Forum:Comlang/1

From Linguifex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been archived, see the actual talk page.
Please do not change anything on it.
Archived.png


{{ 

 #while:
 | 
 |

}}

Archive pages
0{{#loop: i 1 2 - [[Forum:Comlang/|]]

}}

Phonology and orthography

Okay, I will post a phonology tomorrow because I'm off for now! PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 08:16, 13 June 2012 (EST)

Here is a phonology table, fill in at will:

Bilabial Labio-dental Alveolar Alveolo-palatal Palatal Labio-Velar Velar Glottal
Nasal m n ɲ
Plosive p b t d c ɟ k g h
Fricative f v s z ɕ ʑ
Affricate ts dz tɕ dʑ
Approximant l j w
Trill r

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 08:24, 13 June 2012 (EST)

Idea; I really want to make this natural and unique, so... I suggest we use a Korean styled writing system! (which I'm an expert at :D)

Any thoughts?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 11:43, 13 June 2012 (EST)

Well that's definitely unique, but I have absolutely no experience with it. The only alphabets I understand are Latin and Runic. --OlykoekSlayer 13:17, 13 June 2012 (EST)

I'd really rather just use Latin to be honest. Here is my phonology/orthography: consonants and vowels. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:18, 13 June 2012 (EST)

I've added some possible diphthongs to the vowels. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:46, 13 June 2012 (EST)

A. (Korean)Okay, I just wanted to throw that idea out there. If you are entrusted in learning Korean: Learn to Read Korean in 15 Minutes.
B. (consonants)Okay, can I record that down?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 05:43, 14 June 2012 (EST)

A: I can read Hangul (albeit the highly adapted version that I use for Bamenese) but I don't think it'd go. B: You can do if Olykoek approves! What do you think of the uvulars, CL? PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 06:12, 14 June 2012 (EST)

I'd gladly learn Hangul, and I think that it ought ton to be ruled out - can't we construct a phonology and latin orthography first and- if you want - CL, you could develop a suiting Hangul orthography? --Admin.png Waahlis 06:43, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Yes! Thank you, I'd love to! I'll start working on it right now!

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 06:50, 14 June 2012 (EST)

...Lets back up. Are you saying no? Or are you say I should make one that fits the language? -CL

I like the idea of using runes. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 07:02, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Runes it is! Uvulars... I think we could

  1. Take some out
  2. Replace some for other similar sounds
  3. Both take some out and replace some for other similar sounds

Uvulars are hard to pronounce. -CL

Okay, no Hangul, apparently? Orkhon runes then? And I think having uvulars is a bit too much? --Admin.png Waahlis 07:09, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Yes( :( ), Yes I think, and (MOB, answer).-CL

Orkhon runes aren't available generally, so let's go with normal runes if so. --Admin.png Waahlis 07:15, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Fine, no uvulars, just change the R to an alveolar trill. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 07:33, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Finished recording the consonants, on to vowels:

Front Near-front Central Near-back Back
Close (iː y) (ɯ uː)
Near-close (ɪ) ʊ
Close-mid (eː) (oː)
Mid (ø̞) ə
Open-mid ɛ (ɔ)
Near-open æ (ɐː)
Open (a)

I definitely wouldn't mind learning the Korean or Hangul(or whatnot :p) alphabet for this. I definitely love the Elder Futhark runes also. They don't show up for me on this page, but we can write them with the Greenlandic keyboard(this is what I get typing a to z):
ᚨ ᛒ ᚲ ᛞ ᛖ ᚠ ᚷ ᚺ ᛁ ᛃ ᚲ ᛚ ᛗ ᚾ ᛟ ᛈ ᚦ ᚱ ᛋ ᛏ ᚢ ᚹ ᚹ ᛜ ᛇ ᛉ
Either way works for me, and I'm sure there's a way to use the Younger Futhark or the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc I'm also not familiar with uvulars, but I'm willing to learn to pronounce any consonant(still trying to get the velar fricative down...) --OlykoekSlayer 08:03, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Oh, the velar fricative is easy, it's like this: "khschkkkhxxkh". Whilst the uvular fricative is pronounced "qhqhqhhhsckkhshccqqh". It's an approximation, of course. --Admin.png Waahlis 08:08, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Lmao, well that's quite the guide. anyhow, we could also use the medieval runes, which is like the most underrated set of runes ever, but they're cool because of that. It's also really tempting to add a dental fricative to our phonology --OlykoekSlayer 08:13, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Also I've taken the liberty to add four vowels because ye added seven consonants that I've never consciously pronounced :) --OlykoekSlayer 08:42, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Then I must ask,agaın, where you're from!? /ɛ/ is the "e" in "bed" for example! /æ/ is the "cat" sound for most Americans? --Admin.png Waahlis 08:47, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Uh, yeah... and talk is /tɑk/, not /tɔk/ unless it's an impersonation of the British generally. How do you Swedes pronounce these!? --OlykoekSlayer 09:09, 14 June 2012 (EST)

No, sorry, I've been in Northern England a few times, and it has affected my pronunciation... The general Swede would probably say: /tɑk/, and use /u/ for /ʊ/, and the unreduced vowel for /ə/... There goes the myth about Swedes being good at English... --Admin.png Waahlis 17:46, 14 June 2012 (EST)

"Talk" has a long vowel for English people (and Welsh, probably not for Scots): /tɔːk/. I've heard quite a lot of Americans pronounce it /tɑə̯k/. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:45, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Why does the chart only have four vowels? :S PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:46, 14 June 2012 (EST)

It varied quite a lot up north in England, especially amongst the Scots. Can't say I remember them though. Olykoek just wanted those ones to be in the lang. --Admin.png Waahlis 19:17, 14 June 2012 (EST)

It does (trust me, I'm from the North), though I'm not great with the various Scottish accents I can do Glasgow and Edinburgh but that's about it. Some places in the North /eɪ̯/ and /əʊ̯/ becomes /eː/ and /oː/ and my nana used to pronounced word such as "look" (/lʊk/) as /luk/. In some places near where I live /ɑː/ also becomes /aː/. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 19:28, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Not to mention word final /k/ becoming /x/ in Liverpool! (and sometimes elsewhere, e.g. fucking /fʊxɪn/) PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 19:33, 14 June 2012 (EST)

I did hear all the first sounds (considering they mirror my pronunciation quite well...), but a fuxing /x/! I've never heard tha'! --Admin.png Waahlis 20:45, 14 June 2012 (EST)

It's quite localised to Liverpool. Saying that, I sometimes make that sound in "fuck" et cetera when I'm angry :p PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 21:34, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Oh, we don't even say such nasty things in Sweden, we are very cautious not to insult anyone! --Admin.png Waahlis 23:11, 14 June 2012 (EST)

Your accents are awesome :D, but where'd my poor little labio-velar approximate go :( --OlykoekSlayer 17:43, 15 June 2012 (EST)

I don't know, but I think we should start grammar soon.

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 01:30, 16 June 2012 (EST)

You're not getting rid of my labio-velar approximate that easily :P Alright, my schedule is now less busy after this week, so I'll see to this grammar now --OlykoekSlayer 07:51, 16 June 2012 (EST)

I suppose Tatar does have /w/... PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 19:57, 16 June 2012 (EST)

Participation

I will state from the begining that I will not participate in this.

But I hope you all do a great job and I am curious to see how it goes =) Zelos.png Emperor Zelos 13:44, 13 June 2012 (EST)

Perhaps, you can watch over it so we don't make an extremely ridiculous concoction of a language :) --OlykoekSlayer 13:51, 13 June 2012 (EST)

Grammar

Alignment

Come on people! Do I really need to talk to myself?(If you didn't catch that, I basically said, "You guys/girls aren't replying to me.")

Don't quit now!

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 05:55, 16 June 2012 (EST)

Waahlis is on holiday btw. Okay, what kind of grammar? I.e. which alignment. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 05:59, 16 June 2012 (EST)

I'd like either direct or active-stative. Whats Hungarians alignment? Turkish?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 06:33, 16 June 2012 (EST)

Both Hungarian and Turkish are nominative-accusative (and both are agglutinative). PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 06:45, 16 June 2012 (EST)

I guess nominative-accusative is good. What do you think?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 02:42, 21 June 2012 (EST)

Nominative-accusative is great --OlykoekSlayer 04:18, 21 June 2012 (EST)

Fine by me. It's the easiest alignment which is probably a good thing for a collaboration. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 04:54, 21 June 2012 (EST)

Genders

Have we any form of genders in this language. Maybe m vs f (vs n), c vs n, or other random genders like earth, fire, wind, water, heart? :P --OlykoekSlayer 10:34, 21 June 2012 (EST)

I like the idea of the four elements plus heart/soul. Either that or the 12 zodiac signs.

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 13:30, 21 June 2012 (EST)

I do too, those last five I said are from an old cartoon called Captain Planet that I never actually saw, but it's kinda a meme :P --OlykoekSlayer 13:54, 21 June 2012 (EST)

I only do one two or three genders then, if higher, eight or so noun classes. I'd be okay with doing masculine, feminine, neuter and "vegetable" à la Bininj Gun-Wok (aka Gunwinggu). PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:42, 21 June 2012 (EST)

I like the idea for just masculine, feminine, and neuter for genders, if not, then earth, fire, wind, water, and heart. What exactly are noun cases anyway?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 08:25, 22 June 2012 (EST)

Cases

Noun cases are some of my favorite bits of grammar. You can probably look them up, but I'll give a brief overview. They define how a noun is used in a clause. In English, we normally determine grammatical case by the position of the noun.

  • Subject case - before verb
  • Object case - after verb
  • Genitive case - nouns with the 's

Only pronouns actually change entirely for another case, up to three cases. For example:

  • Subject - I
  • Object - me
  • Genitive - my

I think Swedish uses a similar case system, but German has four cases, and Russian actually has seven(I think, or was it eight?) Old English had five cases. --OlykoekSlayer 08:44, 22 June 2012 (EST)

In reality Russian has six cases but it has some vocative forms left and some locative prepositionals but they don't count as specific cases, rather as irregularities. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 09:45, 22 June 2012 (EST)

What will the eight noun cases be?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 03:54, 23 June 2012 (EST)

Why eight? I propose:

  1. Nominative
  2. Accusative
  3. Genitive
  4. Dative
  5. Ablative
  6. Allative
  7. Locative

PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 07:15, 23 June 2012 (EST)

Here's my eight then:

  1. Nominative
  2. Accusative
  3. Genitive
  4. Dative
  5. Instrumental
  6. Ablative
  7. Benefactive
  8. Locative

--OlykoekSlayer 15:53, 23 June 2012 (EST)

Hi again, I'm back now! I'll jump right in - accusative alignment is alright for me, and regarding the cases, I'd like fewer, but it is an agglutinative language, I suppose. My money's on Olykoek's eight, because they are identical to many of my inventories of cases. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 19:06, 23 June 2012 (EST)

If we're doing Turkic mine are from Tuvan. But how about:

  1. Nominative
  2. Accusative
  3. Genitive
  4. Dative
  5. Instrumental
  6. Ablative
  7. Allative
  8. Locative

PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 19:10, 23 June 2012 (EST)

Works for me. Benefective's a bit unnatural, supongo. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 19:12, 23 June 2012 (EST)

How will the words change for the different noun cases?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 03:51, 24 June 2012 (EST)

Aspect and Tense

I also propose we use the Turkish tense suffixes:

  • Definite Past tense: -di/-ti, -dı/-tı, -du/-tu, -dü/-tü
  • Indefinite Past tense: -miş, -mış, -muş, -müş
  • (Continuous) Present tense: -(i)yor, -(ı)yor, -(u)yor, -(ü)yor, -yor
  • Simple Present tense: -r, -ar, er, -ir, -ır, -ur, ür
  • Future tense: -ecek/-yecek, -acak/-yacak

I don't think we have all those sounds but we could make it fit.

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 06:55, 24 June 2012 (EST)

I have a counter-proposal but I'll put it up tomorrow. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 07:22, 24 June 2012 (EST)

Okay. -CL

I think that we should have two aspects (the standard imperfective/perfective) and three simple tenses (i.e. past/present/future). Possibly with an habitual aspect too (so three in total). PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 20:31, 24 June 2012 (EST)

Cases part II

I am a fan of the habitual aspect, but I shall be blunt with the allative case, I find it dumb to use, have we the dative case.(Whilst no current case encompasses the use of the benefactive, like the dative case does for German) --OlykoekSlayer 05:59, 25 June 2012 (EST)

What does everyone else think of having three aspects? Olykoek, allative is (a locative case) for physical movement and not giving or just generic indirect object. I find it quite useful and Tuvan (a Turkic language) has all three (dative, ablative and allative - in fact it has two allative cases). I find it odd having ablative but no allative. Whilst I don't dislike the benefactive I think that the dative covers it fine. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 06:09, 25 June 2012 (EST)

MOB, I would like to add that Finnish does not restrict the usage of the allative case to simply movement, but usurps parts of the benefactive functions as well. I like all three aspects, especially the perfectve/imperfective distinction. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 06:35, 25 June 2012 (EST)

Well I suppose if the dative case covers benefactive use as well as "generic indirect object" then we should definitely use the allative case for finer distinction. --OlykoekSlayer 06:43, 25 June 2012 (EST)

Lets all vote:

  1. which cases should we have
    1. Nominative?
    2. Accusative?
    3. Genitive?
    4. Dative?
    5. Instrumental?
    6. Ablative?
    7. Allative?
    8. Locative?
  2. should we have three aspects?
  3. should we have only three simple tenses?

Please vote!

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 07:08, 25 June 2012 (EST)

I think we're all agreed on the three aspects aren't we? And if we have three aspects it makes sense to have a simple set of tenses. I have listed my preferred cases. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 07:18, 25 June 2012 (EST)

I have sundered the table to another section for quick accesses(above) --OlykoekSlayer 09:38, 28 June 2012 (EST)

Please insert your votes on the subject - for clarity. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 08:48, 25 June 2012 (EST)

Before I vote, I'd like to know what exactly MOB means by "generic indirect object" for the dative, because other than the "giving" function, it seems to me that dative basically is motion to i. e. allative? --OlykoekSlayer 10:10, 25 June 2012 (EST)

By "generic indirect object" I mean using for a purely grammatical purpose rather than a more semantic one (i.e. I gave him a present). PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:45, 25 June 2012 (EST)

Added genders to the voting form.

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 02:46, 26 June 2012 (EST)

Natural Gender

Are the current genders masculine and feminine or the natural equivalents? Waahlis.png Waahlis 03:35, 26 June 2012 (EST)

I think masculine and feminine, but I don't really get the question.

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 04:47, 26 June 2012 (EST)

It was whether the genders applied only to organisms of male and female sex, called "natural" gender. But you've indirectly answered it! --Waahlis.png Waahlis 05:12, 26 June 2012 (EST)

Okay, then I answered right!

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 05:28, 26 June 2012 (EST)

P.S. please vote

Sorry, forgot! :P --Waahlis.png Waahlis 06:32, 26 June 2012 (EST)

We just need Olykoek to vote on if we should have past tense and if we should have the gender of "vegetable", then I can put the data on the offical page.

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 06:42, 26 June 2012 (EST)

I believe it is settled. --OlykoekSlayer 08:43, 26 June 2012 (EST)

Word Order

Can we agree to have the word order SOV? (the word order of turkish)

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 01:03, 27 June 2012 (EST)

I will agree to that. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 04:31, 27 June 2012 (EST)

I'm of the Switzerland opinion on word order. --OlykoekSlayer 05:41, 27 June 2012 (EST)

  1. What do you mean by "I'm of the Switzerland opinion on word order"?
  2. What will be are suffixes/prefixes/infixes for... well, everthing?
  3. Can I archive this?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 06:53, 27 June 2012 (EST)

  1. Switzerland are neutral all the time.
  2. We can decide that soon.
  3. Not yet, but once we've finished on verbal basics.
PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 07:30, 27 June 2012 (EST)

Seems I'm going all Soviet in the voting then. I think it's beginning to look a bit too Turkic. Waahlis.png Waahlis 08:11, 27 June 2012 (EST)

I thought we were making a Turkic-type language? PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 08:28, 27 June 2012 (EST)

I shall rephrase: It is somewhat like copying, if we don't change some vital parts? I prefer look-alike languages to be exactly that: Look-alikes. The outside's similar, the inside's different. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 08:31, 27 June 2012 (EST)

Trigraphs

This is off topic, but I really hate having three Latin characters representing one IPA sound, (like tsy and dzy) so I'm proposing something like c for /ɕ/ and maybe x for /ʑ/. That would mean tc for /tɕ/ and dx for /dʑ/. :)

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 09:52, 27 June 2012 (EST)

The word that I believe you're looking for is trigraphs; I am also not a fan of them. --OlykoekSlayer 10:40, 27 June 2012 (EST)

Aww, I like our ones. The only other option I would propose is changing /t͡s/ to "c" and then changing /t͡ɕ/ to "cy". PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:02, 27 June 2012 (EST)

And Waahlis, I know what you mean but we haven't really started with the detailed stuff. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:05, 27 June 2012 (EST)

Concerning the trigraphs, I think they add character, since it is a feature common to many natural languages. But I would be okay with "c" and "cy" as well. Concerning the Turkishness, I think that such vital parts as word order could do with some change. But we will see, nothing's set in stone. Waahlis.png Waahlis 20:04, 27 June 2012 (EST)

I think they do too, but having "c(y)" is a compromise. Exactly! And word order is often very flexible anyway (especially with cases). PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 21:34, 27 June 2012 (EST)

Good for me, except what about dzy? Maybe J for /dz/ and JY for /dʑ/?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 02:00, 28 June 2012 (EST)

If we're going down that street, that'd be the best suggestion. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 02:03, 28 June 2012 (EST)

Is that a yes or no?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 02:14, 28 June 2012 (EST)

It is a yes, but I want to hear Olykoeks opinion on trigraphs first. Waahlis.png Waahlis 02:22, 28 June 2012 (EST)

I don't really like using "j" for /dz/ but if you and Olykoek vehemently protests against any trigraphs then I will fold. But one trigraph really is nothing (and it probably won't come up often). PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 04:31, 28 June 2012 (EST)

I can with great confidence say that I doubt I've done anything "vehemently" in my whole life! :/ --Waahlis.png Waahlis 04:40, 28 June 2012 (EST)

I don't really mind either way on trigraphs, but I am with MOB in that I don't like the idea of j for /dz/ :) --OlykoekSlayer 07:42, 28 June 2012 (EST)

Then I vote for trigraphs! That makes 2 For, 1 Neutral and 1 Against. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 07:52, 28 June 2012 (EST)

I'm against.

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EST)

Isn't MOB for the trigraphs? --Waahlis.png Waahlis 18:01, 28 June 2012 (EST)

I am for the trigraphs and so have changed it. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 03:19, 29 June 2012 (EST)

Meh. -CL

Type

I added these titles so we can access different parts of the conversation more quickly from the contents bar at the top. Anyway, what's our language's type? Isolating, agglutinative, fusional, or what? Personally I am most familiar with fusional, but I like the idea of agglutinative, and isolating sounds like a pain in the arse to me :p --OlykoekSlayer 09:15, 29 June 2012 (EST)

What... is type exactly? I looked this up, and found nothing. :/

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 09:24, 29 June 2012 (EST)

Well Zelos uses it on the template to determine whether the language is isolating, agglutinative, or fusional(and I think there was another type). It has mostly to do with morphemes, so an isolating language will use basically no morphemes to determine a word. For example, instead of English "jumped", you would have to say "did jump" because there is no morpheme to attach at the end of the word to define it as past tense. Agglutinative is where morphemes are stacked on a word to mean multiple things(I think Russian does such). Whilst fusional languages have morphemes that can convey what multiple morphemes can, as in English "jumps", the -s conveys both present tense, third person, and singular(German is a highly fusional la--Waahlis.png Waahlis 05:23, 30 June 2012 (EST)nguage). --OlykoekSlayer 11:28, 29 June 2012 (EST)

Russian is heavily fusional like most IE languages, english being among the least ones but still being fusional. The other type you are looking for is polysynthetic in which entire sentences is crammed into a single word. a word like "digminos" (made it up on the spot) can mean something along the lines of "I came there to give it to her" Zelos.png Emperor Zelos 14:39, 29 June 2012 (EST)

If you want to look it up, see here - in proper terms it's called morphological typology. Good initiative on the headers, by the way. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 17:59, 29 June 2012 (EST)

Turkish (the standard) and Quechua (a favourite of mine) are examples of agglutinative language (or as my friend calls them "Lego-brick languages"). Russian is indeed fusional, as are all Balto-Slavic languages. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 17:55, 29 June 2012 (EST)

I think you can say IE languages because, as much as english has "degenerated", all IE languages are fusional to higher or lower degree Zelos.png Emperor Zelos 17:57, 29 June 2012 (EST)

Indeed, generalisation at it's peak! --Waahlis.png Waahlis 17:59, 29 June 2012 (EST)

What type are we then?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 04:26, 30 June 2012 (EST)

Most plausibly a fusional language, considering the cases. But if we are going to have a lot of other affixes, it might get agglutinative. --Waahlis.png Waahlis 05:23, 30 June 2012 (EST)

Do we want to have it fusional? Or do we want to have it agglutinative?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 05:58, 2 July 2012 (EST)

We can just see what it turns out to be. There's no point in forcing it to be one or the other. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 06:02, 2 July 2012 (EST)

Are we going to do anything or just sit here?

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 04:28, 7 July 2012 (EST)

You'll have to excuse me, but I've been out on the sea without internet, and have therefore not been able to edit. Other than that, this week has experienced quite the turmoil, I reckon. Concerning the type, it is not something that needs to be decided, it will develop naturally. Waahlis.png Waahlis 04:40, 7 July 2012 (EST)


Name

May I suggest changing it to mayeb Commlang? The additional M will make it more easily distinguishable from "conlang" Zelos.png Emperor Zelos 18:05, 13 June 2012 (EST)

I think one M is fine, plus it's only a temporary name. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:13, 13 June 2012 (EST)

Old Turkic

If we are taking inspiration from Turkic languages it might be worth people finding a paper called "A Grammar of Old Turkic" by Marcel Erdale and Leiden Brill. I got it for free from somewhere but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to share it freely. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 18:42, 21 June 2012 (EST)

I looked it up, and you have to buy it. :/

File:CircleConlang.jpgCL/ˈtɔk ˈpeɪdʒ/ 04:30, 30 June 2012 (EST)

I don't know where I got it from but I definitely didn't pay for it. I might have found it on JSTOR but it's a brilliant PDF. PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 20:33, 1 July 2012 (EST)

In fact I got it from here: http://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/turks/Erdal_OTG.pdf PMOB.png Pá mamūnám ontā́ bán 06:06, 2 July 2012 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://linguifex.com/w/index.php?title=Forum:Comlang/1&oldid=2167"