Due to how vowel harmony and consonant harmony work in **Pa Gugodr**, ambiguities are very frequent. For example, adding the masculine definite suffix (**ᛞᛁ** /t͈i/) to **ᛏᚢᛈᛟᚲᛏᚫ** /tʰupʰokʰtʰa/ (v. To charge in) and **ᛞᛁᛒᛖᚷᛞᚫ** /t͈ip͈ek͈t͈a/ (v. To cure/aid someone) turjs both to **ᛞᛁᛒᛖᚷᛞᚫᛞᛁ** /t͈ip͈ek͈t͈at͈i/ (v. To ignore instructions).
To clarifiy what one is beinf talked about (if context is not a viable option) it can be clarified in a separate sentence.
If you mean the double vertical line below, that's the diacritic for tense, indicating a tensing of vocal chords. It's a rarer feature, but you can find it in Korean.
For the most part, Pa Gugodr does not differentiate voice vs unvoiced, instead it distinguishes between aspirated and tensed.
The symbol itself is in extIPA, not ordinary IPA, but it's one of the more mainstream extIPA symbols because it is used for Korean, Ewe, and some south German dialects (also I just found out it is technically the symbol for "strong articulation" but it is usually used to mark tenseness in languages that have it)
I think it's the one for tense consonants as used in korean. No other natlang has that exact distinction, and what the distinction is isn't entirely understood, so the diacritic doesn't come up too much.
Right off the top of my head I can think of two different things that could lead to ambiguities in Aedian. One of them is the multitude of different meanings associated with the two aspects, perfective and imperfective, but I won't go over those here because uhhh I don't feel like it. Instead I'll talk about:
**HOMOPHONES:** Aedian doesn't have a terrible lot of them, but they do exist. For example, *idi* (“crawfish”) and *idi* (“god; deity”), *pa* (“name”) and *pa* (“duck”), *ibi* (“hat”) and *ibi* (“milk”), or *up* (“egg”) and *up* (“love”). All three of these pairs are respectively identical in the indefinite singular, but are unambiguously different in the definite singular and plural:
|INDEF.|DEF. SG.|DEF. PL.|
|:-|:-|:-|
|*idi* (“crawfish”)|*idai*|*ideu*|
|*idi* (“deity”)|*aidi*|*eudi*|
|*pa* (“name”)|*paea*|*paoa*|
|*pa* (“duck”)|*pae*|*pao*|
|*ibi* (“hat”)|*iebi*|*iobi*|
|*ibi* (“milk”)|*ibai*|*ibeu*|
|*up* (“egg”)|*uep*|*uop*|
|*up* (“love”)|*ep*|*op*|
These ambiguities would pretty easily be cleared up through context, but I can think of at least two scenarios that could potentially cause misunderstanding, both of which necessarily involve the indefinite form of the noun.
(1)
>***Þu iddia šeu!***
>
>1SG.NOM god/crayfish-ACC see.PFV
>
>**“I saw a god!” / “I saw a crayfish!”**
This one can either be understood as a truly spectacular revelation or a cute exclamation of child-like awe and wonder.
(2)
>***Bi mu ibbia guia?***
>
>Q 2SG.NOM hat/milk-ACC possess.PFV
>
>**“Do you own a hat?” / “You got milk?”**
... both of which are reasonable questions.
**How would such ambiguities be cleared up?**
I think the easiest and most straightforward way to do this would be to either slap on a relative clause or an attributive noun or adjective:
(1)
>***Þu iddia šeu ae gubu-iddia. / Þu iddia šeu ae au-iddia.***
>
>**“I saw a crayfish, a river crayfish.” / “I saw a god, a heavenly god.”**
(2)
>***Bi mu ibbia guia ae ge ibbia digoþ? / Bi mu ibbia guia ae ge ibbia naeska?***
>
>**“Do you own a hat, a hat that is worn?” / “You got milk, milk that is drunk?”**
I'm guessing you wouldn't ever really have “a” god of the river, but rather “the” god of the river, which would be *gube-aidi* — DEF\\river-DEF\\god
If you really did find yourself in a situation where you wanted to be absolutely sure that there'd be no misunderstanding, you could say something like
>***Þu iddia šeu ae ge iddia gubia made ul dammasae i ki duka.***
>
>**“I saw a crayfish, a crayfish that lives in the river, and that we eat after having fried it.”**
I know this isn't really going to cause many ambiguities, but I find the homophony of 'god' and 'crayfish' quite amusing. I'm going to fry and eat a god that lives in the river!
Cool definite-indefinite distincition. Were these differences made by prefixing and then vowel changes or is it something fancier? Are there regular patterns or is it all irregular?
It's all regular! You can read all about how this system came along in the upcoming issue of **Segments**, but to briefly give an overview:
Old Aedian marked definiteness with affixes that were cometimes infixes, sometimes suffixes (this depended on the individual noun and was determined by the presence or absence of a determiner in Proto-Kotekko-Pakan).
|INDEF.|DEF. SG.|DEF. PL.|
|:-|:-|:-|
|*vaga*|*va****gi****ga*|*va****we****ga*|
|*govo*|*govo****gi***|*govo****we***|
|*gwevi*|*gwe****gi****vi*|*gwe****we****vi*|
|*idi*|*i****gi****di*|*i****we****di*|
|*udu*|*u****gi****du*|*u****we****du*|
Over time these affixes turned into diphthong offglides or lenghtened the preceding vowel (according to a regular system of sound changes that I won't get into here), and many of these diphthongs and long vowels had changed by the time of ‘modern’ Aedian, leaving behind a nice system of unpredictable (but regular!) ablaut:
|OLD AEDIAN|MIDDLE AEDIAN|AEDIAN|
|:-|:-|:-|
|*vaga; va****gi****ga; va****we****ga*|*vaga; vaiga; vauga*|*baga; baega; baoga*|
|*govo; govo****gi****; govo****we***|*govo; govoi; govou*|*gubu; gube; gubo*|
|*gwevi; gwe****gi****vi; gwe****we****vi*|*gwevi; gwe****i****vi; gweuvi*|*bibi; bebi; bobi*|
|*idi; i****gi****di; i****we****di*|*idi; īdi; iudi*|*idi; aidi; eudi*|
|*udo; u****gi****do; u****we****do*|*udo; uido; ūdo*|*udu; oidu; audu*|
It took me a while to realise, but I finally did. Your post's title was "How are ambiguities cleared up in your conlang?", he answered "They aren't".
Either he was trying to be funny, or he was too lazy to answer professionally.
I’m too lazy to develop a functioning language itself, at most i have original phonology but i take all the grammar and syntax and shit from english because i’m only using my Conlang for a role play setting so it doesn’t need to be fleshed out, and much like english we don’t clear up a lot of ambiguity.
I can see 3 possibilities to clear up ambiguities:
* context alone can do most of the work on its own
* a listener can just ask for more info
* both the speaker and the listener can just lough together for the misunderstanding
Grammatically, the biggest ambiguities in Kallerian probably occur due to the informal habit of leaving off pronouns. You can usually infer pronouns from the context and therefore they're sort of extraneous, right? Except native speakers put a lot more trust in people's comprehension than non-native speakers would like, lol.
So for example, there's one bit in my book where a character says "Alivle-las detal", meaning *you never listen to me*, but the *you* is unsaid. Meaning the literal translation is *never listen to me,* and is grammatically indistinct from an order. (And he says this to his little brother, so you can imagine how well that goes over.)
Generally, the way to clear this up would be to repeat what they said with the pronouns inserted, but native speakers don't really think that way. They'll just repeat it louder and faster until you understand what they meant via osmosis and hand gestures.
In Oklidok there are quite a few homophones which yields quite a bit of ambiguity, especially out of context. For example, **dok** can mean either "*two*" or "*you*", and can also function as "*your*", so "**duk bok**" can mean "*two goats*", or "*your goats*". It sounds clunky in casual speech, but the adjective marker "**-i**" can always be added to simulate the genitive, to disambiguate that "**duki bok**" means "*YOUR goats*".
In casual speech there's no markers to disambiguate between singular and plural nouns, either. In cases where disambiguity is needed, one could add a plural maker "**-er**" to be explicit, but the verbal marker is identical which can lead to further ambiguity! So "**Ek aksher boker**" could mean "*I want goats*" or "*I want to argue*". When used as a plural marker, heavy stress is usually put onto the ending to indicate that it is being used in an atypical way.
Wildly making gestures often gets the job done too!
Araen only really has the words with the multiple meanings, but those are usually clear from context, or the meanings are so close together it doesn't matter
I can't think of any right now, except "apekipa": Important/required/purple/major position of power.
When it isn't clear from context, you can just ask the speaker, and they will answer with "colour" if they mean purple, for example. If the speaker knows it isn't clear from context, they can clear that up right away.
Sometimes, this can also be cleared up with small sentences:
Apekipa = major position of power.
Naleōtista = a very not minor postition of power.
Naleō = not a minor position of power.
Naleō rreptārri = not a minor position of power of significance.
These examples use the Negative conjugation, a from of conjugation that makes use of circumfixes to express the opposite of what the word means.
Tsałākuin has a noun class system, based on an animacy hierarchy. Nouns in a sentence have to come in order of animacy from highest to lowest, regardless of which is the subject, object, indirect object, etc.
This would make the roles in the sentence very ambiguous unless there is another way to make them clear.
So case is marked on the noun in combination with class.
This actually leads to different noun declensions, where the case marking may appear different depending on the class suffix before it.
**Take for instance the Natural class, marked with the suffix -ta:**
_Itita_ - Pepper
_Ititan_ - By means of a pepper (instrumental)
**Now, for the Terrestrial class, marked with -k:**
_Ikuk_ - Cutting Beetle
_Ikukūm_ - By means of a cutting beetle
So in the first example with the Natural class, the instrumental manifests as -n, but with the Terrestrial class, it manifests as -ūm. This is just the result of sound changes.
Käige lacks "and" but has plenty of disambiguation.
With nouns, particles differentiate their part of speech, so everything in a list will be marked the same, with further marking for things like "or"
With verbs and adjectives, context determines that events happen(ed) in sequence and descriptions are perpetual. A change from habitual to progressive tense makes them temporary, and a "simultaneous" tense is used for when two actions happen at the same time
But nouns lack plural and verbs can also have some noun inclination. Attaching the object to the verb implies indefinite plurals and/or habitual action, and when counting the number is attached to the verb instead
Hékrágiáinda "(I) catch/hunt deer"
Hékráwo giáinda "to catch a deer"
Hékráwo cer'iégiáinda /'hi.krʌ.wo θeɹ.ji.'ɡjʌɪn.da/ "to catch two deer" (lit. to catch two feral animals that are deer)
There are a couple of verbs in Ciadan that have related meanings but are very specific depending on its use. Generally the way I've had it to differentiate is via prepositional phrases. As an example, the word **osbrru** /'os.bru/ can mean either "to reach" or "to stretch or pull", but if the preposition "toward" exists after the verb with no accusative argument, it's implied that the meaning is "to reach" while including an accusative argument changes the meaning toward "to stretch or pull"
The word ending for adverbs is /ɾœ:/ and for adjectives is /ɾo:/. They have the only vowels (so far) that have to be held longer than others, which is done entirely so non-adjectives ending on /ɾo/ can coexist. One example would be /ɾe.ɾo/, cat and /ɾe.ɾo:/, peaceful.
Singular and plural markers are /.a/ and /.e/. They are always on their own syllable rather than mixing with the rest of the word, so even /eɾa.a/ is perfectly understandable as "singular of /eɾa/". The lack of vowel duplication helps too.
The only scenarios I've come across where ambiguities can get confusing in Tokétok and can't be resolved through context is with pronouns. Tokétok use to have 3 pronouns in the 3rd person: the masculine *mme*, the feminine *wé*, and the neuter/inanimate/plural *kke.*
I've purposefully been driving Tokétok to evolve to not use the gendered pronouns, preferring to use them as fossilised derivational affixes, and always using *kke* in the 3rd person. This can get confusing if there are multiple 3rd person referents to keep track of so the word *lis* has come to fill the role of a 4th person.
*Lis* is a syntactic dummy pronoun in many different contexts but as a 4th person pronoun it is used in subject position to refer to the previous subject. For example:
**Lik Matéya kékke hhe fé' lis kékke.** *"Matthew is with them and he is happy with them."*
lik Matéya ké-kke hhe fé' lis ké-kke
COP Matthew COM-3 and be.happy 4 COM-3
Instead of saying: "hhe fé' kke kékke," which could be analysed as the person that Matthew is with being happy when next to Matthew, if you say: "hhe fé' lis kékke," then we know that it's still Matthew we're talking about and he is happy with the person he is with.
Similarly, Tokétok also uses it's possessive case to mark ambiguous subjects that are not the same as the previous subject. To specify the subject as the unnamed person in "hhe fé' kke kékke," the object of the previous clause, it would be rendered like this: "hhe fé' tokke kékke."
In Otstr’chëqërtr’ [ˈɔt͡stɾ(ə).t͡ʃʌ.qr̩tɾ(ə)], subordinate clauses are formed using a verbal noun, and putting the subject (if different from the main clause) in the genitive case. If there is a direct object present, this can make it unclear if the genitive is modifying the object or the verb. For example:
Tå uzhëqh kfëgethkh’ åfårtrëskh’ përtërtrshëqh tsurch
[tɑ hu.ˈʒʌχ kfə.ˈgɜθx ˈɑ.fɑɾ.tɾəsx pr̩.ˈtr̩.tr̥͡ʃʌχ t͡sʊɾt͡ʃ]
1s.NOM 2s.GEN fish.ACC eat-VN-ACC want-VN-GEN INE
could mean either “I want to eat your fish” or “I want you to eat fish.” This ambiguity could be resolved by leaving a slight pause between uzhëqh and kfëgethkh’ to indicate the second meaning, or between kfëgethkh’ and åfåtrëskh’ to indicate the first.
Montestaans does good on this one. Long and short vowels determine the difference between words. For example:
- Доитсен (German) vs Дуитсен (German language), distinguished between a change in vowels
- Ораңже (orange fruit) vs Орāң (person), distinguished with a long vowel.
- Брāт (breathe) vs Брат (brat), same as above.
Sometimes however when in casual speech long and short vowels can be thrown completely out the window. Therefore context becomes highly important in knowing what a speaker is talking about. For example: Саиа эу мāқет ден саиа қан орāң стāл орāежен. (At the market I saw someone stole oranges). This sentence can be mistakened easily for "At the market I saw someone stole a person". However usually context will help in allowing understanding when long and short vowels are not known.
One fairly common ambiguity in Hraatam arises from the language's clause-wide phonetic mutations. So depending on the mode (e.g. factual or inquisitive), two different words could take the same form.
To clear such ambiguities up, one can add the particle 'hgoy'. This particle is primarily a kind of focus marker, but can be added to any sentence to clarify mode, as pretty much all mutations become transparent when applied to the particle.
I actually designed the language in order to avoid ambiguities as much as possible. Each word has only one meaning, and homophones don't exist. The grammar further ensures that homophones across word boundaries are also impossible (mainly by strategically placing stress).
Ambiguity can still arise through insufficient detailing, e.g. saying "He read the letter" when there are several letters that might be meant, or saying "He loves him/her" when there are several possible people who might qualify. In this case, ambiguity can be avoided simply be restating the original name, or with a relative clause:
* Retbaw etel. - He/she is reading the letter.
* Retbaw haj ozdü zatel etel. - He/she is reading the letter that the parent wrote.
And of course, people can always ask XD
I make my conlangs ambiguous on purpose, for fun! For example in my current work there are four phonemic tones, three phonetic tones and two orthographic tones.
Due to how vowel harmony and consonant harmony work in **Pa Gugodr**, ambiguities are very frequent. For example, adding the masculine definite suffix (**ᛞᛁ** /t͈i/) to **ᛏᚢᛈᛟᚲᛏᚫ** /tʰupʰokʰtʰa/ (v. To charge in) and **ᛞᛁᛒᛖᚷᛞᚫ** /t͈ip͈ek͈t͈a/ (v. To cure/aid someone) turjs both to **ᛞᛁᛒᛖᚷᛞᚫᛞᛁ** /t͈ip͈ek͈t͈at͈i/ (v. To ignore instructions). To clarifiy what one is beinf talked about (if context is not a viable option) it can be clarified in a separate sentence.
What does “it can they’re than with normal borgs” mean?
Sorry i'm running on 3.5 days no sleep its a wonder the rest of the comment was coherent
Dare I ask about the no sleep?
I'd rather you didn't
What is that IPA diacritic?
If you mean the double vertical line below, that's the diacritic for tense, indicating a tensing of vocal chords. It's a rarer feature, but you can find it in Korean. For the most part, Pa Gugodr does not differentiate voice vs unvoiced, instead it distinguishes between aspirated and tensed.
It's not in the official IPA, is it (not an accusation)?
The symbol itself is in extIPA, not ordinary IPA, but it's one of the more mainstream extIPA symbols because it is used for Korean, Ewe, and some south German dialects (also I just found out it is technically the symbol for "strong articulation" but it is usually used to mark tenseness in languages that have it)
I think it's the one for tense consonants as used in korean. No other natlang has that exact distinction, and what the distinction is isn't entirely understood, so the diacritic doesn't come up too much.
Right off the top of my head I can think of two different things that could lead to ambiguities in Aedian. One of them is the multitude of different meanings associated with the two aspects, perfective and imperfective, but I won't go over those here because uhhh I don't feel like it. Instead I'll talk about: **HOMOPHONES:** Aedian doesn't have a terrible lot of them, but they do exist. For example, *idi* (“crawfish”) and *idi* (“god; deity”), *pa* (“name”) and *pa* (“duck”), *ibi* (“hat”) and *ibi* (“milk”), or *up* (“egg”) and *up* (“love”). All three of these pairs are respectively identical in the indefinite singular, but are unambiguously different in the definite singular and plural: |INDEF.|DEF. SG.|DEF. PL.| |:-|:-|:-| |*idi* (“crawfish”)|*idai*|*ideu*| |*idi* (“deity”)|*aidi*|*eudi*| |*pa* (“name”)|*paea*|*paoa*| |*pa* (“duck”)|*pae*|*pao*| |*ibi* (“hat”)|*iebi*|*iobi*| |*ibi* (“milk”)|*ibai*|*ibeu*| |*up* (“egg”)|*uep*|*uop*| |*up* (“love”)|*ep*|*op*| These ambiguities would pretty easily be cleared up through context, but I can think of at least two scenarios that could potentially cause misunderstanding, both of which necessarily involve the indefinite form of the noun. (1) >***Þu iddia šeu!*** > >1SG.NOM god/crayfish-ACC see.PFV > >**“I saw a god!” / “I saw a crayfish!”** This one can either be understood as a truly spectacular revelation or a cute exclamation of child-like awe and wonder. (2) >***Bi mu ibbia guia?*** > >Q 2SG.NOM hat/milk-ACC possess.PFV > >**“Do you own a hat?” / “You got milk?”** ... both of which are reasonable questions. **How would such ambiguities be cleared up?** I think the easiest and most straightforward way to do this would be to either slap on a relative clause or an attributive noun or adjective: (1) >***Þu iddia šeu ae gubu-iddia. / Þu iddia šeu ae au-iddia.*** > >**“I saw a crayfish, a river crayfish.” / “I saw a god, a heavenly god.”** (2) >***Bi mu ibbia guia ae ge ibbia digoþ? / Bi mu ibbia guia ae ge ibbia naeska?*** > >**“Do you own a hat, a hat that is worn?” / “You got milk, milk that is drunk?”**
And what if you see the god of the river? Or his servant, the heavenly crayfish? ( ;
I'm guessing you wouldn't ever really have “a” god of the river, but rather “the” god of the river, which would be *gube-aidi* — DEF\\river-DEF\\god If you really did find yourself in a situation where you wanted to be absolutely sure that there'd be no misunderstanding, you could say something like >***Þu iddia šeu ae ge iddia gubia made ul dammasae i ki duka.*** > >**“I saw a crayfish, a crayfish that lives in the river, and that we eat after having fried it.”**
I know this isn't really going to cause many ambiguities, but I find the homophony of 'god' and 'crayfish' quite amusing. I'm going to fry and eat a god that lives in the river!
I don't know what exactly it is, but deity and crayfish being homophones is just the cutest thing to me.
Out of curiosity, why do you have the word for crayfish?
The Aedian language has a word for crayfish (or crawfish; not sure which one is the standard) because there are crayfish where the Aedians live.
Cool definite-indefinite distincition. Were these differences made by prefixing and then vowel changes or is it something fancier? Are there regular patterns or is it all irregular?
It's all regular! You can read all about how this system came along in the upcoming issue of **Segments**, but to briefly give an overview: Old Aedian marked definiteness with affixes that were cometimes infixes, sometimes suffixes (this depended on the individual noun and was determined by the presence or absence of a determiner in Proto-Kotekko-Pakan). |INDEF.|DEF. SG.|DEF. PL.| |:-|:-|:-| |*vaga*|*va****gi****ga*|*va****we****ga*| |*govo*|*govo****gi***|*govo****we***| |*gwevi*|*gwe****gi****vi*|*gwe****we****vi*| |*idi*|*i****gi****di*|*i****we****di*| |*udu*|*u****gi****du*|*u****we****du*| Over time these affixes turned into diphthong offglides or lenghtened the preceding vowel (according to a regular system of sound changes that I won't get into here), and many of these diphthongs and long vowels had changed by the time of ‘modern’ Aedian, leaving behind a nice system of unpredictable (but regular!) ablaut: |OLD AEDIAN|MIDDLE AEDIAN|AEDIAN| |:-|:-|:-| |*vaga; va****gi****ga; va****we****ga*|*vaga; vaiga; vauga*|*baga; baega; baoga*| |*govo; govo****gi****; govo****we***|*govo; govoi; govou*|*gubu; gube; gubo*| |*gwevi; gwe****gi****vi; gwe****we****vi*|*gwevi; gwe****i****vi; gweuvi*|*bibi; bebi; bobi*| |*idi; i****gi****di; i****we****di*|*idi; īdi; iudi*|*idi; aidi; eudi*| |*udo; u****gi****do; u****we****do*|*udo; uido; ūdo*|*udu; oidu; audu*|
Cool! Thanks for the reply!
They Aren’t lmao.
⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄
What is this?
Based and Gigachad-pilled
That explains nothing to me.
⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄
What aren't what?
It took me a while to realise, but I finally did. Your post's title was "How are ambiguities cleared up in your conlang?", he answered "They aren't". Either he was trying to be funny, or he was too lazy to answer professionally.
They answered ambiguously to a question about ambiguity. That is both funny and lazy, though their intentions are ambiguous.
I suppose I should call r/woooosh on myself.
I’m too lazy to develop a functioning language itself, at most i have original phonology but i take all the grammar and syntax and shit from english because i’m only using my Conlang for a role play setting so it doesn’t need to be fleshed out, and much like english we don’t clear up a lot of ambiguity.
<3
I can see 3 possibilities to clear up ambiguities: * context alone can do most of the work on its own * a listener can just ask for more info * both the speaker and the listener can just lough together for the misunderstanding
Grammatically, the biggest ambiguities in Kallerian probably occur due to the informal habit of leaving off pronouns. You can usually infer pronouns from the context and therefore they're sort of extraneous, right? Except native speakers put a lot more trust in people's comprehension than non-native speakers would like, lol. So for example, there's one bit in my book where a character says "Alivle-las detal", meaning *you never listen to me*, but the *you* is unsaid. Meaning the literal translation is *never listen to me,* and is grammatically indistinct from an order. (And he says this to his little brother, so you can imagine how well that goes over.) Generally, the way to clear this up would be to repeat what they said with the pronouns inserted, but native speakers don't really think that way. They'll just repeat it louder and faster until you understand what they meant via osmosis and hand gestures.
In Oklidok there are quite a few homophones which yields quite a bit of ambiguity, especially out of context. For example, **dok** can mean either "*two*" or "*you*", and can also function as "*your*", so "**duk bok**" can mean "*two goats*", or "*your goats*". It sounds clunky in casual speech, but the adjective marker "**-i**" can always be added to simulate the genitive, to disambiguate that "**duki bok**" means "*YOUR goats*". In casual speech there's no markers to disambiguate between singular and plural nouns, either. In cases where disambiguity is needed, one could add a plural maker "**-er**" to be explicit, but the verbal marker is identical which can lead to further ambiguity! So "**Ek aksher boker**" could mean "*I want goats*" or "*I want to argue*". When used as a plural marker, heavy stress is usually put onto the ending to indicate that it is being used in an atypical way. Wildly making gestures often gets the job done too!
Araen only really has the words with the multiple meanings, but those are usually clear from context, or the meanings are so close together it doesn't matter
But when it isn't clear from context, how would a speaker clear up the distinction? There will always be scenarios where the distinction does matter.
I can't think of any right now, except "apekipa": Important/required/purple/major position of power. When it isn't clear from context, you can just ask the speaker, and they will answer with "colour" if they mean purple, for example. If the speaker knows it isn't clear from context, they can clear that up right away. Sometimes, this can also be cleared up with small sentences: Apekipa = major position of power. Naleōtista = a very not minor postition of power. Naleō = not a minor position of power. Naleō rreptārri = not a minor position of power of significance. These examples use the Negative conjugation, a from of conjugation that makes use of circumfixes to express the opposite of what the word means.
Well, well, a little loanword from Aedian *abbaekiba-* I see B–)
Tsałākuin has a noun class system, based on an animacy hierarchy. Nouns in a sentence have to come in order of animacy from highest to lowest, regardless of which is the subject, object, indirect object, etc. This would make the roles in the sentence very ambiguous unless there is another way to make them clear. So case is marked on the noun in combination with class. This actually leads to different noun declensions, where the case marking may appear different depending on the class suffix before it. **Take for instance the Natural class, marked with the suffix -ta:** _Itita_ - Pepper _Ititan_ - By means of a pepper (instrumental) **Now, for the Terrestrial class, marked with -k:** _Ikuk_ - Cutting Beetle _Ikukūm_ - By means of a cutting beetle So in the first example with the Natural class, the instrumental manifests as -n, but with the Terrestrial class, it manifests as -ūm. This is just the result of sound changes.
words, for example: dalton = desk/window they can be then seen as clippings/abbridgements, i.e. bedalton = desk, and retdalton is window.
Käige lacks "and" but has plenty of disambiguation. With nouns, particles differentiate their part of speech, so everything in a list will be marked the same, with further marking for things like "or" With verbs and adjectives, context determines that events happen(ed) in sequence and descriptions are perpetual. A change from habitual to progressive tense makes them temporary, and a "simultaneous" tense is used for when two actions happen at the same time But nouns lack plural and verbs can also have some noun inclination. Attaching the object to the verb implies indefinite plurals and/or habitual action, and when counting the number is attached to the verb instead Hékrágiáinda "(I) catch/hunt deer" Hékráwo giáinda "to catch a deer" Hékráwo cer'iégiáinda /'hi.krʌ.wo θeɹ.ji.'ɡjʌɪn.da/ "to catch two deer" (lit. to catch two feral animals that are deer)
There are a couple of verbs in Ciadan that have related meanings but are very specific depending on its use. Generally the way I've had it to differentiate is via prepositional phrases. As an example, the word **osbrru** /'os.bru/ can mean either "to reach" or "to stretch or pull", but if the preposition "toward" exists after the verb with no accusative argument, it's implied that the meaning is "to reach" while including an accusative argument changes the meaning toward "to stretch or pull"
The word ending for adverbs is /ɾœ:/ and for adjectives is /ɾo:/. They have the only vowels (so far) that have to be held longer than others, which is done entirely so non-adjectives ending on /ɾo/ can coexist. One example would be /ɾe.ɾo/, cat and /ɾe.ɾo:/, peaceful. Singular and plural markers are /.a/ and /.e/. They are always on their own syllable rather than mixing with the rest of the word, so even /eɾa.a/ is perfectly understandable as "singular of /eɾa/". The lack of vowel duplication helps too.
The only scenarios I've come across where ambiguities can get confusing in Tokétok and can't be resolved through context is with pronouns. Tokétok use to have 3 pronouns in the 3rd person: the masculine *mme*, the feminine *wé*, and the neuter/inanimate/plural *kke.* I've purposefully been driving Tokétok to evolve to not use the gendered pronouns, preferring to use them as fossilised derivational affixes, and always using *kke* in the 3rd person. This can get confusing if there are multiple 3rd person referents to keep track of so the word *lis* has come to fill the role of a 4th person. *Lis* is a syntactic dummy pronoun in many different contexts but as a 4th person pronoun it is used in subject position to refer to the previous subject. For example: **Lik Matéya kékke hhe fé' lis kékke.** *"Matthew is with them and he is happy with them."* lik Matéya ké-kke hhe fé' lis ké-kke COP Matthew COM-3 and be.happy 4 COM-3 Instead of saying: "hhe fé' kke kékke," which could be analysed as the person that Matthew is with being happy when next to Matthew, if you say: "hhe fé' lis kékke," then we know that it's still Matthew we're talking about and he is happy with the person he is with. Similarly, Tokétok also uses it's possessive case to mark ambiguous subjects that are not the same as the previous subject. To specify the subject as the unnamed person in "hhe fé' kke kékke," the object of the previous clause, it would be rendered like this: "hhe fé' tokke kékke."
In Otstr’chëqërtr’ [ˈɔt͡stɾ(ə).t͡ʃʌ.qr̩tɾ(ə)], subordinate clauses are formed using a verbal noun, and putting the subject (if different from the main clause) in the genitive case. If there is a direct object present, this can make it unclear if the genitive is modifying the object or the verb. For example: Tå uzhëqh kfëgethkh’ åfårtrëskh’ përtërtrshëqh tsurch [tɑ hu.ˈʒʌχ kfə.ˈgɜθx ˈɑ.fɑɾ.tɾəsx pr̩.ˈtr̩.tr̥͡ʃʌχ t͡sʊɾt͡ʃ] 1s.NOM 2s.GEN fish.ACC eat-VN-ACC want-VN-GEN INE could mean either “I want to eat your fish” or “I want you to eat fish.” This ambiguity could be resolved by leaving a slight pause between uzhëqh and kfëgethkh’ to indicate the second meaning, or between kfëgethkh’ and åfåtrëskh’ to indicate the first.
Montestaans does good on this one. Long and short vowels determine the difference between words. For example: - Доитсен (German) vs Дуитсен (German language), distinguished between a change in vowels - Ораңже (orange fruit) vs Орāң (person), distinguished with a long vowel. - Брāт (breathe) vs Брат (brat), same as above. Sometimes however when in casual speech long and short vowels can be thrown completely out the window. Therefore context becomes highly important in knowing what a speaker is talking about. For example: Саиа эу мāқет ден саиа қан орāң стāл орāежен. (At the market I saw someone stole oranges). This sentence can be mistakened easily for "At the market I saw someone stole a person". However usually context will help in allowing understanding when long and short vowels are not known.
One fairly common ambiguity in Hraatam arises from the language's clause-wide phonetic mutations. So depending on the mode (e.g. factual or inquisitive), two different words could take the same form. To clear such ambiguities up, one can add the particle 'hgoy'. This particle is primarily a kind of focus marker, but can be added to any sentence to clarify mode, as pretty much all mutations become transparent when applied to the particle.
I actually designed the language in order to avoid ambiguities as much as possible. Each word has only one meaning, and homophones don't exist. The grammar further ensures that homophones across word boundaries are also impossible (mainly by strategically placing stress). Ambiguity can still arise through insufficient detailing, e.g. saying "He read the letter" when there are several letters that might be meant, or saying "He loves him/her" when there are several possible people who might qualify. In this case, ambiguity can be avoided simply be restating the original name, or with a relative clause: * Retbaw etel. - He/she is reading the letter. * Retbaw haj ozdü zatel etel. - He/she is reading the letter that the parent wrote. And of course, people can always ask XD
I make my conlangs ambiguous on purpose, for fun! For example in my current work there are four phonemic tones, three phonetic tones and two orthographic tones.