Let's create a good language!

[fluffykitty]

Probably pronouns, auxiliary verbs, articles, "eat", and "food".

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Probably pronouns, auxiliary verbs, articles, "eat", and "food".

For auxillary verbs, should they be "to be" and "to have" or something entirely different? I support different.
Edit: There's also "to go" and "to come".

[SquishyBoi]

hi
i'm too lazy to read the entire thread so would it be a bother if you could make a post showing the current phonology for this language/conlang/whatever?

ok thanks

Look a few posts above.

Picturet1.png (22.01 KiB) Viewed 3485 times

phonology chart i guess

[fluffykitty]

One interesting thing about Romance languages that aren't French is that they have two verbs for "to be" (Spanish ser/estar). The first one (descended from Latin <sum> "am") is usually for general truths, and the second one (descended from Latin <sto> "I stand") is usually for transient situations. Maybe we should have something like that here.

Periphrastic future tenses can come from verbs meaning "to want" (English), "to go" (many languages), "to have (to)" (Romance languages, now merged with the verb), "to owe" (some Germanic languages, including English), and probably others. Past tenses can come from "to have" (also Romance languages), "to come" (French), "to be" (Latin), and probably others as well.

We could also use multiple of these auxiliaries to make distinctions like recent/remote or other things (eg English "I will/shall/am going to write"). We could use "want" and "have to" for the future for an intentionality distinction. I'm not sure how we'd do something like that in the past though. Also, I think we should mark aspect (eg "I ate food" vs "I was eating food") as part of verb inflection. Some of the auxiliaries might only work in one form or the other, like the first "to be".

Edit (2:10): Example syllables, if anyone wants them:

Code: Select all

flep
pezt
mwanc
chysc
xlyft
mahk
clhk
tleip
ngweunkx
haixp

Maybe /l/ should be banned from being next to /c/ and /ç/ as well. /clçk/ is really hard to pronounce.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

One interesting thing about Romance languages that aren't French is that they have two verbs for "to be" (Spanish ser/estar). The first one (descended from Latin <sum> "am") is usually for general truths, and the second one (descended from Latin <sto> "I stand") is usually for transient situations. Maybe we should have something like that here.

Periphrastic future tenses can come from verbs meaning "to want" (English), "to go" (many languages), "to have (to)" (Romance languages, now merged with the verb), "to owe" (some Germanic languages, including English), and probably others. Past tenses can come from "to have" (also Romance languages), "to come" (French), "to be" (Latin), and probably others as well.

We could also use multiple of these auxiliaries to make distinctions like recent/remote or other things (eg English "I will/shall/am going to write"). We could use "want" and "have to" for the future for an intentionality distinction. I'm not sure how we'd do something like that in the past though. Also, I think we should mark aspect (eg "I ate food" vs "I was eating food") as part of verb inflection. Some of the auxiliaries might only work in one form or the other, like the first "to be".

Edit (2:10): Example syllables, if anyone wants them:

Code: Select all

flep
pezt
mwanc
chysc
xlyft
mahk
clhk
tleip
ngweunkx
haixp

Maybe /l/ should be banned from being next to /c/ and /ç/ as well. /clçk/ is really hard to pronounce.

Yeah, that really is hard to pronounce. haixp is also hard, at least for me. Is it hard for you? For auxiliary verbs, I think "to come" can be used for recent things, like in French. I don't think we should use "to be", "to have" could be used. I think "to want" should be used for intentional actions happening in the near future. I think semantic distinction between two ways of talking about the same tense should be well defined, not like "going to/will". We have two ways of talking of the future in Turkish, we use regular future tense and also use present tense and which I think matches up pretty well with their English counterparts in that order, and yet I still can't pinpoint the difference between the two.
Edit: How do you sign up to LifeWiki? I couldn't find any register page.

[fluffykitty]

Yeah, that really is hard to pronounce. haixp is also hard, at least for me. Is it hard for you?

Not particularly.

For auxiliary verbs, I think "to come" can be used for recent things, like in French. I don't think we should use "to be", "to have" could be used.

Okay. Also, we could have both inflected form(s) and periphrastic forms. What do you think of that?

I think "to want" should be used for intentional actions happening in the near future. I think semantic distinction between two ways of talking about the same tense should be well defined, not like "going to/will". We have two ways of talking of the future in Turkish, we use regular future tense and also use present tense and which I think matches up pretty well with their English counterparts in that order, and yet I still can't pinpoint the difference between the two.

That's probably a good idea. Maybe we should make the other future inflected, like what happened in the Romance languages.

Edit: How do you sign up to LifeWiki? I couldn't find any register page.

https://www.conwaylife.com/w/index.php? ... nto=Glider

[Moosey]

yeah, I don't think wacky consonant clusters around syllabic l is a good idea

[Schiaparelliorbust]

yeah, I don't think wacky consonant clusters around syllabic l is a good idea

What ideas do you have for grammar? Also, please list any opinions you have, I will write them down on my LifeWiki user page.

[fluffykitty]

Here's a possible set of noun declensions: (FSZHX are mutations to the previous sound's place of articulation, diphthongs go with the second declension as vowel+/w/ or /j/, syllablic /l/ goes with the third declension)

Code: Select all

Fricative/stop Singular Plural Nasal/approx Singular Plural Monophthong Singular Plural
Nominative     -e       -oi                 (empty)  -r                 (empty)  -(l)u
Accusative     (empty)  (empty)             -Sa      -e                 -s       -n
Genitive       -Ha      -Si                 -Ho      -oi                -ne      -noi
Dative         -Fu      -Foi                -Xu      -Xoi               -l       -(m)it
Instrumental   -Ho      -Si                 -Ho      -oi                -ni      -ne
Locative       -Ha      -Foi                -Ho      -Xoi               -ne      -(m)it

These suffixes could probably be improved. The ambiguity is intentional, since we'll mark some of the case information on articles.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Here's a possible set of noun declensions: (FSZHX are mutations to the previous sound's place of articulation, diphthongs go with the second declension as vowel+/w/ or /j/, syllablic /l/ goes with the third declension)

Code: Select all

Fricative/stop Singular Plural Nasal/approx Singular Plural Monophthong Singular Plural
Nominative     -e       -oi                 (empty)  -r                 (empty)  -(l)u
Accusative     (empty)  (empty)             -Sa      -e                 -s       -n
Genitive       -Ha      -Si                 -Ho      -oi                -ne      -noi
Dative         -Fu      -Foi                -Xu      -Xoi               -l       -(m)it
Instrumental   -Ho      -Si                 -Ho      -oi                -ni      -ne
Locative       -Ha      -Foi                -Ho      -Xoi               -ne      -(m)it

These suffixes could probably be improved. The ambiguity is intentional, since we'll mark some of the case information on articles.

Yes, these could certainly use some improving, though I like the concept. I'll try to update my user page by the end of the day. Are letters in parentheses such as -(m)it used for avoiding illegal sound clusters?

[fluffykitty]

Those are for situations where the /i/ or /u/ would not form a diphthong with the stem vowel, thus creating vowels in hiatus, which is probably not what we want.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Sorry if this isn't the place to ask, but I simply cannot find how to make a user page. Can someone help? I've been looking around the LifeWiki pages about itself for some time and cannot find anything on the forums.

[Hunting]

Sorry if this isn't the place to ask, but I simply cannot find how to make a user page. Can someone help? I've been looking around the LifeWiki pages about itself for some time and cannot find anything on the forums.

Just create User:Schiaparelliorbust.

What are the current grammar?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Just create User:Schiaparelliorbust.

What are the current grammar?

Not much yet. We have a work-in-progress case system above, but that's about it.

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page.

If you are logged in, be sure to request the "trusted" flag here in this forum thread to be able to edit pages.

[Hunting]

Just create User:Schiaparelliorbust.

What are the current grammar?

Not much yet. We have a work-in-progress case system above, but that's about it.

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page.

If you are logged in, be sure to request the "trusted" flag here in this forum thread to be able to edit pages.

That's weird. Did you login on LifeWiki (not the forums)? It's this for me:

Code: Select all

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or create this page. 

[Schiaparelliorbust]

That's weird. Did you login on LifeWiki (not the forums)? It's this for me:

Code: Select all

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or create this page. 

I did log in yesterday. Let's move this discussion to the basic questions thread.

[Moosey]

yeah, I don't think wacky consonant clusters around syllabic l is a good idea

What ideas do you have for grammar? Also, please list any opinions you have, I will write them down on my LifeWiki user page.

VSO grammar ofc
also I could edit the lw page myself *shrug*

[fluffykitty]

Do you have any other grammatical ideas?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

We could use actual sound sequences for the auxiliary verbs and verb endings.

Do you mean we should actually make the auxiliary verbs and verb endings now?

[fluffykitty]

Why not? We can always change them later. AFAIK the list of auxiliary verbs is "want", "come", and "have", and the finite verb forms are perfective and imperfective of each of present and future. Maybe we should instead do the imperfective using "be"+a participle of some kind, like in English ("I was running", French "je courais"). Speaking of participles, we'll probably also want an infinitive (or infinitives?) and participles. What do you think?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Why not? We can always change them later. AFAIK the list of auxiliary verbs is "want", "come", and "have", and the finite verb forms are perfective and imperfective of each of present and future. Maybe we should instead do the imperfective using "be"+a participle of some kind, like in English ("I was running", French "je courais"). Speaking of participles, we'll probably also want an infinitive (or infinitives?) and participles. What do you think?

Ok, we can use be for imperfective and perhaps have for perfective. Maybe we can use have for something else. I think want should only be used for intentional actions in the near future (I said this before). For future imperfective, we can use will be + participle. Future perfective can be a suffix. I think this aspect of the language is a bit too like Romance languages, so let's steer away a bit.

[fluffykitty]

I think perfective aspect (≠perfect tense) should just be a primitive inflection. Also, do you want to make the auxiliaries/verb suffixes or should I?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I think perfective aspect (≠perfect tense) should just be a primitive inflection. Also, do you want to make the auxiliaries/verb suffixes or should I?

Yes, I guess they can be like that. What should we use "have" for then? You can make them, I'm writing my user page right now.

[fluffykitty]

I guess "have" would just be for a basic past tense. Also, there's currently nothing at https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/User:Schiaparelliorbust. Is this intentional?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I guess "have" would just be for a basic past tense. Also, there's currently nothing at https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/User:Schiaparelliorbust. Is this intentional?

I'm still writing it.