|
Vreleksá The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
eldin raigmore Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
langover94 wrote: | so does this mean that there arent any vowels in your root system? | Right, no vowels in the root system.
langover94 wrote: | if not then how is /m/-/k/-/m/ pronounced? | It isn't. The root must be inflected with a "transfix". This is a kind of non-concatenative morphology that inserts vowels into the roots (possibly among other things).
Adpihi has five vowels, among them [ i ] and [ u ]. Just looking at those two vowels for now, and ignoring the possibilities of prefixes or suffixes or vowels before the first consonant or vowels after the last consonant, we have the following possible members of the /m/ - /k/ - /m/ paradigm.
[mikim]
[mikum]
[mukim]
[mukum]
[mikimim]
[mikimum]
[mikumim]
[mikumum]
[mukimim]
[mukimum]
[mukumim]
[mukumum]
[mikikim]
[mikikum]
[mikukim]
[mikukum]
[mukikim]
[mukikum]
[mukukim]
[mukukum]
[mimikim]
[mimikum]
[mimukim]
[mimukum]
[mumikim]
[mumikum]
[mumukim]
[mumukum]
If I'd done the same thing using all five vowels I'd have come up with 5*5 + 5*5*5 + 5*5*5 + 5*5*5 = 25 + 3*125 = 400 stems. I can also add on prefixes and/or suffixes.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 509 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ooo! i see!
eldin, that is quite an efficient root system, it allows you to extend your vocabulary quite a bit and have more than enough possiblities for words.
it looks like there are no possibilties for any homophones or homonyms here! _________________ Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
langover94 wrote: | eldin, that is quite an efficient root system, it allows you to extend your vocabulary quite a bit and have more than enough possiblities for words. | I think so too, and so do several other people, including some pros. It's not original with me (in case you thought it was); several Afro-Asiatic languages, including all the Semitic languages (Hebrew and Arabic among them), use something similar; if not for all roots, then at least for all verb roots.
langover94 wrote: | it looks like there are no possibilties for any homophones or homonyms here! | Not so far, no; but it's possible the exact vowel used, especially in an un-stressed syllable, may not be quite clear, so, it doesn't make sense to use every pattern. I think I'll probably pick about 100 patterns, and use about 25 of them extensively. (As I understand it some Semitic languages have about 45 patterns plus-or-minus a few.)
If prefixes and/or suffixes are added, there could be problems if it weren't clear where the prefix ended and the root began, or where the root ended and the suffix began. Prefixes and suffixes usually contain only one consonant and almost never more than two. I am toying with the idea of never using both a prefix and a suffix; that's not like the natlangs, though.
"Mujaheddin" takes the JHD root meaning "struggle" and adds the one-consonant prefix "mu-" and the one-consonant suffix "-in", together with the transfix "-a-e-(double)", to get mu-JaHeDD-in, "Mujaheddin", "strugglers" or "fighters" or "participants in Jihad".
What I actually did to avoid such homophony was;
(1) Avoid doubled consonants.
(2) Avoid (less stringently) two homorganic consonants in a row.
(3) Avoid (even less strictly) two consonants in a row with the same manner-of-articulation.
(4) Pick one or a few rare PoAs and one or a few rare MoAs, and say the first consonant of any suffix and the last consonant of any prefix, either has to be at that (or at one of those) PoA(s) or pronounced in that (or in one of those) MoA(s); while at the same time saying the first and last consonants of any root can't be in any of those rare MoAs nor at any of those rare PoAs.
The roots I've listed are not all the possible roots; they are just all the roots for which the main paradigm works all the way through, that is, they are the "regular" roots. There could also be irregular roots, that I haven't used yet (and odds are will never have to use unless I just want to; most conlangers don't exceed 5,000 roots per conlang).
A root could be irregular for any of the following reasons;
(1) It has only two consonants.
(2) It has four consonants.
(3) Its first two consonants are identical.
(4) Its last two consonants are identical.
(5) One of its consonants is a semivowel or a laryngeal or pharyngeal or glottal.
(6) Its first consonant is the same as the last consonant of some prefix.
(7) Its last consonant is the same as the first consonant of some suffix.
Any root that is irregular for exactly one of those reasons, depending on what the reason is, there will be a paradigm for.
Roots that are irregular for exactly two of those reasons could also exist; their paradigms might actually be made up suppletively out of paradigms based on two principal parts which do not sound related.
I don't anticipate roots that are irregular for three or more of the above reasons; if there are any I expect them to have defective paradigms even after suppletion.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 509 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wow eldin you thought this over more than i thought you did. _________________ Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
langover94 wrote: | wow eldin you thought this over more than i thought you did. | Well, again, except for numbering the list, and some of the detail, this is basically taken from the grammars and morphologies of Semitic languages.
Hebrew, for instance, has "hollow roots" and "doubly-hollow roots".
Technically, the term "hollow root" is strictly appropriate only for roots whose middle consonant is missing.
But since it's sometimes hard to tell whether the "missing" consonant from a two-consonant root was the middle one or the first one or the last one, the term "hollow root" expanded to refer to any root with just two consonants.
Then it was seen that certain consonants are either hard to hear or easy to skip between vowels; semivowels (<w> and <y>), <h>, glottal stops, and so on. So if one of the root's consonants was one of these, it was called "hollow" as well.
And so on.
The usual way of inflecting a root is to, optionally, double one of the consonants (or not); then sprinkle vowels through it; then, optionally, tack on a prefix and/or a suffix (or both or neither).
You can't always tell exactly what's been done if one of the consonants is already doubled to begin with; or if the prefix's last consonant and the root's first consonant are identical; or the root's last consonant and the suffix's first consonant are identical. (For instance the consonants <m> and/or <n> in Hebrew and/or Arabic can cause problems when one of them occurs in certain places because of the possibility of getting mixed up with certain common affixes.)
So eventually the roots that broke one of the rules were called "hollow", and those that broke two were called "doubly hollow".
I didn't make it up; I just systematized it so I could understand it, and apply it to a conlang in a regular way (the natlangs are not as regular as my conlang).
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 509 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
youre so smart (or should i say wise, which is basically the same thing as smart). _________________ Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
langover94 wrote: | youre so smart (or should i say wise, which is basically the same thing as smart). | Thanks!
I wouldn't say "wise" is the same as "smart"; I'd say "wise" is the same as "been through enough sh*t to know not to go through it again". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 509 Location: USA
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
well i think you hit the nail on the head with the definition, and now i can actually apply it to you _________________ Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kiri
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Latvia/Italy
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess this is necroeing, but still, I wanted to ask, how did/do you go about the script of Adpihi? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kiri wrote: | I guess this is necroeing, but still, I wanted to ask, how did/do you go about the script of Adpihi? |
I haven't finished it yet.
I think I'll work on it some today, since you brought it up.
I'll post including a link to a place you can see some of the characters, as soon as I have any. I have an idea; if it works I'll put it here soon. _________________ "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
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
|
|