Your Conlang's Type

This forum is for constructed languages, both those invented by UniLang members and those already existing.

Moderators: Ashucky, Dormouse559

Atluk
Posts: 47
Joined: 2016-06-02, 0:03
Real Name: I'm not telling you.
Location: South Carolina
Country: US United States (United States)

Your Conlang's Type

Postby Atluk » 2016-07-05, 14:36

What type is your conlang?

By type, I mean is it inflecting, agglutinating, analytical, etc? Which one do you generally prefer.

Idk if I really have a preference, but my current conlang is agglutinating. Before that, I did almost exclusively inflecting languages, but I'ce grown tired of those.

User avatar
Mentilliath
Posts: 217
Joined: 2014-05-16, 0:53
Real Name: Anthony
Gender: male
Location: Menlo Park
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Mentilliath » 2016-07-12, 4:14

Primarily inflexive. In general, a single Halvian morpheme encodes multiple features. -osom means "masculine, genitive, plural"; -ti means "3rd person, singular, present", etc.
Primary Conlang: Halvian
Additional conlangs: Hesternese (Aikedenejo), Galsaic (sister language of Halvian), and Ogygian (unrelated to the others.

User avatar
razlem
Posts: 2267
Joined: 2011-01-10, 3:28
Real Name: Ben
Gender: male
Location: San Francisco
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby razlem » 2016-07-19, 8:44

I've never been good with agglutinating languages. I think Mandarin is easier than Spanish. :ohwell:

Angos is mostly isolating, with very few synthetic features.
American English (en-us)::German (de)::Standard Spanish (es) Swedish (sv) Mandarin (zh)::Choctaw (cho) Finnish (fi) Irish (ir) Arabic (ar)
Image wia wi nehas-kolwatos lae angos! Check out my IAL Angos
Image Contributor to the Houma Language Project
I have a YouTube channel! I talk about languages and stuff: Ben DuMonde

Atluk
Posts: 47
Joined: 2016-06-02, 0:03
Real Name: I'm not telling you.
Location: South Carolina
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Atluk » 2016-07-19, 16:49

razlem wrote:I've never been good with agglutinating languages. I think Mandarin is easier than Spanish. :ohwell:

Angos is mostly isolating, with very few synthetic features.


I don't think Spanish is agglutinating, but fusional instead. I could be wrong, though.

After experimenting with agglutinating languages, I think I'm better off with doing a fusional language like Spanish since, like you, I am not very good with agglutinating languages.

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6153
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Levike » 2016-07-21, 11:06

Atluk wrote:What type is your conlang?

I'd say it's still inflecting.

As the conlang progressed it got less and less inflecting since I really didn't see the point in for example nouns agreeing with their adjectives. Or for example it started with having 4 genders and now the only distinction I make is animate vs inanimate. Maybe eventally I'll get rid of that as well since I don't need an ending telling me that a rock is... well not a person.

it might end up agglutinating because all my prepositions are now postpositions and each of my grammatical cases are more like postpositions that got glued to their noun.
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

Llawygath
Posts: 742
Joined: 2012-07-15, 19:44

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Llawygath » 2016-07-21, 19:11

Mine have always been inflectional/fusional, probably because I only know fusional languages. I tried making an isolating one with a lot of particles, but it got too long-winded for my liking (e.g. "we" was expressed as "fmwu acrg ig", i.e. "person [proximal] [plural]"). It also had a deliberately annoying orthography.

Atluk wrote:I don't think Spanish is agglutinating, but fusional instead. I could be wrong, though.

Yes, it is fusional. Wikipedia even gives it as an example of a fusional language.

Atluk
Posts: 47
Joined: 2016-06-02, 0:03
Real Name: I'm not telling you.
Location: South Carolina
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Atluk » 2016-07-21, 21:59

Levike wrote:
Atluk wrote:What type is your conlang?

I'd say it's still inflecting.

As the conlang progressed it got less and less inflecting since I really didn't see the point in for example nouns agreeing with their adjectives. Or for example it started with having 4 genders and now the only distinction I make is animate vs inanimate. Maybe eventally I'll get rid of that as well since I don't need an ending telling me that a rock is... well not a person.

it might end up agglutinating because all my prepositions are now postpositions and each of my grammatical cases are more like postpositions that got glued to their noun.


I agree. Gender kinda is pointless. Like you said, you don't need a suffix to no something is inanimate. I feel the same way about masculine and feminine.

User avatar
Dormouse559
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 6561
Joined: 2010-05-30, 0:06
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Dormouse559 » 2016-07-21, 22:15

That line of logic can be used to call any linguistic feature pointless. And yet languages have these features anyway. I listed some possible benefits to having gender in an earlier post. My third point is that redundancy, saying things we already know, is built into human language; it's not a defect.

viewtopic.php?p=1014336#p1014336
N'hésite pas à corriger mes erreurs.

Atluk
Posts: 47
Joined: 2016-06-02, 0:03
Real Name: I'm not telling you.
Location: South Carolina
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Atluk » 2016-07-21, 22:19

Dormouse559 wrote:That line of logic can be used to call any linguistic feature pointless. And yet languages have these features anyway. I listed some possible benefits to having gender in an earlier post. My third point is that redundancy, saying things we already know, is built into human language; it's not a defect.

viewtopic.php?p=1014336#p1014336


I stand corrected. While it may be true that I don't need an inflection to know that a noun is feminine, I can just say "La gata" to refer a female cat instead of just saying "female cat." By the article and suffix, I know it is a girl cat.

Llawygath
Posts: 742
Joined: 2012-07-15, 19:44

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Llawygath » 2016-07-22, 5:50

Atluk wrote:Gender kinda is pointless. Like you said, you don't need a suffix to no something is inanimate.

Animate vs. inanimate seems less "pointless" to me than masculine vs. feminine, as it has practical meaning for all words instead of only a few. Tables are objectively inanimate, but they are not male or female. Animacy can also play a role in morphosyntactic alignment.

User avatar
Dormouse559
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 6561
Joined: 2010-05-30, 0:06
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Dormouse559 » 2016-07-22, 6:31

Long time, no see, Llawygath. Welcome back.

On the relative pointlessness of sex-based gender, I'll direct you to another post I've made lately.

viewtopic.php?p=1014385#p1014385

I'd just add two things:

1) Avoid conflating "masculine/feminine" with "male/female". One pair is a linguistic concept, the other a biological one. And also avoid conflating a noun with the object it describes. In French, the word "table" is in the feminine grammatical gender. That does not mean that tables themselves are somehow feminine, nor does it mean they are of the female sex. Neither of those things is the point. See my previous post (in this thread or the linked one) for more on that.

2) The names "masculine" and "feminine" are totally arbitrary. If we called these genders something else, like Gender A and Gender B, they'd still function the same way, but there'd be a lot fewer misconceptions about them.
N'hésite pas à corriger mes erreurs.

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6153
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Levike » 2016-07-22, 12:47

Atluk wrote:I stand corrected. While it may be true that I don't need an inflection to know that a noun is feminine, I can just say "La gata" to refer a female cat instead of just saying "female cat." By the article and suffix, I know it is a girl cat.

Yes, this and what Dormouse said, for my conlang I considered it's not reason enough, like why categorise all nouns this way, just because it can clear things up for a minority of them. Matter of taste after all. :silly:

The same case is with conjugating verbs by person, why have them when you can just put its pronoun before it, much easier to understand and learn, one could say, but I kept this feature because I felt it's more convenient for me to put a letter at the end of the verb and indicate the person this way rather then to use the whole pronoun each time which sometimes even has 2 syllables.
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

Llawygath
Posts: 742
Joined: 2012-07-15, 19:44

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Llawygath » 2016-07-22, 13:05

Dormouse559 wrote:Long time, no see, Llawygath. Welcome back.

On the relative pointlessness of sex-based gender, I'll direct you to another post I've made lately.

viewtopic.php?p=1014385#p1014385

I'd just add two things:

1) Avoid conflating "masculine/feminine" with "male/female". One pair is a linguistic concept, the other a biological one. And also avoid conflating a noun with the object it describes. In French, the word "table" is in the feminine grammatical gender. That does not mean that tables themselves are somehow feminine, nor does it mean they are of the female sex. Neither of those things is the point. See my previous post (in this thread or the linked one) for more on that.

2) The names "masculine" and "feminine" are totally arbitrary. If we called these genders something else, like Gender A and Gender B, they'd still function the same way, but there'd be a lot fewer misconceptions about them.

I see. I understand that masculine and feminine genders are arbitrary, but the arbitrariness of it was precisely my point: whether or not one considers that a table is being stated to have a sex, the gender of its word conveys no information except perhaps for the benefits of redundancy. Of course, none of that is to say that such a gender system is "bad". I did say "seems ... to me".

Atluk
Posts: 47
Joined: 2016-06-02, 0:03
Real Name: I'm not telling you.
Location: South Carolina
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby Atluk » 2016-07-22, 15:32

Levike wrote:
Atluk wrote:I stand corrected. While it may be true that I don't need an inflection to know that a noun is feminine, I can just say "La gata" to refer a female cat instead of just saying "female cat." By the article and suffix, I know it is a girl cat.

Yes, this and what Dormouse said, for my conlang I considered it's not reason enough, like why categorise all nouns this way, just because it can clear things up for a minority of them. Matter of taste after all. :silly:

The same case is with conjugating verbs by person, why have them when you can just put its pronoun before it, much easier to understand and learn, one could say, but I kept this feature because I felt it's more convenient for me to put a letter at the end of the verb and indicate the person this way rather then to use the whole pronoun each time which sometimes even has 2 syllables.


That is what I like about Spanish. I can say "Hablo" meaning "I speak" without putting "yo" in front of it. I guess that why all of my conlangs had conjugating verbs.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23326
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby linguoboy » 2016-07-22, 17:05

Atluk wrote:That is what I like about Spanish. I can say "Hablo" meaning "I speak" without putting "yo" in front of it. I guess that why all of my conlangs had conjugating verbs.

You should have a look at how pro-drop languages work. They both lack person inflections on verbs and avoid using personal pronouns.

Colloquial English can actually be very pro-drop at times:

A: Goin' to work today?
B: Dunno. Haven't decided yet. You?
A: Gotta. Get fired otherwise.
B: Goin' out later?
A: Can't. Don't get paid till next week.
etc.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

rubs

Re: Your Conlang's Type

Postby rubs » 2016-08-15, 15:46

I have quite decided beyond inflectional polysynthetic.
However the language has a very low frequency of punctuation[goes without saying since it's usually between words]


Return to “Conlangs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest