ouroboros-clong

[ouroboros-clong]

x

[ouroboros-clong]

kinda forgot abt tumblr for a bit (somehow) got some new clongs coming in, hopefully will remember to update abt them soon(ish)

[ouroboros-clong]

mfw when we start a new conlang already

[ouroboros-clong]

nasal harmony happens to an even greater degree in Guaraní, which this conlang is somewhat inspired by. In Guaraní all obstruents allow harmony to spread through them

More Ããwĩćẹ - Nouns

Nouns in Ããwĩćẹ are relatively simple, but not totally so. Nouns have 4, 6, or 8 forms, depending on how you count the definite article. First up: number. Nouns in Ããwĩćẹ can be singular or plural. Like most languages, the singular is unmarked; the plural is marked by the suffix -ɦə̃, which spreads nasality to the root. eg. /ˈjefo/ [ˈjefu] yèfu "book"; /ˈjefoɦə̃/ [ˈɲẽfũɦə̃] ńèfuhẹ̃ "books" /ˈasi/ àsi "tree"; /ˈasiɦə̃/ àsihẹ̃ "trees" /ˈəːjə/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹ "hand"; /ˈəːjəɦə̃/ ẹ̀ẹ̀ńẹhẹ̃ "hands"

Secondly: case Ããwĩćẹ has 2 cases: Direct and Oblique. The direct is used for the subject and object(s) of verbs, as well as direct address. Essentially covering the uses of the nominative, accusative, and vocative cases. The oblique is used in all other positions, such as after a preposition, or as the possessor in a genitival construction. The Oblique has 2 endings: -ɖə for the singular and -ʈə̃ for the plural. eg. /ˈjefoɖə/ [ˈjefuɖə] yèfuḍẹ "book"; /ˈjefoʈə̃/ [ˈjefuʈə̃] yèfuṭẹ̃ "books" /ˈasiɖə/ àsiḍẹ "tree"; /ˈasiʈə̃/ àsiṭẹ̃ "trees" /ˈəːjəɖə/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹḍẹ "hand"; /ˈəːjəʈə̃/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹṭẹ̃ "hands" Thirdly: definiteness The definite article has 4 forms dir. sg.: /ə̃/ ẹ̃; dir. pl. /õ/ õ obl. sg.: /ə̃ɽə/ ẹṛẹ̃; obl. pl. /õɽə/ oṛẹ̃ The complications arise with the direct forms. As singular morae, they cliticize onto the following noun. When the noun begins with a consonant, this doesn't change much except for the possibility of nasality spreading into the word. For vowel initial stems, however, the vowel merges with the initial vowel of the noun, lengthening it and nasalizing it if possible; for vowels which are already long, the vowel becomes overlong. eg. /ə̃‿ˈjefo/ [ə̃ˈɲẽfũ] ẹ̃ńèfu "the book"; /ə̃‿ˈjefoɦə̃/ [ə̃ˈɲẽfũɦə̃] ẹ̃ńèfuhẹ̃ "the books" /ə̃‿ˈasi/ [ˈãːsĩ] ããsi "the tree"; /ə̃‿ˈasiɦə̃/ [ˈãːsiɦə̃] ããsihẹ̃ "the trees" /ə̃‿ˈəːjə/ [ˈə̃ːːɲə̃] ẹ̃ẹ̃ẹ̃ńẹ "the hand"; /ə̃‿ˈəːjəɦə̃/ [ˈə̃ːːɲə̃ɦə̃] ẹ̃ẹ̃ẹ̃ńẹhẹ̃ "the hands" The oblique forms can have their final vowels elided before vowel-initial stems. eg. /ə̃ɽə ˈjefoɖə/ [ə̃ɽə ˈjefuɖə] ẹṛẹ̃ yèfuḍẹ "the book"; /õɽə ˈjefoʈə̃/ [ˈjefuʈə̃] oṛẹ̃ yèfuṭẹ̃ "the books" /ə̃ɽə ˈasiɖə/ [ə̃ɽ ˈasiɖə] ẹ̃ṛ’ àsiḍẹ "the tree"; /õɽə ˈasiʈə̃/ [õɽ ˈasiʈə̃] õṛ’ àsiṭẹ̃ "the trees" /ə̃ɽə ˈəːjəɖə/ [ə̃ɽ ˈəːjəɖə] ẹ̃ṛ’ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹḍẹ "the hand"; /õɽə ˈəːjəʈə̃/ [õɽ ˈəːjəʈə̃] õṛ’ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹṭẹ̃ "the hands"

[ouroboros-clong]

yeah for more info on the phonology: https://www.tumblr.com/ouroboros-clong/777217679615475712/%C3%A3%C3%A3w%C4%A9%C4%87%E1%BA%B9-introduction-post?source=share

More Ããwĩćẹ - Nouns

Nouns in Ããwĩćẹ are relatively simple, but not totally so. Nouns have 4, 6, or 8 forms, depending on how you count the definite article. First up: number. Nouns in Ããwĩćẹ can be singular or plural. Like most languages, the singular is unmarked; the plural is marked by the suffix -ɦə̃, which spreads nasality to the root. eg. /ˈjefo/ [ˈjefu] yèfu "book"; /ˈjefoɦə̃/ [ˈɲẽfũɦə̃] ńèfuhẹ̃ "books" /ˈasi/ àsi "tree"; /ˈasiɦə̃/ àsihẹ̃ "trees" /ˈəːjə/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹ "hand"; /ˈəːjəɦə̃/ ẹ̀ẹ̀ńẹhẹ̃ "hands"

Secondly: case Ããwĩćẹ has 2 cases: Direct and Oblique. The direct is used for the subject and object(s) of verbs, as well as direct address. Essentially covering the uses of the nominative, accusative, and vocative cases. The oblique is used in all other positions, such as after a preposition, or as the possessor in a genitival construction. The Oblique has 2 endings: -ɖə for the singular and -ʈə̃ for the plural. eg. /ˈjefoɖə/ [ˈjefuɖə] yèfuḍẹ "book"; /ˈjefoʈə̃/ [ˈjefuʈə̃] yèfuṭẹ̃ "books" /ˈasiɖə/ àsiḍẹ "tree"; /ˈasiʈə̃/ àsiṭẹ̃ "trees" /ˈəːjəɖə/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹḍẹ "hand"; /ˈəːjəʈə̃/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹṭẹ̃ "hands" Thirdly: definiteness The definite article has 4 forms dir. sg.: /ə̃/ ẹ̃; dir. pl. /õ/ õ obl. sg.: /ə̃ɽə/ ẹṛẹ̃; obl. pl. /õɽə/ oṛẹ̃ The complications arise with the direct forms. As singular morae, they cliticize onto the following noun. When the noun begins with a consonant, this doesn't change much except for the possibility of nasality spreading into the word. For vowel initial stems, however, the vowel merges with the initial vowel of the noun, lengthening it and nasalizing it if possible; for vowels which are already long, the vowel becomes overlong. eg. /ə̃‿ˈjefo/ [ə̃ˈɲẽfũ] ẹ̃ńèfu "the book"; /ə̃‿ˈjefoɦə̃/ [ə̃ˈɲẽfũɦə̃] ẹ̃ńèfuhẹ̃ "the books" /ə̃‿ˈasi/ [ˈãːsĩ] ããsi "the tree"; /ə̃‿ˈasiɦə̃/ [ˈãːsiɦə̃] ããsihẹ̃ "the trees" /ə̃‿ˈəːjə/ [ˈə̃ːːɲə̃] ẹ̃ẹ̃ẹ̃ńẹ "the hand"; /ə̃‿ˈəːjəɦə̃/ [ˈə̃ːːɲə̃ɦə̃] ẹ̃ẹ̃ẹ̃ńẹhẹ̃ "the hands" The oblique forms can have their final vowels elided before vowel-initial stems. eg. /ə̃ɽə ˈjefoɖə/ [ə̃ɽə ˈjefuɖə] ẹṛẹ̃ yèfuḍẹ "the book"; /õɽə ˈjefoʈə̃/ [ˈjefuʈə̃] oṛẹ̃ yèfuṭẹ̃ "the books" /ə̃ɽə ˈasiɖə/ [ə̃ɽ ˈasiɖə] ẹ̃ṛ’ àsiḍẹ "the tree"; /õɽə ˈasiʈə̃/ [õɽ ˈasiʈə̃] õṛ’ àsiṭẹ̃ "the trees" /ə̃ɽə ˈəːjəɖə/ [ə̃ɽ ˈəːjəɖə] ẹ̃ṛ’ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹḍẹ "the hand"; /õɽə ˈəːjəʈə̃/ [õɽ ˈəːjəʈə̃] õṛ’ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹṭẹ̃ "the hands"

[ouroboros-clong]

More Ããwĩćẹ - Nouns

Nouns in Ããwĩćẹ are relatively simple, but not totally so. Nouns have 4, 6, or 8 forms, depending on how you count the definite article. First up: number. Nouns in Ããwĩćẹ can be singular or plural. Like most languages, the singular is unmarked; the plural is marked by the suffix -ɦə̃, which spreads nasality to the root. eg. /ˈjefo/ [ˈjefu] yèfu "book"; /ˈjefoɦə̃/ [ˈɲẽfũɦə̃] ńèfuhẹ̃ "books" /ˈasi/ àsi "tree"; /ˈasiɦə̃/ àsihẹ̃ "trees" /ˈəːjə/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹ "hand"; /ˈəːjəɦə̃/ ẹ̀ẹ̀ńẹhẹ̃ "hands"

Secondly: case Ããwĩćẹ has 2 cases: Direct and Oblique. The direct is used for the subject and object(s) of verbs, as well as direct address. Essentially covering the uses of the nominative, accusative, and vocative cases. The oblique is used in all other positions, such as after a preposition, or as the possessor in a genitival construction. The Oblique has 2 endings: -ɖə for the singular and -ʈə̃ for the plural. eg. /ˈjefoɖə/ [ˈjefuɖə] yèfuḍẹ "book"; /ˈjefoʈə̃/ [ˈjefuʈə̃] yèfuṭẹ̃ "books" /ˈasiɖə/ àsiḍẹ "tree"; /ˈasiʈə̃/ àsiṭẹ̃ "trees" /ˈəːjəɖə/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹḍẹ "hand"; /ˈəːjəʈə̃/ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹṭẹ̃ "hands" Thirdly: definiteness The definite article has 4 forms dir. sg.: /ə̃/ ẹ̃; dir. pl. /õ/ õ obl. sg.: /ə̃ɽə/ ẹṛẹ̃; obl. pl. /õɽə/ oṛẹ̃ The complications arise with the direct forms. As singular morae, they cliticize onto the following noun. When the noun begins with a consonant, this doesn't change much except for the possibility of nasality spreading into the word. For vowel initial stems, however, the vowel merges with the initial vowel of the noun, lengthening it and nasalizing it if possible; for vowels which are already long, the vowel becomes overlong. eg. /ə̃‿ˈjefo/ [ə̃ˈɲẽfũ] ẹ̃ńèfu "the book"; /ə̃‿ˈjefoɦə̃/ [ə̃ˈɲẽfũɦə̃] ẹ̃ńèfuhẹ̃ "the books" /ə̃‿ˈasi/ [ˈãːsĩ] ããsi "the tree"; /ə̃‿ˈasiɦə̃/ [ˈãːsiɦə̃] ããsihẹ̃ "the trees" /ə̃‿ˈəːjə/ [ˈə̃ːːɲə̃] ẹ̃ẹ̃ẹ̃ńẹ "the hand"; /ə̃‿ˈəːjəɦə̃/ [ˈə̃ːːɲə̃ɦə̃] ẹ̃ẹ̃ẹ̃ńẹhẹ̃ "the hands" The oblique forms can have their final vowels elided before vowel-initial stems. eg. /ə̃ɽə ˈjefoɖə/ [ə̃ɽə ˈjefuɖə] ẹṛẹ̃ yèfuḍẹ "the book"; /õɽə ˈjefoʈə̃/ [ˈjefuʈə̃] oṛẹ̃ yèfuṭẹ̃ "the books" /ə̃ɽə ˈasiɖə/ [ə̃ɽ ˈasiɖə] ẹ̃ṛ’ àsiḍẹ "the tree"; /õɽə ˈasiʈə̃/ [õɽ ˈasiʈə̃] õṛ’ àsiṭẹ̃ "the trees" /ə̃ɽə ˈəːjəɖə/ [ə̃ɽ ˈəːjəɖə] ẹ̃ṛ’ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹḍẹ "the hand"; /õɽə ˈəːjəʈə̃/ [õɽ ˈəːjəʈə̃] õṛ’ ẹ̀ẹ̀yẹṭẹ̃ "the hands"

[ouroboros-clong]

Here we go again. This one is called Cursive

[ouroboros-clong]

So give one word in English that perfectly translates "kestovitutus". Only one word mind, you're not allowed to define or explain in any way.

When multilingual people talk about words being "untranslatable" it's because there's not single word that carries all the connotation across the language barrier. but monolingual English speakers will never grasp that because their understanding of language is limited to one single tongue.

Btw this is true for translating English into other tongues too.

Oh my god I’m not talking about one to one word for word translations at all. Saying that to translate something accurately you need to find a precise one singular word for it isn’t true.

You don’t say something is “bigger” in Spanish. You say “más grande” or literally “more big”. Does that mean that the English word “bigger” is untranslatable into Spanish? No! It’s just two words instead.

Kestovitutus doesn’t have a one word translation into English. Sure. But saying “I’ve been seething forever about this” can get the same or at least a similar meaning across.

I’m not saying it’s always easy to translate concepts. I’m just saying that pretending there’s some magical concepts that exist in some languages that can’t be accurately conveyed in other languages just isn’t true.

If a language had one singular word for “woah that guy just did a sweet kickflip on his skateboard” like I dunno wugh or something, wugh wouldn’t have a one to one equivalent in English sure but you could still say “woah that guy just did a sweet kickflip on his skateboard” and the fact that it took you more words to get that concept across doesn’t mean you didn’t express the same thing that a person just saying “wugh” would.

When a person whose native language includes wugh is speaking English they may become frustrated that English doesn’t have a more efficient way of conveying that concept, but they can still convey that concept.

[ouroboros-clong]

So give one word in English that perfectly translates "kestovitutus". Only one word mind, you're not allowed to define or explain in any way.

When multilingual people talk about words being "untranslatable" it's because there's not single word that carries all the connotation across the language barrier. but monolingual English speakers will never grasp that because their understanding of language is limited to one single tongue.

Btw this is true for translating English into other tongues too.

Oh my god I’m not talking about one to one word for word translations at all. Saying that to translate something accurately you need to find a precise one singular word for it isn’t true.

You don’t say something is “bigger” in Spanish. You say “más grande” or literally “more big”. Does that mean that the English word “bigger” is untranslatable into Spanish? No! It’s just two words instead.

Kestovitutus doesn’t have a one word translation into English. Sure. But saying “I’ve been seething forever about this” can get the same or at least a similar meaning across.

I’m not saying it’s always easy to translate concepts. I’m just saying that pretending there’s some magical concepts that exist in some languages that can’t be accurately conveyed in other languages just isn’t true.

If a language had one singular word for “woah that guy just did a sweet kickflip on his skateboard” like I dunno wugh or something, wugh wouldn’t have a one to one equivalent in English sure but you could still say “woah that guy just did a sweet kickflip on his skateboard” and the fact that it took you more words to get that concept across doesn’t mean you didn’t express the same thing that a person just saying “wugh” would.

When a person whose native language includes wugh is speaking English they may become frustrated that English doesn’t have a more efficient way of conveying that concept, but they can still convey that concept.

[ouroboros-clong]

like, okay, consent does literally just mean agree. which is what enables this little rhetorical trick. because there's all this cultural emphasis on sexual consent, which is just expressed as consent, a lot of phrases whose intended meanings are "rape is bad" can be taken literally to mean "i should get to agree to everything that happens in my vicinity."

[ouroboros-clong]

Ããwĩćẹ Introduction Post

So Ããwĩćẹ is a conlang we've been working on for a few weeks. The idea originally came to us when we wanted to toy around with nasal harmony.

this is the phonology (roughly speaking) The nasal consonants [m n ɳ ɲ ŋ] appear only as allophones in contact with nasal vowels. tl;dr /b d ɖ g/ becomes [m n ɳ ŋ] before nasal vowels, and /l j/ become [n ɲ] when in contact with any nasal vowel. Nasal vowels also spread bidirectionally, blocked progressively by any stop, and blocked regressively by plain voiceless stops (/k’/ and /q’/ do not block regressive spreading). Nasal allophones of consonants also don't block spreading so the word /baˈbã/ is pronounced [mãˈmã]. The romanization is relatively straight-forward, except for nasalization. Vowel nasalization [marked with a tilde] is only marked on the final vowel to be nasalized within a morpheme (to disambiguate words merged by nasal spreading), and stress is marked with a grave accent [the grave and tilde cannot be combined] So the word /ˈɖiro/ is ḍìro and /ˈɖĩro/ [ˈɳĩrõ] is ṇìrõ. Both words' plurals are pronounced [ˈɳĩrõɦə̃] but they're disambiguated in romanization as: ṇìrohẹ̃ (from ḍìro) and ṇìrõhẹ̃ (from ṇìrõ).

and more

[ouroboros-clong]

best part is not all of these are even phonemes, [s] isn't phonemic in rotokas and iirc is an allophone of /t/

Looking up how many phonemes exist in different languages because I’m that guy and apparently Hawaiian only has 13 phonemes.

I don’t know what to say about that. That’s not a lot. I think it’s cool you can have a language with so few sounds.

[ouroboros-clong]

Looking up how many phonemes exist in different languages because I’m that guy and apparently Hawaiian only has 13 phonemes.

I don’t know what to say about that. That’s not a lot. I think it’s cool you can have a language with so few sounds.

[ouroboros-clong]

i'll get to the full overview post later but rn i want you to light a cigarette and come over look at this with me

now, this is a passive construction. it's not the most passive construction, more of a middle voice.

i.e. if this was the "true" passive, then the word "thing" wouldn't be in the accusative. still, on a syntax level, it's close enough - this construction takes a transitive sentence and whisks away an implied expletive agent. closer to passive than active, def def.

that interrogative pronoun "tor" - isn't just an interrogative pronoun. in this stage of the language, it's also the preposition that would lead into a reintroduced agent. somewhere like "by, because of," for animates.

normally, that'd go at the end of the clause:

Snzfma tosewi orgnmasres tor...

"This thing was forged by..."

buuut. it's been frooooonted. Because this language has a functional caaaase system. and the word order's all looooose when it wants to be.

i could be a bit boring and demand some kind of "real" preposition, here. "from who" or smth. but this particle can act as a preposition, and this is just the proto, so why not fuzz around a bit before i really lock the word classes in.

the absence of a compliment for tor is probably enough to mark it as a question. the speaker is looking for a seme to fill the gap. but the question is doubly marked by the fact that tor is appearing in canonical subject position. despite this being a middle voice where that shouldn't really be a thing.

you could "literally" read it as "who had this thing forging?" but that's the origin of this middle voice to begin with. so. it just works. plus there's agreement on the verb letting this be a rhetorical question, really. we know it was you.

good stuff.

[ouroboros-clong]

oh god oh fuck

conlang update, i suppose (forgot to do it until now so here have an example sentence) It's called Ããwĩćẹ [ãːˈwĩtʃə] it has nasal harmony and such (i'll probably make a different post to detail how it works)

note: ignore the q’iˈviɖəə in the 3rd row, it should read q’iˈviɖə lol

[ouroboros-clong]

"I never knew you were such a cunning linguist" is a terrible pun. Abysmal. Not because of the pussy-eating part--that part's awesome 😝🤘--but because saying clever turns of phrase is not what a linguist does. It's semantically unsound.

[ouroboros-clong]

"Hellen Keller is not real" is a right wing propaganda. It's literally something that was pushed by eugenistic tiktokers two years ago at least because they don't believe disabled people like Hellen Keller can do anything for themselves.