Vreleksá Forum Index Vreleksá
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Logical conlangs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Conlangs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed re: SVC conjunctions. Though I think that other options include NOT, OR, and possibly other logical and other conjunctions.

Not sure what 'switch-reference marking' is - but from what I've read SVCs require the same subject and/or object to be referred to in the entire construction (if object, then it may be a product of raising so that the object is the focus of the sentence, and hence the SVC). Does 'reference' have anything to do with sentence arguments?

From what I've got right now (with coordinative SVCs), they are definitely not subordinative clauses, since the second verbal action is not reliant on the previous. Resultative SVCs do require the info from the initial verbal argument, but aren't subordinate. Can't think of a specific reason as to why right now though...

I also agree with you re: tense marking from the initial verbal phrase - SVCs seem to require a singular tense/aspect marking and would be ungrammatical with multiple tense/aspect markers.

I have to admit I haven't heard of the 'switch-reference system' - can you elaborate on it?

Thanks for the feedback!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Serial-verb constructions (on the one hand), and clause-chaining (on the other hand), are distinct phenomena.

I got them mixed up at first; don't know about you.

_____________________________________________________________

Switch-reference marking is often used with clause-chaining.

Clause-chaining, switch-reference-marking, languages, come in two types; forward-looking and backward-looking

Either the first clause in a chain (in backward-looking languages), or the last clause in a chain (in forward-looking languages), will be the "anchor clause" of the chain.

In backward-looking languages, the first clause is in the (or a) "Initial" mood/mode/modality and all the other clauses in a chain are in the (or a) "Consecutive" mood/mode/modality.
In forward-looking languages, the last clause is in the (or a) "Final" mood/mode/modality and all the other clauses in a chain are in the (or a) "Medial" mood/mode/modality.

The verb of the anchor clause fully agrees with its participants as specified by the language.

Consecutive or medial verbs may not fully agree with their partcipants; in particular, maybe they don't agree with their subjects.
Instead, the consecutive verbs (in backward-looking languages) are marked with (usually) an affix showing that they have either the same subject as, or a different subject than, the previous clause in the chain (or in some languages, the anchor clause).
And, the medial verbs (in forward-looking languages) are marked with (usually) an affix showing that they have either the same subject as, or a different subject than, the next clause in the chain (or in some languages, the anchor clause).

Ordinarily that is not all that is shown; ordinarily that marker (whether an affix or a particle or whatever) has more than just two values (same subject and different subject).

For instance, the marked clause's subject may be the direct or indirect object of the reference clause (the anchor clause, or the previous clause in backward-chaining languages, or the next clause in forward-chaining languages).

Also, there may be a "proper containment" relationship between the marked clause's subject and the reference clause's subject. For instance, maybe the subject of one clause is "eldin raigmore" and the subject of the other clause is "the raigmore family".

If that happens, in many languages it is marked differently from "same subject" but also differently from "different subject".

It also happens that in some languages the switch-reference marker also tells "same object or different object", as well as "same subject or different subject".

_____________________________________________________________

Switch-reference-marking, clause-chaining languages, don't have a difference between subordination and conjunction. Consecutive or medial clauses (as the case may be) are in a "conjunctive mood" instead of a "subjunctive mood". They may be, semantically, subordinate (that is, dependent on and embedded in) to their reference clause; or they may not.

_____________________________________________________________

AFAIK, in SVCs, either there is a series of verbs, or there is a series of verb-phrases or predicates (which might include an object). They all have the same subject, and in some languages all those that have an object have the same one. But you probably know more about SVCs than I do.

In any case I don't see why switch-reference marking would even come into play in a serial-verb construction.

I just thought it might be something else you might be interested in.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the info about clause-chaining, Eldin - I did a bit of research and it does look similar to what I'm working with but I'm not sure yet. One thing I notice is that the SVCs here can't switch reference (subject/object).
It's definitely of interest, I'm just not sure if it's what I'm trying to do yet!


Since being galvanized by the advent of a class on Alien Grammar (see conversation in the Random Chat forum), I've done a bit of work here.

I might be close to finishing the case system: total count 65 including:
Phi-features (person, number, gender)
Nominal cases (syntactic-semantic roles, and other)
Verbal cases (static and dynamic)
Space/Motion cases (motion, referential location/direction, and general location)
Time cases (simple, aspectual, and additional markers)
Mood cases (emotional and conceptual)
Also, lexical modifiers (turning a root into a noun/verb/adjective); and negation.

The syntactic system is more or less the same, but more formalized.
I know that my descriptions of the syntax have been overly complicated, so here's a link to the framework I'm currently using:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/7456668102/in/photostream/lightbox/

The headings at the top (CP, TP, AgrSP, etc) are the syntactic nodes.
And yes, I know I'm still (formally) using subordination in my serial verb phrases, but until I read up more on the formalisms, I don't know how else to represent them (and this one framework is working for ALL of the other different structures!)

The main change is the specification of SVCs: I'm now distinguishing between:
Resultatives (agentive verb, resultative verb)
Subordinatives (eg "I borrowed a pen [to write a letter]"). These were earlier called "Coordinatives", which now has a new description:
Coordinatives: a series of actions done, with no subordination, nor is it resultative. Example: "I came, I saw, I conquered."


I'm hoping to start formalizing the root system and morphology as well soon - I have a 4th year morphology class starting September, so that should help!


After I'm happy with the structure of the morphology and (most importantly for this project) the syntax, I'll write up a formal grammar Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got a few things on my mind at the moment:


1) I'm wondering what people think would be an adequate number of fundamental roots given a highly agglutinating morphology with many methods of incorporation and compounding?

100?
250?
500?
1000?
2000?
more?

I'm looking at the phonology I'll be using, and given the compounding nature, I want to make sure the syllables can't be (easily) confused, since it needs to be highly efficient to properly convey the correct utterance, as opposed to a similar-sounding compound.

The simplest phonotactics system I can see (open monosyllables only) allows for 1226 discrete syllables with: 27 consonants, 6 vowels, 47 CC-, and 10 VV- clusters (no final consonants or consonant clusters in a syllable).

Come September I'll be in a mid-level phonology course, so I'll be better able to flesh out the phonotactics of it all, but I just want to make sure the semantic roots system will work within the phonological framework.


2) Aside from the phonology though, I got some (more intro-level) books on the logical encoding of sentences (grammatical semantics and event grammar) and will be taking a course that should give me a good firm grasp on how to get where I want to go with regards to the incorporation of logic into this language.

The VSO ordering almost perfectly matches event structure, and I'm contemplating making this a noun-only language, given that there's nearly no difference between "ate {John, the pie}" and "event(eating:John,pie)" (with some temporal markers thrown in there).

Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic?


and some random thoughts:

Unfortunately I haven't come to a conclusion regarding the serial verb constructions, and so far will be leaving it as-is, because I like the simplicity of form that it uses to express the various syntactic structures.

The case system is nearing completion, with the addition of logical operators; comparative markers (like adjectives); and a few minor extras, and so the fundamental root concepts are more easily coming together.


Thanks for all the input, I really think this one is going somewhere!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update:

Name
Finally have a name for this language:
"Event Speech" s̈é-ę-k̨uu (gloss: speak.N-ATTR-event)
pronounced /ʃe:.Ɂi.k'u/ (X-sampa: Se:.?i.k_>u), with the stress on the long vowel /e/.
ATTR: attributive, which has a lot of uses but basically attaches things that are together.

Phonology:
31 consonants, with a three-way differentiation (eg. /d/, /t/, /t'/) for most of the stops and fricatives.
3 point (cardinal) vowels, differentiated by length.
These undergo allophony (especially via ablaut) to /e,e:/, /o,o:/, and /ә/.

Syllable structure
C(C)(G)V(V) = 1430 syllables
G: glide (/j/ and /w/)
Stand-alone vowels are allowed in the form of glottal stop then vowel, as in English 'a', and etc.

Hopefully this will allow for enough of a fundamental root system.

Orthography
Currently working on a very simple Roman-script, as above with three diacritics, as well as considering a Cyrillic based script, or even Arabic.

Might end up making my own but that would make designing the lexicon tedious and time-consuming.

Other
No real headway yet with the syntax or morphology, but I've got some topics to look into that I think will be of some great help there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like your most recent post here in this thread. I look forward to the next one.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aert wrote:
1) I'm wondering what people think would be an adequate number of fundamental roots given a highly agglutinating morphology with many methods of incorporation and compounding?

100?
250?
500?
1000?
2000?
more?

I expect you could do with about 100 affixes and 3000-5000 root morphemes.
Root morphemes typically have more syllables and heavier syllables than affixes have.
You might make do with just 25 affixes or you might want 400, but I think I once read that Arabic roots, for example, can be inflected 44 different ways.
B.A.S.I.C. English has about 800-900 root morphemes, and Lojban has about 1200-1400.
Taken together you might need more than 2000 but fewer than 2500 if you carefully plan your language; that won't look naturalistic though, maybe. A little less careful planning would probably require 3000-5000 words.
Most speakers of English can easily get through the day on 3000-5000 words, and somewhat less easily on 2000 words, according to some stuff I've read but can't really quote.
Most English speakers' entire vocabularies are about 20,000 - 40,000 words, they say.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The morphology has taken a significant leap - I have a draft of a morphological template for verbs, nouns, and even adjectives: they each follow the same basic form, and so are represented linearly in the diagram:

[see link below]

This has also lead to a drastic simplification of the syntactic structure, though exactly how I haven't finalized yet. I'll be talking to my prof on the topic and should have something more concrete soon!

As a result of the simplification, the serial verb constructions are looking what I think is more natural (and don't involve clause-chaining!) As per the diagram, how this is accomplished is very similar to lexical compounding, which should lead down some interesting paths.

However, this restructuring disallows a few sentence types, eg. the A-not-A. I'm not too worried about it though - I prefer a consistent system rather than a clunky one that allows everything.

Oh, and the 'case' system now includes 83 subtypes, including 71 which can occur in the morphological template. The others are lexical modifiers and logical operators. We'll see what happens with those later.


EDIT:
After discussion with my prof we came up with a morphological template that is better suited to the language type as well as general form:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8165592915/in/photostream


Last edited by Aert on Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's very interesting, but I still don't know which
  • cases, pragmatic statuses, genders or noun-classes, numbers;
  • aspects, evidentialities, mirativities, modalities, modes, moods, polarities, tenses, validationalities, voices;
  • degrees of comparison;

your language has; nor which combinations it allows; nor whether some of them are distinct only for a few roots; nor whether some of them just don't occur for some roots (i.e. some roots are defective); etc.

Do your verbs have a maximal valency? If so, what is it? Is it 4? 3? or 2? or some other number?

Do you have adpositions? If so what is their maximal valency? Do you have many bivalent adpositions? or any? Do you have any trivalent adpositions?

How about adjectives? Are any of them bivalent or higher-valency?

How are ditransitive constructions handled? Do you need a serial-verb-construction using two bivalent verbs, "Jack took book gave Jill"?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good point.

As a result of the re-working of the morphological template, I'm also re-working the case system to work within that template. Previously there was no organization to the cases, so it might take a few days to properly align.

I'll upload a complete description to your answers once I'm at a point where the system is stable...

Update on the morphological template:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8168358019/in/photostream/

Another update on the morphological template:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8170191339/in/photostream/

Sorry for the multiple edits but I think I'm getting somewhere!

And I will post up some details soon - I'm on reading break as of tonight!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I look forward to it.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So the Conlang Grammar is due on Monday, so I'll provide a brief explanation of the questions you had earlier, Eldin; then I'll post a link to the full grammar text.

Small update in the meantime:
-continued to rework the morphological template, but changes have been smaller and more detail-oriented.

-found a flaw in the syntax will either have to rearrange the morphological template OR describe the verb root as containing the verbal agreement (morphologically) and not part of the syntactic tree in general.

-wrote the outline for the Grammar, and will be submitting an abridged version for the class (length restrictions), and a full and annotated version here.

-I Will get everything done, but not all at once.

Thanks for everyone's help, this will be very successful in the end of it Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay:
A reply to your questions first.

Nominal cases are expressed with semantic roles (agent, stimulus, experiencer, recipient), as well as the 'other cases' ((in)alienable possession, comitative, privative, and instrumental).

Genders are only indicated with animate beings, and are equivalent to biological sex.

Number includes: singular (unmarked), dual, paucal, plural, null, and omni (all).

Noun/Verb classes: more or less as indicated on the morphological template (update coming soon), including root, prefixes (might be no suffixes at this point), and argument (subject/object) agreement on the verb. There may or may not be agreement on adjectives, not quite sure yet. There aren't distinction of nouns by category in the standard sense of 'noun class.' However, there are lexical aspect markers (below) which modify the verb type.

-----

Lexical aspect: states, durative events, and instantaneous events

Verbal aspect: (im)perfective, completive, progressive.

‘Other’ temporal cases: episodic, again (like ‘re-‘), recent (for past/future=just about to), habitual.

(some of the 'other temporal cases will be folded into the lexical aspect markers - the case system is not yet finalized).

Evidentiality/Miratives: don't have overt marking (as yet - may change). Not sure the difference between these and validationality.

Modality: audio (spoken) and written. Am considering doing a signed conlang, but that will have to wait for later. (Not sure the difference you're making between modality and mode.)

Moods: volative, benefactive, malefactive; interrogative, imperative, conditional implication.

Polarity: only negation is marked.

----

Comparison: comparative, superlative, similative (like), equative (equal to), subequative (less than)

There is also a series of motion, orientation, and locative ‘cases’ that I’m not sure how to integrate anymore – they’ve been dropped from the morphological template.

-----

Almost all of these ‘case markers’ will have different forms, but there are some which overlap others or are otherwise related which will have at least similar forms (and a different position on a root/phrase so they shouldn’t be confused).

Not entirely sure about maximum valency, but there is a marker which allows the addition of another object to the verb. Not sure what limits there will be on this yet.

Adpositions will generally be considered to be particles, but I’m not sure the location of these yet. I think it depends on the headedness of the language.

Can you give some examples of bivalent/trivalent adpositions/adjectives? I’m not sure what you mean there...

And finally:
Ditransitive constructions can be attacked in multiple different ways, depending on the situation.
There is a syntactic form which allows subject and object to appear only in the verbal agreement section, such that the apparent order is S(O)V[O...] rather than VS(O)[O]. This will have to be strictly defined to accept ditransitives correctly.
In the standard form though, it would simply be “(he-to-her)-gave Jack.AGENT Jill.PATIENT book.THEME. I’ll have to specify if there’s a required order for ditransitives, but I think that it should be Agent-Patient-Theme. This would be the same for the agreement section (so that you couldn’t say (he-it)-gave...).

Thanks for giving me lots to think about - the ditransitives are of particular interest!

Hope this clears up a few issues, and I’m glad you’ve illuminated a few on my end Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 1: Syntax
After looking over the morphological template and its correspondence to the syntactic tree, I noticed it simply failed with reference to the Agreement nodes, Verb and Tense-Aspect Marker (particularly the order).

I talked with my prof and it looks like we came up with a structure that corresponds to what I'm looking for with the order, but makes one change that I think is for the better.

The overall order is still VSO, but the Agreement nodes are now on either side of the verb, giving the order [Tense/Aspect - [AgrS - [Lexical Aspect - Verbal Cases - ROOT] - AgrO]]. Details on the template, below.

As a result of the change in order for Agreement, there cannot be any Agreement phrases like '1SG-to-2SG,' which is unfortunate. However, the new syntactic tree is much more similar to languages with the kind of features that this one does (eg. having TP in between AgrS and AgrO).

Here's what the syntax tree looks like now (attempting as much symmetry as possible): http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8209272709/in/photostream/


Update 2: Morphology
Here's the 5th draft of the morphological template: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8209272747/in/photostream

In response to the ditransitive question (and as a result of the change), there is now a way of differentiating the two:

'John gave the book to me'
PAST 3SG-COMP-give John.AGENT book.THEME 1SG.PATIENT

'John gave me the book'
PAST 3SG-COMP-give-1SG John.AGENT book.THEME

The reason for the differentiation is the specification of AgrO: object agreement occurs only when the object is animate, and since the object here is a pronoun, there is no overt reference to the person because the form would be the same. Compare:

'John gave Jill the book'
PAST 3SG-COMP-give-3SG John.AGENT book.THEME Jill.PATIENT

'John gave the book to Jill'
PAST 3SG-COMP-give John.AGENT book.THEME Jill.PATIENT

I'm thinking about adding gender to to the agreement affixes, but an animacy distinction is more likely at this point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 3:

As a word-building exercise I did a translation of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

EDIT: Moved to Translations Forum

Also, as part of the Unabridged Formal Grammar I plan on translating the whole thing, partly to build vocabulary, and partly to establish my understanding of complex phrasing and sentences.


Last edited by Aert on Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:31 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 4

Syntax now allows true resultative serial verb constructions! And with only a minor addition that changes nothing else about the structure!

This is done by simply adding another level to the lowest VP (so VP1 has as its head the agentive verb, and combines with VP2, which contains as its head the resultative verb). This preserves all the positioning with the main verb (here, the agentive), agreement, and the Subject and Object.

Not sure if this will work for other types of SVCs just yet but we'll come to that.

SVC order: TAM AgrS-V1-(AgrO) Subject V2 Object.
Note that there is no agreement on the resultative verb, because it's in a lower position on the syntactic tree and can't take agreement.


And I may do some work on the cases again, specifically with regard to lexical and verbal aspect, as a result of reading (pieces of) the monograph here:
http://www.rickmor.x10.mx/lexical_semantics.html

This is a very good (and very long!) description of a conlang designed as a machine interlingua, based on very organized argument encoding.


My apologies for posting so much so often; I'm very glad to be productive again!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Final? Update

I believe I'm done.

And of course this is meant in the 'I like where it is but there are probably minor things I'll still change later' sense.

The preliminary ('abridged') report that will be handed in for the Alien Grammar class is up on Google Docs here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_8UOanEoO5GczE1UWtzRlFpYkk/edit

As for the Unabridged version, that will take a while but I have the majority of the outline complete (totaling 120 subsections).

I'll also be doing some example translation texts, including:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Hamlet's "To Be or not to Be" soliloquy
and probably some others of interest.


Minor Changes as a result of the finalizing process

The vowel count has been significantly reduced to just /a i u/ (with length distinction), though /e/ and /o/ still exist as allophones (via ablaut).

The rules for the generative lexicon have been formalized, and no longer contradict the morphological template.

Serial Verb Constructions have been modified only in form, not in mechanism: due to the syntactic structure the order should be:
TAM AgrS-V1-(AgrO) Subject Object V2 (Goal or subordination).

Due to the syllable structure, the 'native' (non-Roman/Cyrillic) script will be an abugida. The Cyrillic orthography (alphabet) is done.


Thanks again for everyone's advice, resources, and comments! This will continue to be an on-going project, but more about formalizing than of creation now.

Cheers,
Aert
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well that didn't last long.

Morphological Template version 6:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8228998772/in/photostream

And the Lexical Phrase Structure that specifies the generative nature and structure of complex word building:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8227940727/in/photostream/

I'll be getting some more details regarding the stress patterning at a later time, as well as discussing the lexical phrase structure with the person whose work on Salish languages inspired it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aert wrote:
The preliminary ('abridged') report that will be handed in for the Alien Grammar class is up on Google Docs here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_8UOanEoO5GczE1UWtzRlFpYkk/edit

I am now reading and enjoying that report!

Did you get a "grade" on it from your class? If so how was it? Did anyone else in the class do anything you feel is newsworthy?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No grade yet - just handed it in on Wednesday (the due date was extended).

There was another person in the class with a few similar features to mine (VSO, /a i u/ with length distinction), and one person had a language with a phonology involving coughs and whistles due to a completely different mouth structure on the aliens speaking the language!

Most of them did a lot more work on the sociocultural background of the language than I did.

Other than that, it was a really small class and unfortunately the day we presented our language, half of our members were out sick...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Conlangs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Theme ACID © 2003 par HEDONISM Web Hosting Directory


Start Your Own Video Sharing Site

Free Web Hosting | Free Forum Hosting | FlashWebHost.com | Image Hosting | Photo Gallery | FreeMarriage.com

Powered by PhpBBweb.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com