Building root words (and growing the tree from there)

Let's start defining words! Here's the first one:
/brol/ means tree.
I don't want my langauge to just be a copy of English, and will actively avoid it. When English has two words for the same concept I will combine them but when it has one word for two concepts I will seperate them. I may also not have any way to say certain terms.

One technique Artifexian uses is translating back and forth between multiple languages to see what tree is associated with in different cultures and choose what you feels fits best for your culture.

You can also derive words from other words! Using /brol/ as our root, we can start affixing (adding/changing/removing bits) to make new words. This includes Prefixes, suffixes, circumfixes, whatever you can think of. Here's my derivation chart:

Root                  the root.
Location            a place they would be found.
Person               a person or occupation associated with the word.
Animal              an animal associated with the word.
Abstract            a concept or idea associated with the word
Causative          a verb that causes the noun to exist
Negative           the opposite of the
Diminutive       the root but smaller.
Augmentative   the root but bigger.

I'm going to stick with prefixes and suffixes mostly. This is because these new meanings used to be the root word plus a word that came before or after it, and throughout time it combined with the root to form one word. This is also why for example, the 'negative' meaning is a prefix (the old word came before the root) and there is a suffix for person. Another note: Some natural languages are only suffixing, but none are only prefixing.

Now what words do I need?
I'm using the Universal Language Dictionary so get a start on vocabulary. I first researched Swadesh Lists but they are too limited. I won't stray too far from the ULD, but it is just a reference.

Like before, I will keep a google sheets updated with my derivation system and my running lexicon/derivation system. Next up: noun and verb inflection!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Pablang?

Hi! I am Pablo, and this blog details my linguistic journey through making my own constructed language: Pablang! Why am I doing this? I think it was a family Bananagrams game, I’m not exactly sure. But for one reason or another, I was looking in the dictionary under “Sch” to see what other words besides school have that start. I found one that was short and sweet: Schwa: the mid-central, neutral vowel sound typically occurring in unstressed syllables in English represented by the symbol (ə) in the International Phonetic Alphabet. For example, in the word ‘America,’ you don’t pronounce either ‘a’ like an ‘a.’ Instead you make this neutral vowel sound and call it a day. I thought it was funny to have so many consonants leading up to just an 'a' sound. I looked deeper into the word that night (mostly because I felt bad winning with a word I didn't know) and fi ve hours later, I was down the rabbit hole comparing different Mongolian writing systems at 3:00 AM. That ...
Read more

Adjectives: To Agree or Not to Agree

Image
Here we are: Adjectives. This one's quite simple. No funky conjugations or declensions. The only part we have to worry about in Adjective-Noun Agreement. In some language, adjectives have to agree with the nouns they modify. This can be agreement of number, case, or class. And these don't have to be so clear cut: take German articles for example. While not adjectives, it serves as a great example of how natural languages are messy. Just like these articles, are adjectives don't have to have a clean, easy agreement pattern. Well, technically, you don't need to have them agree at all, but for the sake of learning I want to. If you remember back to Pablang's nouns, it doesn't have any noun classes to worry about. My chart can be seen here. Wow, quick and easy! See you next time!
Read more

Ack! It's Phonotactics

Now that we know what sounds we have, we have to create rules called phonotactic constraints (phone meaning sound, tacticos meaning arrangement) about how those sounds combine. For example, in English we can say “plant” but not “lpatn.”  So where do we derive these rules from? First, we need to know what each syllable will look like. The onset is the beginning, the nucleus is the middle, and the coda is the end. In English, we have this structure: (C) 3 V(C) 5 (Example: the word “strengths” /stɹɛŋkθs/ is CCCVCCCC. That’s pretty big!). This means each syllable must have a vowel and can have up to three consonants at the front and up to five at the end. Some languages are much more minimal, like Japanese’s humble (C)V. On the other side, we have Heiltsuk-Oowekyala, which allows for huge consonant clusters ! For pablang, I think I’ll go with something simple-but-not-too simple, with (C)(C)V(C)(C). Now while researching these consonant clusters, I stumbled across something ve...
Read more