /tiɞt/ and /ti.ɞt/ as the two syllables merge into one. It does contrast /tɛːt/ and /tɛ.ɛt/, though, as it does with /tɛː.ɛt/. I'll explain this when I come to morphophonology, possibly in the next update.

Also the vowel system seems a bit strange in that it has diphthongs and triphthongs containing /y/ and /ʉ/, but no monophthong like this.

/y/ in diphthongs owes its quality to an earlier /*ɒ/ which /ɒy/ preserves, and /ʉ/ owes its rounding to same /*ɒ/, but also /ɞ/; on a simmilar note, the three diphthongs used to be /*eɨɒ *ɒɨɞ *uɨɞ/ before becoming /*eʉɒ *ɒʉɞ *uʉɞ/ - they're currently unrounding the /*ɒ/ as a result of historical processes ( > /a/) thus giving /eʉɑ ɑɨɞ uʉɞ/ that's probably going to go to /eɨɑ ɑɨɞ uʉɞ/ (or /uɨɞ/ by analogy) as the conditioning factor disappeared.

gach wrote:Care to spread some light on why the consonant system has /d/ as its only voiced stop? I can think of a reason for this (something like /g/ > /ɣ/ > /x/) but it still seems unusual especially as the system has two voiced fricatives.

/*g/ did indeed shift to /x/, and /*p/ and /*b/ from earlier have various reflexes depending on position (b > ɓ > ʔm / V_V; p > pɸ > ʔx / V_V (dragged along by "ɸ > x"); b > m / { # C }_ or _{ # C }; p > ɸ > x / { # C }_ or _{ # C } ("d > ɗ > d" also happened) )
This wasn't totally universal, thus giving us the three examples which I mentioned above but will further explain in the next update.

Linguist Wannabe wrote:So with the glottal stop as a consonant phoneme, and syllables without initial consonants also possible, does that mean that the language contrasts syllables such as /ʔat/ and /at/?

A relevant further question is does the language insert phonetic on-glides for word initial vowels? And if it does so, does it do so constantly or only in quick speech?

Yeah, that's a relevant question. I didn't actually think on this much, but I imagine maybe a weak [ɦ]-onglide would be present when the word is preceeded by one that ends with a vowel or by none.

Is the resemblence of the name of the language to "catarrh" deliberate?

1) It's not the name of the language you're referring to (assuming you meant "Ktarh"), it's the adjective (language of the people known as the Kti = Ktarh language)
2) It's as incidental as the resemblance to "kit", "cauter", "cantarh" and Quark (no the Kti do not have giant ear-like thingies) - [edit: or even "Swedish" and "sheepish"]

Now, some allophony goodness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each vowel has three allophones based on position: a word-initial, word-medial and word-final one. Here they are, in the format of "phoneme initial~medial~final":

/a/ [a]~[ɑ]~[a]
/a:/ [äː] ~ [ɐː] ~ [äː]
/ɛ/ [e] ~ [ɛ] ~ [ɛ]
/ɛː/ [ɛː] ~ [ɛː] ~ [ɛː]
/i/ [ i ] ~ [ i̠ ] ~ [ ɪ ]
/i:/ [ i̟ː] ~ [iː] ~ [i̟ː]
/u/ ~ ~
/u:/ [u̠ː] ~ [uː] ~ [uː]
/ɔ/ [ɔ] ~ [ɔ] ~ [ɔ]
/ɔ:/ [ɔː] ~ [ɔː] ~ [ɔː]
/ɞ/ [ɞ] ~ [ɞ] ~ [ɜ]
/ɞ:/ [ɞː] ~ [ɞː] ~ [ɞː]

Diphthongs and triphthongs don't have any significant allophonic variation.

Consonants also exhibit allophony:

k > kʲ / _{ i ɛ } (not obligatory)
x > h / #_ (obligatory)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever two vowels come together via compounding or affixation, they either become a VV cluster or a diphthong.
The following combinations make up the diphthongs:

/ɒy/ = { "a+i" "ɔ+i" }
/uy/ = { "u+i" }
/uʌ/ = { "u+a" }
/ya/ = { "i+a" "ɛ+a" }
/iɞ/ = { "i+ɞ" "ɛ+ɞ" "ɛ+ɔ"* }
*This one is sporadic (sometimes might happen, other times mightn't)

The following combinations make up triphthongs:

/eʉɑ/ = { "ɛ+ya" "ɞ+ya" }
/ɑɨɞ/ = { "ɒy+ɛ" "ɒy+ɞ" }
/uʉɞ/ = { "uy+ɛ" "uy+ɞ" }

As a result of affixation, a "V-V" combination always becomes [V:] phonetically but is recognised as /V.V/ phonemically; in compounds, a "V-V" combination shows a hiatus even phonetically (so that it's [V.V] and /V.V/ at the same time).
If both vowels were short, the syllable that results is still light.
If a long vowel and any other vowel meet, they are in hiatus regardless of origin of contact.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll explain the general lack of labials in Kti.
It's a historical process that gradually eliminated more and more labials from the language. From a previous labial consonant inventory of /*p *b *ɸ *m/ only /m/ remains; the process is still ongoing - it had almost fully unrounded one vowel (/*ɒ/ > /a/) and is unrounding another (ɞ > ɜ / _#), whilst also getting rid of /m/ in certain positions (m > 0 / 'ɛ_aC# - so far, and still not complete as speakers sporadically apply it, even to the same word); the most significant of these changes I mentioned before:
b > ɓ > ʔm / V_V
p > pɸ > ʔx / V_V
b > m / { # C }_ or _{ # C }
p > ɸ > x / { # C }_ or _{ # C }

/*g/ had lenited to /*ɣ/ even before this, and later merged with /x/, probably at the same time as /*ɸ/.

This isn't to say that the language doesn't have any /p~b/ - well, it doesn't have them as contrastive phonemes, as only three examples still exist: "Psi" [psi ~ msi] and its various declined forms, "Baki" [baki ~ maki] and its various declined forms and "bsāton" [bsɐ:tɔn ~ msɐ:tɔn] and its various conjugated and declined forms.
Some speakers realise them with [p~b], some with [m]; despite that, there aren't any actual minimal pairs of them - in compounds, the labial plosives from these words all shift to [m].

Elector Dark wrote:1) It's not the name of the language you're referring to (assuming you meant "Ktarh"), it's the adjective (language of the people known as the Kti = Ktarh language)
2) It's as incidental as the resemblance to "kit", "cauter", "cantarh" and Quark (no the Kti do not have giant ear-like thingies) - [edit: or even "Swedish" and "sheepish"]

So you didn't notice it until it was pointed out to you then.

(Actually, the resemblence is far less incidental than that to "kit" "cauter" etc. On seeing the sequence "ktarh", I have a suspicion that most native English speakers would pronounce it homophonously with "catarrh".)

Dewrad wrote:

Elector Dark wrote:1) It's not the name of the language you're referring to (assuming you meant "Ktarh"), it's the adjective (language of the people known as the Kti = Ktarh language)
2) It's as incidental as the resemblance to "kit", "cauter", "cantarh" and Quark (no the Kti do not have giant ear-like thingies) - [edit: or even "Swedish" and "sheepish"]

So you didn't notice it until it was pointed out to you then.

(Actually, the resemblence is far less incidental than that to "kit" "cauter" etc. On seeing the sequence "ktarh", I have a suspicion that most native English speakers would pronounce it homophonously with "catarrh".)

I noticed this before I had even seen it pointed out by anyone, as a native English speaker.

Dewrad wrote:

Elector Dark wrote:1) It's not the name of the language you're referring to (assuming you meant "Ktarh"), it's the adjective (language of the people known as the Kti = Ktarh language)
2) It's as incidental as the resemblance to "kit", "cauter", "cantarh" and Quark (no the Kti do not have giant ear-like thingies) - [edit: or even "Swedish" and "sheepish"]

So you didn't notice it until it was pointed out to you then.

(Actually, the resemblence is far less incidental than that to "kit" "cauter" etc. On seeing the sequence "ktarh", I have a suspicion that most native English speakers would pronounce it homophonously with "catarrh".)

Verily.

As it stands, though, on THIS board the chance of people pronouncing it that way is very low. I myself instantly read [kʰtʰaːr̥].

Dewrad wrote:So you didn't notice it until it was pointed out to you then.

(Actually, the resemblence is far less incidental than that to "kit" "cauter" etc. On seeing the sequence "ktarh", I have a suspicion that most native English speakers would pronounce it homophonously with "catarrh".)

Yeah, I see that now - hadn't noticed it before you pointed it out. Purely coincidental, I'd have to say - "catarrh" isn't the prettiest term to use to name a language.

Elector Dark wrote:

Linguist Wannabe wrote: Also with diphthongs allowed in the language, does that mean that these contrast with two monophthongs in sequence e.g. /tiɞt/ (diphthong) vs. /ti.ɞt/ (hiatus)? And what about long vowels contrasting with two identical monophthongs in sequence e.g. /tɛːt/ (long vowel) vs. /tɛ.ɛt/ (hiatus)?

It doesn't contrast /tiɞt/ and /ti.ɞt/ as the two syllables merge into one. It does contrast /tɛːt/ and /tɛ.ɛt/, though, as it does with /tɛː.ɛt/. I'll explain this when I come to morphophonology, possibly in the next update.

Does /tɛ.ɛt/ and /tɛʔɛt/ contrast? How about /tɛː.ɛt/ and /tɛːʔɛt/?

Yes to both.

Kti is a nominative-aligning language with a general VOS word order and variable head direction that tends to initial.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, nouns and nominals.

Nouns in Kti can have one of three genders, four animacies, twenty-eight cases, three numbers and two classes. The categories, explained:

-Genders:
Masculine
Feminine
Mechanoid

-Animacies:
Sentient (Animate)
Critter (Animate)
Dead (Inanimate)
Inanimate (Inanimate)

-Cases:
Nominative
Accusative
Reflexive
Genitive
Dative
Vocative
Instrumental
Locative
Intrative
Inessive
Subessive
Ablative
Allative
Delative
Elative
Illative
Sublative
Perlative
Prosecutive-Vialis
Antessive
Abessive
Revertive
Identical
Ornative
Adventive
Possessive
Partitive
Anessive

-Numbers:
Singular
Dual
Plural

-Classes:
Regular
"Clipping"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll explain these all when I have more time.

Oh, how lovely. The rarest type of conlang: the one that sticks crap onto the noun.

Everyone has to start somewhere

That's quite a few inflections of the noun (not unheard of in natlangs, as Daghestanian languages show). But what are the "regular class" and the "clipping class"?

WeepingElf wrote:That's quite a few inflections of the noun (not unheard of in natlangs, as Daghestanian languages show).

Yeah, was kinda aiming for that. What can I say, I love cases

But what are the "regular class" and the "clipping class"?

Was planning on explaining that later (which I shall in further detail) - the regular and clipping classes are ablaut classes. The regular form of Ktarh ablaut (yes there's the irregular form too but later on that) is all about vowel length. Clipping-type nouns can change the length of their final vowel (as they're all polysyllabic), or even lose them (that is, "clip" them away); with clipping-type nouns, the ablaut is obligatory. Regular-type nouns have optional ablaut (the speaker can choose to apply it, for emphasis or contrast)

Elector Dark wrote:Everyone has to start somewhere

That was not criticism. In fact, we could be brothers in difference: your lang sticks crap onto the noun and mine sticks crap onto the verb.

Oh, and also: mechanoid gender? Tell me more about your conworld pl0x

EDIT: I just checked out the aforementioned language families. I don't care how strange the Athabaskan languages are, the weirdest shit goes on in the Caucasus.

Hallow XIII wrote: That was not criticism. In fact, we could be brothers in difference: your lang sticks crap onto the noun and mine sticks crap onto the verb.

Didn't take it as such - what I meant is that rarely who starts with sticking shit onto nouns. My lang also sticks stuff on verbs but to a far lesser extent.

Oh, and also: mechanoid gender? Tell me more about your conworld pl0x

Hah, sure thing I'll get to that in the next update

EDIT: I just checked out the aforementioned language families. I don't care how strange the Athabaskan languages are, the weirdest shit goes on in the Caucasus.

Tsez and Georgian were my primary inspirations - the Caucasus has such weird shit, an example being case stacking *wink wink foreshadow*

I know that feeling. When I decided I wanted to make a polylang I went and got myself Dumézil's grammar of Ubykh and a grammar of the Navajo verb. I ended up pretty much not using the latter xP

Elector Dark wrote:case stacking

I knew this was coming

Hallow XIII wrote:I know that feeling. When I decided I wanted to make a polylang I went and got myself Dumézil's grammar of Ubykh and a grammar of the Navajo verb. I ended up pretty much not using the latter xP

Georgian helped me mangle the morphosyntax (so that the nominative, accusative, genitive, dative and vocative can be used to mark the subject, but only the nominative, vocative and reflexive can mark the agent) and I drew some inspirations of the verb system from bo

Elector Dark wrote:case stacking

I knew this was coming

Heh.
The cases that can stack (generally) share ablaut and behave simmilarly, so it won't be totally random.