Zompist Bboard Again

This language makes heavy use of relational nouns, which are typically also body parts, combined with applicatives. Here are some examples: above (lit hair): niiha top (lit. head): qot front (lit. breast): zet'a middle (lit. stomach): goole back (lit. back): yoxa bottom (lit. buttocks): fakha below ...

I am in complete agreement here with the above.

I should note that this language also exhibits fluid-intransitivity for a subset of verbs (i.e. those that are lexically intransitive, as opposed to lexically transitive verbs which must take antipassive or passive marking to reduce their valency).

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 3:51 pm Was this by any chance inspired by the conversation with Ahzoh over on the Conlang Random Thread?

Slightly, but I do like playing around with alignments a lot.

An example sentence

• herder: xaala
• goat (collective): nitku
• tiger: saha
• eat: yoori

Yooriwim nitkun xaalat saha
eat-PAT.3.P.ANIM-INV goat.COLL-ACC herder-GEN tiger
The herder's goats were eaten by the tiger.

I figured I would play around some with a conlang that I have not yet named, so here goes. Provisional phonology /m n/ <m n> /b d dz/ <b d j> /ɓ ɗ/ <b' d'> /t ts k q/ <t c k q> /tʰ tsʰ kʰ qʰ/ <th ch kh qh> /tʼ tsʼ kʼ qʼ/ <t' c' k' q'> /f s x χ/ <f s h x> /z ɣ/ <z g> /ɾ l/ <r l> /w j/ <w y> /i ɛ a ɔ ...

As for the other point, about who is indigenous... I think you might be missing the point. This is in direct response to claims that either Jews are white Europeans or Khazars or whatever -- and to claims that there's no such thing as Palestinians, that they're Jordanians or Egyptians or whatnot. O...

This seems to actually be an area where my own dialect is syntactically distinct from Standard English, as when approximating Standard English I would never say anything resembling either version of mine, but rather would say: I would have never gotten my system cryptolocked if I had not downloaded...

foxcatdog wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 10:36 pm *m *n
*mʲ *nʲ
*p *k
*pʲ *kʲ
*ts
*s *ʃ
*l *l̃
*w̃ *w *j̃ *j

*ĩ *ũ
*ẽ *õ
*ɛ̃ *ɔ̃
*ã

*e *o
*a

I assume this is from one of your conlangs (since practically no language has more nasalized monophthongs than un-nasalized monophthongs).

Calling anyone who is right of social democrats "fascist" really dilutes the meaning of the word and renders it meaningless. Just because one does not agree with all of Biden's foreign policy positions does not make him a "fascist". Likewise, referring to both Biden and Trump as ...

Other fun in this sort of department are things like: I'd've never've gotten my box cryptolocked if I hadn't've downloaded that "antivirus" program from that site. To me, this feels almost like aspectual agreement! It doesn’t work in my dialect, though: it feels very much like a feature o...

It seems on my examples above that -'ve is no longer equivalent to the expanded have.

Other fun in this sort of department are things like: I'd've never've gotten my box cryptolocked if I hadn't've downloaded that "antivirus" program from that site. However, it doesn't quite work if expanded: ? I would have never have gotten my box cryptolocked if I had not have downloaded ...

The only reason why Finnic languages are treated as having a large number of cases rather than a smaller number of cases and a large number of postpositions is that adjectives agree with their nouns with regard to case, incorporating such endings, presumably under IE influence. It's not the only re...

Languages with case suffixes and postpositions, like a lot of "Uralic" languages for lack of a better term, make this even more clear by blurring the line between the two. The only reason why Finnic languages are treated as having a large number of cases rather than a smaller number of ca...

One thing to remember is the case of StG, where a number of adpositions change meaning depending on whether the noun you use them with is in the accusative or dative case.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 10:52 pm - Again, thanks to Janko, Proto-Macro-Jädewan:

1. *¢órl ('(single) thing')
2. *¢óst (lit. 'two *¢órls')
3. *erka̋ða̋
4. *êyor
5. *ław
6. *ḱälḱa̋
7. *¢órli¢óst
8. *¢ósti¢óst
9. *erka̋ða̋y¢óst
10. *êyori¢óst

Holy cent-signs batman!

You seem to have a lot of trust that the rise of revisionist states would lead to less balancing against the US rather than more, because... China is less interested in imperialism for some reason than the United States? I imagine the people of Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia and perhaps Manchuria would ...

*ts > *ɬ [ɬɑ' n ʒo:] tsanjô "our language" See this is what I mean by evil sound changes. I’ve actually seen evidence of a dialect of a language (I can’t recall exactly but ISTR it was Sinitic) that had *s > ɬ as a result of a push chain; since we’re only seeing one element of the shift, ...

I'm no expert, but I do have a Larousse, which says the word was singular or plural till the 18th century; while Etymonline says the English word became plural in the 17th century. while in English the plural agreement is inconsistent and varies by dialect ("maths is..." etc.). I don't th...