User:Ceige/Ceigean Afroasiatic - Revision history

Sware at 15:35, 6 July 2021

2021-07-06T15:35:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 6 July 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	\|script3 = Egyp		\|script3 = Egyp
	\|script4 = Tfng		\|script4 = Tfng
			\|creator = User:Ceige
	}}		}}

Sware: Updating infobox

2021-07-06T15:34:49Z

Updating infobox

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 6 July 2021
Line 2:		Line 2:
	\|name = CJ-Afroasiatic <sup><small>(jokingly)</small></sup>		\|name = CJ-Afroasiatic <sup><small>(jokingly)</small></sup>
	\|nativename = 𐤔𐤌𐤉𐤕 / ⵙⵎⵉⵜ / (ta)Šimiyata		\|nativename = 𐤔𐤌𐤉𐤕 / ⵙⵎⵉⵜ / (ta)Šimiyata
	\|pronunciation = [simijata]		\|pronunciation = simijata
	\|~~region~~ = Africa		\|setting = Africa
	~~\|states =~~
	~~\|nation =~~
	~~\|speakers = -~~
	\|date = Yonks ago		\|date = Yonks ago
	\|familycolor = Afroasiatic		\|familycolor = Afroasiatic
	~~\|fam1 = [[w:Afroasiatic_languages\|Afroasiatic]]~~
	\|ancestor = Early Proto-Afroasiatic		\|ancestor = Early Proto-Afroasiatic
	\|~~script~~ = ~~[[w:Latin script~~\|~~Latin]], Phoenician, Hieroglyphics, Tifinagh. Only Latin recommended.~~		\|script1 = Latn
	\|~~agency~~ =		\|script2 = Phnx
			\|script3 = Egyp
			\|script4 = Tfng
	}}		}}

Sware at 20:49, 26 June 2021

2021-06-26T20:49:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 26 June 2021
Line 100:		Line 100:
	\|AdjComparative= 0		\|AdjComparative= 0
	\|AdjSuperlative= 0		\|AdjSuperlative= 0
	~~\|AdjGen= 0~~
	\|Supine= 0		\|Supine= 0
	\|Gerund=50		\|Gerund=50

IlL: /* Particles */

2015-04-19T17:31:22Z

Particles

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 19 April 2015
Line 330:		Line 330:
	[[Category:Reconstruction]]		[[Category:Reconstruction]]
	[[Category:Afroasiatic languages]]		[[Category:Afroasiatic languages]]
	~~[[Category:Semitic languages]]~~

Ceige at 18:28, 28 January 2015

2015-01-28T18:28:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:28, 28 January 2015
Line 159:		Line 159:
	There appears to be no stable system of making plurals. Egyptian appears to use -w and -wt for its external plural markers. Semitic appears to use vowel lengthening instead. Internal (vowel-grade) plural marking seems to orient around making the noun look different in whatever easy way is possible, at least in some cases.		There appears to be no stable system of making plurals. Egyptian appears to use -w and -wt for its external plural markers. Semitic appears to use vowel lengthening instead. Internal (vowel-grade) plural marking seems to orient around making the noun look different in whatever easy way is possible, at least in some cases.

	[http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/plural-formations-of-proto-berber.html Berber nouns] appear comparitively neat when it comes to vowel alterations however, and the -n- marker appears to have [http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/proto-semitic-case-system-2.html some parallels (at a glance) in Arabic]. Since we're doing this for conlanging, and not proper reconstruction purposes, let's just assume that -n- was used in plural formation, alongside appropriate vowel shifts.		[http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/plural-formations-of-proto-berber.html Berber nouns] appear comparitively neat when it comes to vowel alterations however, and the -n- marker appears to have [http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/proto-semitic-case-system-2.html some parallels (at a glance) in Arabic]. Since we're doing this for conlanging, and not proper reconstruction purposes, let's just assume that -n- was used in some plural formation, alongside appropriate vowel shifts. Another thing worthy of note: feminine -t- appears to be dropped in some plural constructions (both broken and affixed).

	In the following tables, e/ə = a short vowel. ə in many cases may become /u/, /i/ or /a/ (conditions not known yet). External plural marker seem to possess some concatenating abilities. Depending on the source language, I'll use é and è to indicate if it tends to /i/ or /u/ respectively. In both the Berber and Arabic derived parts, there appears to be a tendency for u/a > u, but i > i, when vowel reductions occur in some cases, but other times this doesn't happen.		In the following tables, e/ə = a short vowel. ə in many cases may become /u/, /i/ or /a/ (conditions not known yet). External plural marker seem to possess some concatenating abilities. Depending on the source language, I'll use é and è to indicate if it tends to /i/ or /u/ respectively. In both the Berber and Arabic derived parts, there appears to be a tendency for u/a > u, but i > i, when vowel reductions occur in some cases, but other times this doesn't happen.

Ceige at 17:15, 28 January 2015

2015-01-28T17:15:31Z

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 ==Grammar==
 ===Nouns===
 ====Gender====
@@ Line 260: / Line 314: @@
 ===Verbs===
 ===Adverbs===

Ceige at 16:50, 28 January 2015

2015-01-28T16:50:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, 28 January 2015
Line 266:		Line 266:

	===Particles===		===Particles===


			[[Category:Languages]]
			[[Category:Conlangs]]
			[[Category:Artlangs]]
			[[Category:A posteriori]]
			[[Category:Reconstruction]]
			[[Category:Afroasiatic languages]]
			[[Category:Semitic languages]]

Ceige: /* Particles= */

2015-01-28T16:47:06Z

Particles=

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 28 January 2015
Line 265:		Line 265:
	===Prepositions===		===Prepositions===

	==Particles===		===Particles===

Ceige at 16:45, 28 January 2015

2015-01-28T16:45:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 28 January 2015
Line 39:		Line 39:
	\|-		\|-
	! Voiced		! Voiced
	\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| ɣ \|\| \|\|		\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| ɣ \|\| \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	! colspan="2" \| Sonorants		! colspan="2" \| Sonorants
	\| w \|\| r \|\| y \|\| \|\| l \|\| \|\| \|\|		\| w \|\| r \|\| y \|\| \|\| l \|\| \|\| \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	! colspan="2" \| Nasals		! colspan="2" \| Nasals
	\| m \|\| n \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\|		\| m \|\| n \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\|
	\|}		\|}

			Note the lack of standard IPA conventions.

			The laminal series represents what ends up as (in the case of /ᵈź/) /ð/ in Semitic, /d/ in Egyptian, /z/ in Berber and Cushitic, and /dʒ/ in Chadic. In contrast, the apical series represents what ends up as (in the case of /dz/) /z/ in Semitic, Egyptian, Berber and Cushitic and /dz/ in Chadic.

			The laminal and apical series of affricates act like stops in terms of distribution, and some daughter languages yield affricates from emphatics (Chadic is unreliable in that it yields dental affricates across the board, and merges /š/ with /ɬ/, implying that it simply merged non-laminal fricatives with affricates).

			The exact nature of emphatics is fairly unimportant - daughter languages either eliminated them (leaving traces of their presence sometimes in vowel quality) or use pharyngealisation or ejectives. The important point is that they involve disrupted airflow from behind where the consonants are being made in the mouth/vocal tract area.

	===Vowels===		===Vowels===

	===Phonotactics (refer to Grammar)===		===Phonotactics (refer to Grammar)===
			The feminine marker -(a)ta may end up as -ta, or where case erosion takes place, -at or even -a.

	==Grammar==		==Grammar==

Ceige at 16:31, 28 January 2015

2015-01-28T16:31:56Z

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 This is my attempt at making a conlanger-oriented pseudo-reconstruction of "some stage" of Proto-Afroasiatic. By "Conlanger-oriented" I mean it incorporates a few extra bits that may not have actually existed or been widespread or common in the Proto-Afroasiatic stage, but I kept them in because I thought they look fun - mimation/nunation is a good example.
 ==Grammar==
@@ Line 177: / Line 212: @@
 ====Noun Summary====
 {| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="graytable lightgraybg" style="width: 700px; text-align:center;"|
-!Gender
+! colspan="2" rowspan="3" | Case !! colspan="4" | Gender
-!Absolutive
+|-
-!Nominative
+! colspan="2" | Male !! colspan="2" | Female
-!''(Plural)''
+|-
 |-
-!Male
+! Mim/Nun
-|(a-)
+| colspan="2" | -im || colspan="2" | -tim
 |-
-!Female
+! colspan="2" | Reduced
-|ta-
+| (ə-) || -(ə) || (tə-) || -t(ə)
 |}