 |
Vreleksá The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Aert
Joined: 03 Jul 2008 Posts: 354
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: Multiple letters in a row |
|
|
Inspired by a thread on a languages/linguistics forum, do any of your conlangs have multiple of the same letters in a row?
Mine can include double letters for indications of stress, but using an 'h' is more common for that.
However, in compound words/conjugations etc, these things will happen:
Vé'ssśen = I looked
Vé-s-sśen [I-(past indicator)-look]
which can be made even worse in:
Oś'ssśen = They (people) looked
(pronounced like /ɑʃssʃIn/
(The past indicator could be -se- but that would ruin the flow here ) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
dusepo

Joined: 12 Feb 2008 Posts: 129
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Retafon never has double letters, it's one of the linguistical 'rules' of the language. _________________ My Website |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kyonides
Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 301
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mmm, Kexyana has some double letters, not many, like "nn", "ss", "aa", "ee", "ii", "oo" (there's no "uu") and only a single word has "rr" (but I may change this if deemed necessary). Triple ones? Never. Even so I considered that a new conlang could include such feature but it would force the speaker to pronounce one o two of those consonants in a different way... _________________ Seos nivo adgene Kizne tikelke
The Internet might be either your best friend or your worst enemy. It just depends on whether or not she has a bad hair day. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mrtoast2

Joined: 19 Feb 2008 Posts: 123 Location: Goromonzi
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, not anymore. _________________ Tôśt drônén kókślán! Vón kríngénã Tôśt! Gâgén šníkél dér îwâ! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tolkien_Freak

Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1231 Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
In Kilhiryui and Emitary, doubled consonants indicate gemination. However, <tt> represent the affricates /tT dD kx/. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 610 Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doubled consonants can occur in Holxws due to certain affixes. For example:
Nwxxálț "by means of (a) mother"
Rațettwr "attack (noun)"
Double consonants cannot occur in Hosi nv Cohi, as it has CV syllable structure. Drumu uses different forms of its many affixes in order to prevent too many consonants or vowels in a row. Сун might have them, but I haven't come across any yet. Schwa insertion is used in Kai to avoid doubled consonants. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eldin raigmore Admin

Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adpihi and Reptigan not only avoid geminated consonants (or, for that matter, geminated vowels); they even avoid having two sounds that are too similar in the same morpheme.
They don't allow two copies of the same consonant to be consecutive consonants even if vowels occur in between. They don't like two copies in the same morpheme, even if other consonants occur in between; they don't like two consonants at the same point-of-articulation to be consecutive consonants, even if vowels occur in between.
And so on.
Two consonants at the same PoA with the same voicing can't occur without another consonant in between;
two consonants with the same MoA (manner of articulation) and the same voicing can't occur without (an)other consonant(s) in between;
two consonants with the same PoA and same MoA can't occur without another consonant in between;
in general, two consonants with the same PoA, or the same MoA, occurring with no other consonant between them, is dis-preferred even if there are vowels between them.
This actually leads to different paradigms (conjugations or declensions) based on the first or last consonant of a root; these languages don't "like" having the last consonant of a prefix be "too similar" to the first consonant of a root, or the last consonant of a root be "too similar" to the first consonant of a suffix. _________________ "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tolkien_Freak

Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1231 Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know, I really like that idea, Eldin. Maybe I can pirate it for my next lang ^_^. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eldin raigmore Admin

Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tolkien_Freak wrote: | You know, I really like that idea, Eldin. Maybe I can pirate it for my next lang ^_^. | Well, feel free; after all, I pirated it from the Semitic natlangs with the "Tri-Consonantal (Verb-)Root Systems".
Some articles about phonotactics in Greenberg's "phonology" volume of his "universals" book-series, said in effect that, in multi-morphemic words, languages' phonotactic restrictions are almost entirely about which pairs of phonemes can occur right next to each other; but within the root-morphemes, many of them appear to have rules about which ones can occur close to each other. It's probably "morphemes" instead of just "root-morphemes", but of the examples they gave, the one I found easiest to remember were the Semitic languages, which "don't like" two consonants with the same Point-of-Articulation showing up in the same tri-consonantal root. (There were other examples in other languages which worked a bit differently, but I don't remember the details well.)
I decided that for Adpihi and Reptigan I would have a series of "violable constraints".
In sort-of-descending priority they would be:
Highest: against same consonant twice-in-a-row in a root
2nd-Highest: against same consonant twice in a root
2nd-Highest: against same consonant twice-in-a-row in a word
2nd-Highest: against same PoA twice-in-a-row in a root
Medium: against same consonant twice in a word
Medium: against same MoA twice-in-a-row in a root
Medium: against same PoA twice in a root
Medium: against same PoA twice-in-a-row in a word
2nd-Lowest: against same MoA twice in a root
2nd-Lowest: against same MoA twice-in-a-row in a word
2nd-Lowest: against same PoA twice in a word
Lowest: against same MoA twice in a word
The main reason I did this was that I didn't want to handle affricates in Adpihi (or Reptigan).
But I also wanted Adpihi to be a 3Cons or TRS language, and counted myself lucky that I found out natlang tricons act the way they do.
--------------------------------------
The main paradigm applies to roots satisfying the following:
* The root has exactly three consonants.
* The first consonant of the root is not the same as the last consonant of any prefix.
* The last consonant of the root is not the same as the first consonant of any suffix.
* The middle consonant of the root is not the same as either the first or last consonant of the root.
* None of the root's consonants are pharyngeal, laryngeal, glottal, nor epiglottal; nor are any of them semivowels.
There are several secondary, or "regularly irregular" paradigms (like for German nouns), that apply to roots that break exactly one of the above rules, depending on which rule it breaks and how it breaks it. In particular, if the first consonant of the root matches the last consonant of some prefix, then, depending on the consonant, that throws the root into a particular declension/conjugation/paradigm; if, instead, the last consonant of the root matches the first consonant of some suffix, then, depending on the consonant, that throws it into a different paradigm.
If a root breaks exactly two of the above rules, various things can happen. Maybe there's an even-more-irregular paradigm to handle it; if so it's likely to be defective. Or, more commonly maybe, there are two (or more, but probably just two) roots (like for the Latin verb ferre/latus/tolerare, all of which mean "bear"), breaking different pairs of rules, and the entire non-defective "paradigm" is actually two different "defective" paradigms "stuck together".
If a root breaks exactly three of the above rules, its paradigm is probably still defective even when other roots with the same meaning are thrown in.
If a root breaks four or more of the above rules I don't think Adpihi nor Reptigan would consider it a legal root; I don't plan to include any of those in the language.
------------------------------
In the "regular" paradigm, there are cells which require one of the consonants of the root to be repeated.
So suppose BCD was one of the roots in the regular paradigm.
Some of its cells would be
(prefix)-B-(vowel)-B-(vowel)-C-(vowel)-D-(suffix);
some would be
(prefix)-B-(vowel)-C-(vowel)-C-(vowel)-D-(suffix);
some would be
(prefix)-B-(vowel)-C-(vowel)-D-(vowel)-D-(suffix).
And, of coure, some would be just
(prefix)-B-(vowel)-C-(vowel)-D-(suffix).
(Semitic triconsonantal-root-system natlangs do repeat the middle consonant of a root, not necessarily with a vowel between the repetitions; but AFAIK they don't repeat the first or last consonant.)
Those repetitions don't count as violating the constraints I mentioned earlier.
----------------
At one time I was considering "infixes"; or, situations in which the first consonant of the root and the last consonant of the prefix regularly and systematically metathesized with each other; or it might be the last consonant of the root and the first of the suffix.
So I also had constraints -- lower-priority than the constraints mentioned above -- against the last consonant of a prefix being "too similar" to either of the first two consonants of the root, or against the first consonant of the root being "too similar" to either of the last two consonants of the prefix. And the same at the other end; I "didn't like" the first consonant of a suffix to "match" either the last or next-to-last consonant of the root, nor the last consonant of the root to "match" either the first or the second consonant of the suffix.
But I've abandoned the "infix" idea, so I may abandon those constraints -- or may not; maybe I'll just lower their priorities. _________________ "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
imdamoos
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 64 Location: New York
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Caelaurian has several double letters: aa, dd, gg, ii, rr, tt, xx
As a rule, if you're writing a word, and it has a double letter, you have to spell it using other double letters that won't change the pronunciation. Because of this, a lot of words that have of pair of double letters usually have a chain of double letters. But if you have to use a single letter and the chain of double letters is broken, you continue using whatever letters you need. Basically, put as many double letters after each other as possible.
If you have two of the same vowel next to each other, you change pitch so that each one is part of a different syllable. This makes the language sound very sing-song. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Aert
Joined: 03 Jul 2008 Posts: 354
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:02 am Post subject: series of double/multiple letters |
|
|
Hey,
What about strings of double/multiple letters, like English 'bookkeeping' (or even with letters inbetween)? What is the reason behind yours?
In Aert, the word for 'misinformed' has 3 sets of double letters: 'źëeraadaas' /ʒjiəɹadas/ (palatal j - supposed to be superscript). Here, the 'ëe' is the /jiə/, and 'aa' represents /a/.
(I know that Ualaxx has tons of this ) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
achemel
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 556 Location: up for debate
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ohhh, yes. Indeed it does.  _________________ I have some small knowledge of:
English, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, French
I would like to learn:
Italian, Norwegian, Gaelic
Main conlangs:
ddamachel, tadvaradcel, ra cel, lashel, hemnalg, nomah |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
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
|
|