Talk:Lalakhmet

Are you really writing /t͡s/ as ? Joersc (talk) 22:18, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I like the way it looks. Also, it's an a priori, so I can write it anyway I want.

Maxseptillion77 (talk) 00:40, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur: you can use whatever you want for either types of conlang. Doesn't diminish the fact that  don't really make for a coherent or logical sequence. Your evidentiality system doesn't at all follow how evidentiality systems work. Are the glorious and ominous specifically only for abstract ideas? Is a monster masc/fem. or omin. instead? Lots of questions :v 09:00, October 23, 2015 (UTC)~ ~) The Elector, Darkness Immaculate

You do have a point with being that it should be one diacritic or just a letter, but why ? <ż> is [d͡z], so  is [d] + [d͡z], so geminate: and the same with . Honestly,  makes the least sense, but it flows with the devoicing and fortifying of [l] to [ɬ].

I don't know how to do evidentiality, so I made it up. Is this a good article to read for evidentiality?

Also, sorry, I forgot to expand on this " Gender paradigms are not noun specific except with some nouns (father, mother, sister, etc (these have separate words))." What I'm trying to say is that gender is usually applied for a connotational difference to create words. As in, the word for monster could just be "person" in the ominous gender. Or, if I wanted to make a separate word for "monster," then it would be intrinsically bad, so I'd only exist in the masculine for a male, feminine for a female, or neuter for a monster with a non-descript gender. If that makes sense o3o.

Also, please ask questions (aka, criticize harshly). The more you critique criticize, the better it becomes if I can't answer you.

Maxseptillion77 (talk) 18:39, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Then how is that a gender system? Gender is a way to classify nouns. Does that not look like a derivational system? ED

It may be a combination of both them. I'm planning on some words to have definate gender (or, namely aimals, to change gender on biological gender) such as "sister," "father," and such. People would also have gender, as in, you and I would take the male gender, but Jœrsc would take the female. However, with most nouns, it functions merely as a connatational system or a clarification system.

Maxseptillion77 (talk) 03:19, October 25, 2015 (UTC)

If you're genuinely interested in the mechanics of evidentiality, look up Aikhenvald & Alexandra's "Evidentiality" that the Oxford University Press prints; its ISBN is ISBN 0-19-926388-4. Heaviest thing on evidentials I know; Aikhenvald's pretty solid in Amazonian linguistics, too. Bigger libraries, or even university libraries, ought to have at least one copy stockpiled. 10:37, October 25, 2015 (UTC) ~) The Elector, Darkness Immaculate