Talk:Proto-Draco

To respond to your request for feedback, here are some points I think you may want to consider: Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. I'm happy to help. [This has been a Public Service Announcement from your Friendly Neighbourhood Admin.] 04:30, January 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * as for genitives and possessives, another option you may wish to look into is head-marking versus dependent-marking (not to mention double-marking).
 * as for kinship, this article may prove useful.
 * your rationale for omitting tense makes sense to me, however consider including aspect and/or telicity. Chinese languages are well known for using primarily aspect over tense, and Navajo is a great source for looking at just how far a language can go in grammaticalizing different aspects. For telicity, look to Finnish.
 * ergativity is fun and all, but I actually don't think I'd expect it from a dragon's language. Ergativity is patient-centered (that is, it phrases things in terms of that which an action is done to), as compared to accusative systems which emphasize the agent, the one doing the action. You don't have to take my word for this, however; just a point to consider.
 * I recommend being more consistent in the voicing contrasts amongst fricatives; as it stands now, it appears that some sets distinguish voicing while others don't. Also, /j/ is not alveolar, rather it's palatal.
 * keeping with the dragon theme, I might expect some pharyngeal sounds, which are produced from the throat. They can be perceived as growl-like or otherwise guttural.
 * I'm afraid I missed your rationale for the small vowel inventory. In fact, the rationale you provided for a large fricative series I would think also justifies a larger vowel inventory: more space in the mouth, more room for further contrasts. I would consider adding at least the additional vowels /i/ and /ɯ/, perhaps also /ɨ/, and maybe also backing /a/ to /ɑ/.

Great, thanks!

About the small vowel inventory, I don't really have a rationale, I just wanted less to worry about. Same for the voicing distinction on fricatives: I used to have them all, but I was struggling with romanization so I figured I'd drop them just so I'd have less to work with. I might rethink both after your points, tho

I probably won't be adding high vowels, I think those break character; but backing the /a/ and adding a third vowel sound doable. Something like /ɑ/ /ɛ/ /ɤ/? Perhaps they can "round" their throats and something closer to /o/ isn't unthinkable, so there might be a fourth somewhere.

As for the pharyngeal sounds, I totally agree they are dragon-like. I didn't include them merely for my own sanity and pronounciation :( May experiment with a fricative and clear my throat on my friends eventually.

Will re-think about ergativity, and look up telicity (didn't even know that was a thing).

I also have to give serious thought to imperatives. They are probably where the language was born. I figure the default interpretation of most verbs could be imperative, and that might have an overall effect on word order.

Anyway, that's already plenty of points for me to think about for awhile, thanks again :)

Monstah (talk) 21:10, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mention imperatives. Is that what you intended to stay or did you mean something else? And why do you think high vowels break character? [This has been a Public Service Announcement from your Friendly Neighbourhood Admin.] 00:38, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I mentioned the imperatives because it's something I had in mind when I started doing this, but along the way I forgot about it. Your point about ergativity centering on the patient reminded me of it.

I'm not sure what about the high vowels irks me. I think I'm making associations between high vowel and high-pitch which I shouldn't. Monstah (talk) 11:50, January 23, 2017 (UTC)