zompist bboard

Posted: **Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:16 pm**

Rumunil

Phonology

/m n/ <m n>
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
/f v s/ <f v s>
/j r l/ <y r l>

/ɪ ʊ (ɛ) (ɔ) a/ <i u e o a>

The vowels /ɛ ɔ/ only occur on stressed syllables.

<h> is used to mark hiatus between vowels, and differentiate homophones.

Allophony

The resonants /m, n, r, l/ become sylabic /m̩, n̩, r̩, l̩/ when between two consonants or between a consonant and a word boundary. For example, <Mbrugnal> [m̩.brʊg.'nal] "Morning" and <Nulrnan> [nʊ.lr̩.'nan] "To bump, knock, beat, mash"

The nasals /m, n/ always agree with the POA of following consonant, even across word boundaries. For example, <Nulrnan badunan> [nʊ.lr̩.'nam ba.dʊ.'nan] "To bump badly".

In some dialects, the consonants become palatalized before /i/ and /j/. For example, <aytrinal> [aj.trʲɪ.'nal] "Poisonous".

In some dialects, instead of the resonants becoming sylabic an epenthic vowel /ɪ/ is inserted on such cases. For example, <Mibrugnal> [m(ʲ)ɪ.brʊg.'nal] "Morning" and <Nulrinan> [nʊl.r(ʲ)ɪ.'nan] "To bump, knock, beat, mash"

Stress

The Rumunil stress falls on the penultimate syllable if the word ends in a vowel, otherwise it falls on the last syllable.

Verbs

Verbs in Rumunil inflect for the person and number of the subject and for tense and mood. There are two numbers, singular and plural, three persons, first, second and third, two tenses, past and non-past, three aspects, imperfect, perfective and perfect and two voices, active and passive. Perfective and perfect aspects are formed with past and non-past tenses of <abnan> ‘to have’ and the past and non-past participle of the desired verb. All tenses can be passivized with <byunan> ‘to be’ and the past and non-past participle of the lexical verb.

<Avalagnan> "To lay down, set aside, put away"

More: show

http://i.imgur.com/8JV5o7W.png

Posted: **Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:34 pm**

Looks nice so far.

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:33 pm**

Dē Graut Bʉr wrote:Looks nice so far.

Thanks !

Morphophonology

There was in Proto-Rumunil a R-Dissimilation process where a /r/ would become a /l/ if somewhere before it in the word there was another /r/. There were some situations where this wouldn't happen, if either /r/ were syllabic (!) , if before the second /r/ there was first a /l/ or if the there another /r/ on the same syllable.

This can still be seen in Rumunil's affixes.

valar "foreign" + -iskar "like or similar to" = valariskal "foreigner"

(!) Due the affix the word change may change in a way that the /r/ stop being syllabic.

anudr "duck" + -iskar "like or similar to" = anudriskal "duck-ish" or "duck-like"

Morphology

Nouns

Nouns in Rumunil are inflected only for number, singular and plural.

Number

The plural suffix is -yu(r/l) if the nouns ends with a vowel other than /a/, if it ends with an /a/, -u(r/l) is used instead.

kabsi > kabsyur

tyuda "people" tyudur "peoples" ; ava "water" avur "waters"

However if the consonant before the suffix is either /k, g, l/ that consonant is elided.

lagur > layur ; bul > buyur ; bakar > bayur

If the words ends with a consonant other than /m n s r l /, -ni(r/l) is used.

kuk "cake" kuknir "cakes"

If it ends with /n, s/, -i(r/l) is used.

landin "land" landinir "lands" ; futs "foot" futir "feet"

If it ends with /m/, -brir.

gum > gumbrir

If it ends with either /r l/, the last vowel of the word changes to /u/.

dagar "day" dagur "days"

There still, however, a lot of nouns with irregular plurals like:

brutil "brother" brutrir "brothers" ; magnan "power" magna "powers" ; ruman "Roman" rum "Romans"

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:59 am**

Just a quick question:
What is the difference between a non-past pluperfect, a past pluperfect and a past perfect? Isn't a pluperfect a combination of the past tense and perfect aspect?

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:13 pm**

gufferdk wrote:Just a quick question:
What is the difference between a non-past pluperfect, a past pluperfect and a past perfect? Isn't a pluperfect a combination of the past tense and perfect aspect?

Well, I just realized my mistake. The non-past and past perfect in that image were supposed to be perfective, while the non-past and past pluperfect were supposed to be perfect.

Posted: **Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:01 am**

Article

ta; singular definite article.
tay; plural definite article.

aynar; singular indefinite article ; coincides with the number "one".
ayna; plural indefinite article.

The article is always optional.

Adjectives

Adjectives agree with nouns, inflecting the same way as nouns. Adjectives always follow the noun they modify.

kintan brital "Bright child" ; kintanir britul "Bright children"

The comparative and superlative are expressed by mayr followed by the adjective, the superlative adds the definite article before mayr:

brum "flower"
ta brum "the flower"
ta brum skunir "the beautiful flower"
ta brum mayr skunir "the more beautiful flower"
ta brum ta mayr skunir "the most beautiful flower"

Posted: **Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:42 am**

Atrulfal wrote: The vowels /ɛ ɔ/ only occur on stressed syllables.

Don't know why but I like this little tidbit a lot. Is there a historical justification for this?

Posted: **Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:15 pm**

Looking good so far. Can you have third person imperatives, though? How are you translating these into English?

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:11 pm**

gestaltist wrote: Don't know why but I like this little tidbit a lot. Is there a historical justification for this?

Proto-Rumunil had a ten vowel system /i iː u uː e eː o oː a aː/, but there was a process that short vowels would rise when in unstressed syllables (like-ish in European Portuguese), /i u e o a/ > [i u i u æ]. From Proto-Rumunil to Old Rumunil stress patern became irregular due syncope and other changes but the variant sounds remained, except for [æ]. From Old Rumunil to Rumunil, [eː] was raised to [iː] and later on they both merged with , while [e] was lowered to [ɛ]; [oː] was raised to [uː] and later on they both merged with , [o] was lowered to [ɔ], [aː] just became short [a] (like in Sicilian).

Ketumak wrote:Looking good so far. Can you have third person imperatives, though? How are you translating these into English?

Something like, "let him/her/it/them eat!".

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:34 pm**

Atrulfal wrote:
Ketumak wrote:Looking good so far. Can you have third person imperatives, though? How are you translating these into English?
Something like, "let him/her/it/them eat!".

That doesn't sound like an imperative towards the 3rd person to me though. Perhaps this is me being a non-native speaker unearthing itself here but i would interpret that sentence to mean "stop whatever you are doing that is preventing him/her/it/them from eating [something]" which is an imperative directed at the listener (the 2nd person).

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a 1st person plural imperative when you are ordering a group to do something that you are intending to do with them, such as in "let us all pray together"?

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:30 pm**

gufferdk wrote:
That doesn't sound like an imperative towards the 3rd person to me though. Perhaps this is me being a non-native speaker unearthing itself here but i would interpret that sentence to mean "stop whatever you are doing that is preventing him/her/it/them from eating [something]" which is an imperative directed at the listener (the 2nd person).

It sounds like that because English only have 2nd person imperative after all, this is a "workaround".

"Let him/her/them ..."
"Have him/her/them ..."
"He/She/They should ..."

All of them are used when translating ancient Greek, Latin and other languages with 3rd person imperative to English.

gufferdk wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to have a 1st person plural imperative when you are ordering a group to do something that you are intending to do with them, such as in "let us all pray together"?

Sense ? Possibly, but it isn't necessary.

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:40 pm**

Note that at least in spoken English "let us all pray together" is not a first person plural imperative, meaning "allow us all to pray together". Rather, "let's all pray together" is a first person plural imperative or hortative, where let's is a particle indicating first person plural imperative or hortative (despite its origin as a contraction of let us).

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:41 pm**

Pronouns

Personal Pronouns

The personal pronouns distinguish the usual three persons and two numbers.

Code: Select all

        sg        pl
1       ik        vir
2       tu        yur
3       ir        ihr
reflexive se

Rumunil is a pro-drop language, so subject pronouns are optional.

Possessives

Possessives follow the noun and are formed with <fan> followed by the chosen noun or pronoun:

<brum fan ik> "my flower" ; <ta brumbrir fan ta valtur> "the flowers of the forest."

Demonstratives and other pronouns

<tat> distance neutral demonstrative "this, that, this one, that one" ;

<var> "who" ; <vat> "what" ; <van> "when" <brasu> "why"

<alar> "all, every" ; <ayvatrar> "each(one), everyone" ;

<manaynar> "anyone, anything, someone, something" singular ; <manaynur> "anyone, anything, someone, something" plural

<nimanaynar> "no one"

Posted: **Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:57 pm**

I forgot to put up the phonotactics.

(C1)(C2)(C3)V(C4)(C5)(C6)

Onset
C1: Can only be one of /m, n, s/. If C1 occurs, C2 and C3 must occur as well.
C2: Can be any consonant if there is no C1, otherwise if C1 is /m/, C2 must be /b/; if C1 is /n/, C2 must be /d/; if C1 is /s/, C2 must be /t/.
C3: Can be any of /f, v, r, l, j/ if there is no C1 and C2 is a plosive or fricative, otherwise if C1 is /m/, C3 must be either /r, l/; if C1 is either /n, s/, C3 must be /r/. (/f, v/ only occurs following a plosive or /s/) (the clusters /kj, gj, lj/ never occur)

Nucleus
V: Can be any vowel.

Coda
C4: Can be any consonant, except a plosive and /f, v/
C5: Can be any consonant if there is no C4, otherwise if C4 is /m/, C5 must be /b/; if C4 is /n/, C5 must be /d/; if C4 is /s/, C2 must be /t/. If C4 is /j/ C5 must be a nasal, plosive or fricative. If C4 is one of /r, l/ C5 must be a fricative.
C6: Can only occur if C4 is either /m, n, s, j, r, l/ and C5 occurs, but even then it isn't obligated to occur. If C4 is /m/ C6 can be either /r, l/. if C4 is either /n, s/ C6 must be /r/. If C4 is one of /j, r, l/ and C5 is nasal or fricative C6 must be a plosive.

In a cluster, in either coda or onset, all the consonants, except fricatives, must never follow or precede a consonant which with it they share the same MOA. Inflected words can violate these rules due to morphological reasons.

Posted: **Sat Dec 19, 2015 6:23 pm**

Verbs

There are three regular conjugation classes, the -anan, -yanan and -unan conjugation. Besides these, there are some irregular verbs, the most important are abnan "to have" and byunan "to be".

fitanan "to fall"

More: show

bastyanan "to bind, lace, tie up"

More: show

badunan "to press, distress, frighten"

More: show

abnan

More: show

byunan

More: show

Perfective and perfect aspects are formed with past and non-past tenses of <abnan> ‘to have’ and the past and non-past participle of the desired verb. All tenses can be passivized with <byunan> ‘to be’ and the past and non-past participle of the lexical verb.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:22 pm**

I think I just created a euphemism for murder.
Ir ada avaladar tyuda.
This language has one of the simplest fusional systems ever. It seems like a lot of meaning will have to be carried by derivation or clitics and particles.
Great language! I really like word byunan.

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:23 am**

mèþru wrote:I think I just created a euphemism for murder.
Ir ada avaladar tyuda.
This language has one of the simplest fusional systems ever. It seems like a lot of meaning will have to be carried by derivation or clitics and particles.
Great language! I really like word byunan.

Haha, indeed. Thanks mèþru!

Derivation

Derivation is done through an almost regular agglutination process in Rumunil.

noun, verb + ga(r/l) = adjective "being, having or doing" ; Ex.: aynar "one ; singular indefinite article" + gal = aynargal "only; sole; singular; unique"

noun + ina(r/l) = adjective "made of (noun)" ; Ex.: ays "oak" + inar = aysinar = "oaken"

noun + iska(r/l) = adjective "pertaining to, characteristic of" ; Ex.: antir "giant" + iskal = antiriskal "gigantic"

noun , adjective + likar = adjective "'similar to, characteristic of" ; Ex.: virar "man, husband" + likar = virarlikar "manly, masculine, male"

adjective, preposition + an = adverb "out, from of (word)" ; Ex.: ustrar "east(ern)" + an = ustraran "from the east"

adjective + i = adverb "of manner" ; Ex.: rinal "eager, willing" + i = rinali "eagerly, keenly, willingly"

noun, preposition + (r/l) = adverb "place where" ; Ex.: tat "this, that, this one, that one" + r = tatr "over there, yonder"

That's about it for now . . .

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:23 am**

This is an Indo-European language, right?

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:44 am**

WeepingElf wrote:This is an Indo-European language, right?

Yes, I think so . . . but what exactly do you mean with that ?

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:17 pm**

Actually, it looks specifically Germanic.

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:45 am**

Altrufal wrote:Yes, I think so . . . but what exactly do you mean with that ?

WeepingElf is asking whether this language is intended to be a member of the Indo-European language family.

KathTheDragon wrote:Actually, it looks specifically Germanic.

It does. It looks like some lost branch of Germanic. Several of the lexemes and the verbal morphology look familiar.

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:03 am**

Chengjiang wrote:Several of the lexemes

Being as familiar with Proto-Germanic as I am, I can etymologise almost all of the glossed vocab in this thread.

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:10 am**

Chengjiang wrote:
Altrufal wrote:Yes, I think so . . . but what exactly do you mean with that ?
WeepingElf is asking whether this language is intended to be a member of the Indo-European language family.

KathTheDragon wrote:Actually, it looks specifically Germanic.
It does. It looks like some lost branch of Germanic. Several of the lexemes and the verbal morphology look familiar.

I get it now. While Rumunil is, in a way, a daughterlang of proto-germanic, I never wanted Rumunil to be bound due realism by proto-germanic.

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:33 am**

2pl bastdidud

2pl bastididid
3pl bastidididir

zompist bboard

Rumunil

Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil

Re: Rumunil