dhoklang scratchpad 2.0 (NP: Turkish but ergative)
Anthologica Universe Atlas / Academia / Department of Creativity / dhoklang scratchpad 2.0 (NP: Turkish but ergative)

? dhok The Last Aristocrat
posts: 228
, Alkali Metal, Norman, United States
message
In recent months, all of my conlanging efforts have been either a) Algonquian thinly disguised or b) a posteriori. I'm starting to get bored with those, so I'm going to start an a priori family that's a bit easier to handle.

Consonants:
*p	*t	*tʲ		*k	*kʲ
*b	*d	*dʲ		*g	*gʲ
*m	*n	*nʲ
	*ts	*tsʲ
	*dz	*dzʲ
*ɸ	*s	*sʲ		*x	*xʲ
*w	*l	*lʲ	*j
	*ɾ	*ɾʲ


Vowels and diphthongs:

*i~ɨ	*u
*e~ə	*o
*æ~ä	*ɒ


The orthography should be pretty self-explanatory. Palatalization is written with a following <ь> unless before any of /i e æ/; before those vowels palatalized consonants are unmarked and unpalatalized ones are written with a following <ъ>, unless they're labials. /æ~ä/ is written <æ>, /j/ <y>, /ɸ/ <f>.

Roots are generally of the form C(R)VC, where R may be any of /w l lʲ r rʲ/: *mratь, *pwær, *gedz, nъis, *dlьus. (мрать, пвæр, гедз, ныс, длюс?)

Allowed consonant clusters are CR, RC, and NC. Palatalization is not contrastive on the first member of clusters.

Proto-Thingy is strongly suffixing, with initial stress: *mratь 'dog', *mrátik 'dog.GEN', *mrátikъæn 'your dog.GEN'. The mid vowels /e o/ are only allowed in word-initial syllables.

Nouns have no gender; the case-number paradigms are very nearly completely agglutinative, except for the ablative plural.

	SG	DUAL		PL
ABS	-Ø	-æ		-ær
GEN	-ik	-ikъæ		-ikъær
DAT	-at	-atъæ		-atъær
INST	-us	-usъæ		-usъær
ALL	-in	-inъæ		-inъær
LOC	-ænь	-ænæ		-ænær
ABL	-(æ)wi	-(æ)wiyæ	-(æ)wir


There is an ergative case of sorts, identical to the genitive of animate nouns and the instrumental of inanimates.

Possessive paradigm:

	SG	DU		PL
1	-(æ)k	-(æ)bæk		-(i)tsik
1+2		-(æ)kъæn	-(i)tsir
2	-(æ)n	-(æ)bæn		-(i)rik
3	-(æ)d	-(æ)bæd		-(i)dik


These attach to the case endings: mratæwirtsik 'away from our two dogs' ['mɾɒtʲæwiɾtsʲik], ogъændik 'in their city' ['ogändʲik].

I'll have to go find some inspiration from something other than Turkic/Uralic for the verbs...
? twabs fair maiden
posts: 211
, Conversational Speaker, [ˈaɪwə]
message
you do know that scratchpads are usually for *everything* right, you don't have to start a new one each time
? Serafín posts: 37
, 農, Canada
message
He's been told multiple times. At this point he's just trolling.
? Rhetorica Sleepless Scribe
posts: 1204
, Kelatetía: Dis, Major Belt 1
message
I think I'm going to make a sticky that says all new languages must have English phonotactics and orthography—just to see if anyone ever gets as far as robust and detailed syntax.
? twabs fair maiden
posts: 211
, Conversational Speaker, [ˈaɪwə]
message
hey, syntax is hard,
? Rhetorica Sleepless Scribe
posts: 1204
, Kelatetía: Dis, Major Belt 1
message
It's really not. Pick up a book, categorize the structures of each sentence, and invent a replacement. Jeez.
? masako la capitan
posts: 205
, Conversational Speaker message
quoting Rhetorica, Kelatetía: Dis, Major Belt 1:
It's really not. Pick up a book, categorize the structures of each sentence, and invent a replacement. Jeez.

Yeah. What Rhet said!
? Hallow XIII Primordial Crab
posts: 482
, 巴塞尔之子
message
excuse me this is a gross oversimplification of syntax and i do not think this is valuable

if syntax were a thing of broad categorization, rather than the set of all constructions in the language, including lexical specification thereof, it would not be hard, but as it rather is the latter, it is actually very hard, and incidentally this is also the reason why generativism failed
? Nortaneous ? ?????
posts: 458
, Marquis, Maryland
message
syntax is easy. half my conlangs are english with serial verbs and the other half are german without V2.

ps dhok, have u considered: middle chinese. pwaer gjeds nis dljus mratjikaen

add long /i u/ so you can <jij>, imho
? kodé man of few words
posts: 109
, Deacon, this fucking hole we call LA
message
quoting Hallow XIII, 巴塞尔之子:
excuse me this is a gross oversimplification of syntax and i do not think this is valuable

if syntax were a thing of broad categorization, rather than the set of all constructions in the language, including lexical specification thereof, it would not be hard, but as it rather is the latter, it is actually very hard, and incidentally this is also the reason why generativism failed

GENERATIVISM NOT FAIL. GENERATIVISM STRONK.