ShounenRonin wrote:Hr is pronounced like Hrothgar from Beowulf. It really only works when it starts a word.
ShounenRonin wrote:I really like tʃ being represented by a C. Would it make sense to have a Tl as a separate letter, especially if there is otherwise no T in the language?
I agree with hashi about the fricatives and other letters now that he points it out. It probably does not make sense to have ʃ without s and ð without θ.
hashi wrote:ShounenRonin wrote:Hr is pronounced like Hrothgar from Beowulf. It really only works when it starts a word.
Which is?ShounenRonin wrote:I really like tʃ being represented by a C. Would it make sense to have a Tl as a separate letter, especially if there is otherwise no T in the language?
I've argued with myself about this for a long time. I have wanted to add <č> to my conlang, but since there is no <c>, I feel like it would be inconsistent to just randomly do so. If there was a historical reason for <č> being there and <c> not, sure, that could work, but currently it is unjustifiable in my mind. I feel even more so about digraphs where one of the graphemes doesn't otherwise exist. Although, this can be attested in natural languages, but usually where the orthography was more recently designed. Eg, Maori has the digraph <ng> for /ŋ/, while <g> nor /g/ are present in the language.
It's really up to you whether you want to add the <tl> or not - I wouldn't though. I would recommend against it unless you're able to explain why it's thereI agree with hashi about the fricatives and other letters now that he points it out. It probably does not make sense to have ʃ without s and ð without θ.
It is not so much that it doesn't make sense per se, but rather it is not so commonly attested in natural languages. The three most common consonants found in a very large majority of languages if you're interested is /p/, /t/, and /k/.
Out of those three /t/ is THE most common. /p/ and /g/ are the stops most likely to be missing among languages that have a voicing contrast on plosives, so /b t d k g/ or /p b t d k/. Can't say whether lacking both is very common.ShounenRonin wrote:Well, Vroja has no /p/ or /t/, but has a /k/. I guess I better add at least one of the other two.
hashi wrote:So far we've only seen the phonology which I have already voiced my opinion thereof. I might like some of the grammar once/if you get around to posting it
hashi wrote:Looks like you understand reduplication fine. In most cases though, the reduplicated word is just a single word, so for example:
beja > bejebeja
In some languages, only part of the word is reduplicated too (such as the first or last syllables), eg:
beja > bebeja, or
beja > bejaja
That's something else you could consider, particularly for longer words.
So if you're copying verb patterns and genders from Spanish, I'd say it's a bit more than just "some influence" from Spanish, tbh.
Polysynthetic and inflection aren't 'sentence structures' per se, they're morphological models. They don't really describe how the sentence is structured really, they describe the way that morphemes interact with the word stems. For example, polysynthetic languages affix stems and morphemes into one unit (ie. potentially making whole sentences or phrases into a single 'word'). Isolating languages keep morphemes and stems separate from one another, and so on.
hashi wrote:I am not a fan of Spanish personally, so any answer I give to that would be heavily biased
If you're going for something that is unique/less obviously based on Spanish, I would tone it down a bit. Perhaps try to variate some of the forms available, or the 'genders'. Speaking of genders, they could also just be called classes. Calling it a 'gender' is an especially (although not exclusively) European thing
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest