Page 1 of 1

New conlang (polysynthetic, mebbe?)

Posted: 2016-02-24, 16:45
by Ashucky
So, I'm starting a new conlang because I haven't done so in a while. It's probably the closest I've come to creating a polysynthetic language.

The basic word order is probably SVO, leaning towards SOV, but it's otherwise pretty free due to inflections. It's also an active-stative language, specifically a fluid-s language.

Orthography and phonology:

Nasals:
<m mm n nn> /m m: n n:/

Plosives:
<p pp ph b bb bh> /p p: pʰ b b: bʱ/
<t tt th d dd dh> /t t: tʰ d d: dʱ/
<k kk kh g gg gh> /k k: kʰ g g: gʱ/

Affricates:
<c cc ch ʒ ʒʒ ʒh> /ts ts: tsʰ dz dz: dzʱ/
<č čč čh ǯ ǯǯ ǯh>/tɕ tɕ: tɕʰ dʑ dʑ: dʑʱ/

Fricatives:
<s ss z zz š šš ž žž h hh ǧ ǧǧ x xx* ř řř> /s s: z z: ɕ ɕ: ʑ ʑ: x x: ɣ ɣ: χ χ: ʁ ʁ:/

Liquids and approximants:
<l ll ł łł r rr jj ww> /l l: ɬ ɬ: ɾ ɾ: j j: w w:/

Vowels: <a e i o u y> /a e i o u ə/

Tones: low (not marked) and high: á é í ó ú ý

*I don't really like to use <x> and especially <xx> but I've no idea what else to use that would fit nicely. <ǩ> and <ȟ" are even more terrible than <x>, and I might use <ḫ> to indicate aspiration anyway.

And below are some preliminary sketches about the grammar:

Nouns:
Morphological cases: agentive, patientive, genitive, dative

Numbers: singular, paucal, plural

Genders: feminine, non-feminine

Nominal chain:
possessive-negative-ROOT-derivational gender-derivational classifier-number-pejorative/meliorative/approbative-approximative-diminutive/augmentative-tense-(restrictive/coordinative)-cases-postpositions-contrastive-(restrictive-coordinative)-[topical non-subject?]

Verbs:
Verbs are still mostly undecided, but I have the verbal chain done:
relative-agentive*-negation-ROOT-valency**-patientive*-dative*-locative*-reflexive/reciprocal-degree I-passive-verbal classifier-aspect I***-mood and tense-epistemic/deontic-determinative-degree II-aspect II-switch reference-emphatics

*includes gender, number and person
**includes causative and other transitivity-changing markers
***mostly spatial aspectual markers


I'll post more as I figure it out :D

Re: New conlang (polysynthetic, mebbe?)

Posted: 2016-02-24, 22:27
by razlem
So many sounds :shock: (you have uvular/velar distinction for fricatives only? :hmm:) But I look forward to seeing it! Any particular language(s) you're basing it on?

Re: New conlang (polysynthetic, mebbe?)

Posted: 2016-02-24, 23:24
by Dormouse559
Ashucky wrote:*I don't really like to use <x> and especially <xx> but I've no idea what else to use that would fit nicely. <ǩ> and <ȟ" are even more terrible than <x>, and I might use <ḫ> to indicate aspiration anyway.
<q qq>? Not the most intuitive assignment, but why not if it turns out you like it more than <x xx>?

Ashucky wrote:derivational gender
So are we talking Bantu-style gender? It'd be interesting to see how that plays out with just a two-way distinction.

Re: New conlang (polysynthetic, mebbe?)

Posted: 2016-02-25, 21:40
by Ashucky
razlem wrote:So many sounds :shock: (you have uvular/velar distinction for fricatives only? :hmm:) But I look forward to seeing it! Any particular language(s) you're basing it on?
Yeah, I like experimenting with sounds (I can pronounce). :D And yeah, only uvular fricatives, the uvular plosives have maybe merged with the velars or something. It's possible I can have that currently going on with the fricatives too (uvulars merging with the velars). I got some of the ideas for its grammar while reading about various Native American languages (Arawakan languages, etc.). Apart from that, nothing specific.

Dormouse559 wrote:<q qq>? Not the most intuitive assignment, but why not if it turns out you like it more than <x xx>?
Perhaps. I'm not a fan of <q> either, hehe.

Dormouse559 wrote:So are we talking Bantu-style gender? It'd be interesting to see how that plays out with just a two-way distinction.
Actually, that's the derivational classifier slot (there are various classifiers which are used with numerals (similar to Chinese/Japanese classifiers) and adjectives, and some of them are used to derive nouns as well). The gender slot is literally just feminine and non-feminine.

Re: New conlang (polysynthetic, mebbe?)

Posted: 2016-02-26, 0:20
by Koko
A few days ago I created a similar phonological inventory for a conlang that I made specifically with the intention of hating. It has more radical consonants though, and phonemic labialisation, palatalization, and pharyngealization :P It also is polysynthetic (no gender though) :hmm: How did we come up with such similar conlang ideas around the same time? :shock: Spoopy!

Re: New conlang (polysynthetic, mebbe?)

Posted: 2016-02-26, 6:24
by hashi
razlem wrote:So many sounds :shock: (you have uvular/velar distinction for fricatives only? :hmm:) But I look forward to seeing it! Any particular language(s) you're basing it on?


It wouldn't be an Ashucky language without a large inventory ;)

Ashucky wrote:*I don't really like to use <x> and especially <xx> but I've no idea what else to use that would fit nicely. <ǩ> and <ȟ" are even more terrible than <x>, and I might use <ḫ> to indicate aspiration anyway.


I feel like you've overlooked the most obvious suitable answer here, <ħ> (and <ħħ> if you need a geminated version).

Re: New conlang (polysynthetic, mebbe?)

Posted: 2016-02-29, 0:58
by Ashucky
Koko wrote:How did we come up with such similar conlang ideas around the same time? :shock: Spoopy!

Gret minds think alike :D

hashi wrote:
razlem wrote:So many sounds :shock: (you have uvular/velar distinction for fricatives only? :hmm:) But I look forward to seeing it! Any particular language(s) you're basing it on?

It wouldn't be an Ashucky language without a large inventory ;)

Hey, I have a couple of langs with relatively small inventories :P

hashi wrote:I feel like you've overlooked the most obvious suitable answer here, <ħ> (and <ħħ> if you need a geminated version).

I know but while <ħ> looks fine, <Ħ> is just atrocious xD

Re: New conlang (polysynthetic, mebbe?)

Posted: 2016-02-29, 1:52
by hashi
Ashucky wrote:I know but while <ħ> looks fine, <Ħ> is just atrocious xD

Hmmm, I agree with you there. You could do some super funky thing where <ħ> is the lowercase version and have another prettier glyph for the uppercase. However, I do think that <Ħ> is better than <X> >.>