If natlangs were conlangs...
- احمکي ارش-ھجن
- Avisaru
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:45 pm
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
If natlangs were conlangs...
Newsflash: they are, technically.
Newsflash: they are, technically.
ʾAšol ḵavad pulqam ʾifbižen lav ʾifšimeḻ lit maseḡrad lav lit n͛ubad. ʾUpulasim ṗal sa-panžun lav sa-ḥadṇ lav ṗal šarmaḵeš lit ʾaẏṭ waẏyadanun wižqanam.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
... care to elaborate?
"It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be said, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
– The Gospel of Thomas
– The Gospel of Thomas
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
*Somebody* had to make the words up 10,000 years ago or whenever language was invented so I suppose you could say they are. Kinda silly to think of it that way though.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
I don't think it works like that.
"It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be said, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
– The Gospel of Thomas
– The Gospel of Thomas
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
Well, Theta does have a point with how the roots in any given language besides onomatopoetic ones appear to be completely arbitrary.
Nūdhrēmnāva naraśva, dṛk śraṣrāsit nūdhrēmanīṣṣ iźdatīyyīm woḥīm madhēyyaṣṣi.
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
It does if you go back far enough, but it's not terribly useful to think of it that way.Xephyr wrote:I don't think it works like that.
Natlangs are the holy grail of collaborative conlanging, in a way.Chagen wrote:Well, Theta does have a point with how the roots in any given language besides onomatopoetic ones appear to be completely arbitrary.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
I wasn't claiming that, I'm just explaining what I think Ahzoh might mean.Xephyr wrote:I don't think it works like that.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
I find it unlikely that natural languages were designed consciously and intentionally, which makes it hard to call them "constructed", since typically this word implies some sort of intentionality.
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
And that's why the comparison isn't useful.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
Of course, which is why his statement was not a newsflash. Maybe it was meant to be a joke but it wasn't particularly funny. I remember a similar "if you ignore distinctions between things then they appear to be the same!" discussion from not too long ago.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
To the guy who made Austronesian: it's great that you made such a huge number of languages spread over such a huge distance, but for fuck's sake why did you not back up your Proto-Austronesian file?! Why would you keep the only copy on a flash drive?! And how can you not even remember the phonology of the proto-language?!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
? Proto-Austronesian isn't that hard to reconstruct, is it?
[Austro-Tai may be a little tougher...]
[Austro-Tai may be a little tougher...]
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
Proto-Austronesian has several phonemes which are certain, but what they are is by no means clear; I think that's part of what is being referenced.
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:05 am
- Location: Nottingham, England
- Contact:
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
The thing that always seems weird to me about Austronesian reconstruction is, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they reconstruct two stop series (say voiced/unvoiced) merging completely in one branch and then randomly splitting again into unvoiced and voiced prenasalised?Nessari wrote:Proto-Austronesian has several phonemes which are certain, but what they are is by no means clear; I think that's part of what is being referenced.
E.g
p, b -> p
p -> p, mb (no identifiable conditioning environments)
Try the online version of the HaSC sound change applier: http://chrisdb.dyndns-at-home.com/HaSC
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
I read it as a point about language planning. By definition, every standardised language has gone through some degree of monkeying about by planners. There were no native speakers of Standard German until at least a generation after Luther produced his Bible translation in it. And there still are none for such recently-promulgated standards such as Rumantsch Grischun or Brezhoneg standart.Xephyr wrote:I don't think it works like that.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
Logically, I can’t think what the evidence could be (besides audio recordings systematically covering a representative sample of the population) for a reconstruction that calls for two phonemes to merge and then split apart again. I would conclude that there was a difference of some kind between the phones all along again, even if we only have speculation as to what the difference was. Thus, something like:chris_notts wrote: The thing that always seems weird to me about Austronesian reconstruction is, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they reconstruct two stop series (say voiced/unvoiced) merging completely in one branch and then randomly splitting again into unvoiced and voiced prenasalised?
E.g
p, b -> p
p -> p, mb (no identifiable conditioning environments)
b -> p1 -> p
p -> p1, p2 -> p, mp
One could speculate that perhaps it was something like
b -> pʱ -> pʰ -> p
p -> pʰ, p -> p, mp
I’m assuming that we’re assuming only endogenous sound changes. If there was outside influence from another dialect of the same family that retained the *b vs. *p distinction, that’s another story.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
This is a good point, and one that I hadn't considered, but there is a huge difference between "natlangs" and "every standardised language". Also, I'm not convinced that "some degree of monkeying" counts as making something a constructing a language, since I imagine these standardized languages draw the vast majority of their content from one or two existing dialects, with a few other things thrown in or taken out.linguoboy wrote:I read it as a point about language planning. By definition, every standardised language has gone through some degree of monkeying about by planners. There were no native speakers of Standard German until at least a generation after Luther produced his Bible translation in it. And there still are none for such recently-promulgated standards such as Rumantsch Grischun or Brezhoneg standart.Xephyr wrote:I don't think it works like that.
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
You're leaving out a key part of the changes: they randomly split again. so you have descendants of lexemes with PA *p, but have either p or mp, and the same of PA *b, ostensibly with no pattern in the split. Now it's possible there's conditioning environments that haven't yet been identified, yes, but these sort of sound changes do happen in languages. Polish provides a great example: Common Slavic had two nasalized vowels *ę & *ǫ, but Polish merged them and then later re-split them, so ę and ą do not always correspond to *ę & *ǫ (and both nasalization and denasalization are rampant in the language anyways, so even ę/ą are not guarantors of a nasal vowel, and neither are VN sequences always not nasalized).Šọ̈́gala wrote:Logically, I can’t think what the evidence could be (besides audio recordings systematically covering a representative sample of the population) for a reconstruction that calls for two phonemes to merge and then split apart again. I would conclude that there was a difference of some kind between the phones all along again, even if we only have speculation as to what the difference was.chris_notts wrote: The thing that always seems weird to me about Austronesian reconstruction is, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they reconstruct two stop series (say voiced/unvoiced) merging completely in one branch and then randomly splitting again into unvoiced and voiced prenasalised?
E.g
p, b -> p
p -> p, mb (no identifiable conditioning environments)
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
But if you buy into the popular "language vs dialect" dichotomy, then anything without a standard form is "merely a dialect".clawgrip wrote:This is a good point, and one that I hadn't considered, but there is a huge difference between "natlangs" and "every standardised language".linguoboy wrote:I read it as a point about language planning. By definition, every standardised language has gone through some degree of monkeying about by planners. There were no native speakers of Standard German until at least a generation after Luther produced his Bible translation in it. And there still are none for such recently-promulgated standards such as Rumantsch Grischun or Brezhoneg standart.Xephyr wrote:I don't think it works like that.
It really depends what your definition of "constructed" is. There are plenty of a posteriori conlangs which draw from a few related varieties or even just one--that's how we're able to speak of "Romlangs", for instance. Obviously there's a cline here from "a priori totally invented" to "natlang with modifications". Under board guidelines, even suggestions for the reform of English orthography get posted in the Conlang forum rather than L&L.clawgrip wrote:Also, I'm not convinced that "some degree of monkeying" counts as making something a constructing a language, since I imagine these standardized languages draw the vast majority of their content from one or two existing dialects, with a few other things thrown in or taken out.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
How did that work?Nessari wrote:Polish provides a great example: Common Slavic had two nasalized vowels *ę & *ǫ, but Polish merged them and then later re-split them, so ę and ą do not always correspond to *ę & *ǫ (and both nasalization and denasalization are rampant in the language anyways, so even ę/ą are not guarantors of a nasal vowel, and neither are VN sequences always not nasalized).
There are a few languages in North America with marginal phonemes that are usually, but not always, allophones of other sequences -- there's some language IIRC where [o:] is in free variation with [awa] *except* in a few words where [awa] isn't acceptable and it's always [o:], and the language is otherwise /a i u/.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
Well, to show it the simplest way:Nortaneous wrote:How did that work?Nessari wrote:Polish provides a great example: Common Slavic had two nasalized vowels *ę & *ǫ, but Polish merged them and then later re-split them, so ę and ą do not always correspond to *ę & *ǫ (and both nasalization and denasalization are rampant in the language anyways, so even ę/ą are not guarantors of a nasal vowel, and neither are VN sequences always not nasalized).
*ę → [ʲã] → [ʲã], [ʲãː] → Cʲ + ę ą
*ǫ → [ã] → [ã]. [ãː] → ę ą
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
Length came from iota contraction in unstressed syllables and yer loss, primarily. It was also left behind in cases when the original stress fell on a non initial syllable, afaik. This secondary length phenomenon bears no relation to original PIE length, either.
Slava, čĭstŭ, hrabrostĭ!
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
Maybe I misunderstood, but that wasn't what I thought the Original Poster meant. I would've notated the scenario you're talking about as:Nessari wrote:Šọ̈́gala wrote:chris_notts wrote: You're leaving out a key part of the changes: they randomly split again. so you have descendants of lexemes with PA *p, but have either p or mp, and the same of PA *b, ostensibly with no pattern in the split. Now it's possible there's conditioning environments that haven't yet been identified, yes, but these sort of sound changes do happen in languages. Polish provides a great example: Common Slavic had two nasalized vowels *ę & *ǫ, but Polish merged them and then later re-split them, so ę and ą do not always correspond to *ę & *ǫ (and both nasalization and denasalization are rampant in the language anyways, so even ę/ą are not guarantors of a nasal vowel, and neither are VN sequences always not nasalized).
b -> p -> p, mp
p -> p -> p, mp
(admittedly, either version is a bit of a shorthand, so there's definitely some vagueness).
if one writes
b -> p -> p
p -> p -> p, mp
that implies that all initial instances of *b have the reflex p in the current language, while original *p can develop either into p or mp. Thus, the split of mid-era *p into p and mp is not altogether random; it never affects mid-era *p that resulted from earlier *b.
If data is scarce (perhaps initial *b is a very rare phoneme), there may be random patterns that give the appearance of this scenario, but that just means we don't have enough data to draw firm conclusions.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
Are you talking specifically about the rise of prenasalised consonants in Proto-Oceanic? You might not be, because prenasalisation is a thing in a lot of Austronesian languages even outside of POc.
But if you are, my understanding is that the theory goes that initial prenasalised stops (which can then become plain voiced stops in some daughters) arise from affixation, probably from a definite article or determiner that ended in a nasal. POc reanalysed all nasal+homorganic stop clusters as prenasalised stops, which involved shifting the syllabification, including across morpheme and word boundaries. So, **ton.tan would become **to.ntan, and likewise **kan ton.tan would become **ka nto.ntan. This gives definite and indefinite forms of nouns (and maybe equivalent variation on some other wordtypes, I'm not sure?). Then the article goes away, either because it's not needed (due to the initial mutations) or because it's been eroded away (eg if it was @n to begin with - not sure if we know what it was). Then some other way of marking definiteness arises, at which point the definite and indefinite nominal forms become interchangeable. Sometimes one form survives, sometimes another, sometimes both with slightly different meanings.
But if you are, my understanding is that the theory goes that initial prenasalised stops (which can then become plain voiced stops in some daughters) arise from affixation, probably from a definite article or determiner that ended in a nasal. POc reanalysed all nasal+homorganic stop clusters as prenasalised stops, which involved shifting the syllabification, including across morpheme and word boundaries. So, **ton.tan would become **to.ntan, and likewise **kan ton.tan would become **ka nto.ntan. This gives definite and indefinite forms of nouns (and maybe equivalent variation on some other wordtypes, I'm not sure?). Then the article goes away, either because it's not needed (due to the initial mutations) or because it's been eroded away (eg if it was @n to begin with - not sure if we know what it was). Then some other way of marking definiteness arises, at which point the definite and indefinite nominal forms become interchangeable. Sometimes one form survives, sometimes another, sometimes both with slightly different meanings.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:05 am
- Location: Nottingham, England
- Contact:
Re: If natlangs were conlangs...
That would explain it - although wouldn't there be a remaining predisposition towards roots with a prenasalised initial consonant being nouns, assuming that initial vowels don't get dropped? It's odd that the book I read which mentioned this didn't mention the article explanation, unless it is a speculative explanation with no firm evidence for it.Salmoneus wrote:Are you talking specifically about the rise of prenasalised consonants in Proto-Oceanic? You might not be, because prenasalisation is a thing in a lot of Austronesian languages even outside of POc.
But if you are, my understanding is that the theory goes that initial prenasalised stops (which can then become plain voiced stops in some daughters) arise from affixation, probably from a definite article or determiner that ended in a nasal. POc reanalysed all nasal+homorganic stop clusters as prenasalised stops, which involved shifting the syllabification, including across morpheme and word boundaries. So, **ton.tan would become **to.ntan, and likewise **kan ton.tan would become **ka nto.ntan. This gives definite and indefinite forms of nouns (and maybe equivalent variation on some other wordtypes, I'm not sure?). Then the article goes away, either because it's not needed (due to the initial mutations) or because it's been eroded away (eg if it was @n to begin with - not sure if we know what it was). Then some other way of marking definiteness arises, at which point the definite and indefinite nominal forms become interchangeable. Sometimes one form survives, sometimes another, sometimes both with slightly different meanings.
Try the online version of the HaSC sound change applier: http://chrisdb.dyndns-at-home.com/HaSC