u/ChiqantiKisaal

*pl, *pr or *ps -> [pf]
*ʔw -> [b/p], ʔr or *ʔl -> [d/t] or [ɖ/ʈ]
*US -> VS, either intervocalically or generally
*m̥ -> [f/ɸ], *n̥ -> [θ/s], *ŋ̊ -> [x]
*qS -> [kS] and/or *Sq -> [Sk], while *q is otherwise generally preserved in the language

{where U is an unvoiced obstruent, S is a sonorant and V is a voiced obstruent}

I’m interested in this type of a posteriori conlang, especially languages with major lexical, phonological and grammatical influence from neighbors. I’m also interested in creating a mixed language with no Indo-European or even ‘typical Eurasian’ language as a lexifier or substrate language.

For the hypothetical language where the mixing remains only as a ‘substrate,’ I’m curious if anyone has advice on how to carry out the ‘exchange.’ Some things will obviously stay from the original family of the affected language, and I want some things to be absorbed from the substrate. There’s also a struggle between simplification and retained complexity that I would have to think about. Anyone who has done this with an a priori-a posteriori donor-recipient pair is free to comment. Both members being a priori should probably be rare, but if you’ve done that I would appreciate your comment too

An example of something I don’t know how to approach is an active-stative-alignment language (Natchez) conforming to nominative-accusative (Totonacan) or ergative-absolutive (Mixe-Zoque and Mayan) alignment.

You can of course also share information about real-world languages. Some topics that might be enlightening off the top of my head:
- Researchers that have tried to disentangle (if it needs to be disentangled, maybe it’s settled) Akkadian’s divergence within Semitic, and Sumerian’s influence on Akkadian (i.e., how did Akkadian originally diverge, and then what is clearly Sumerian influence?)
- To what extent Finnish and Hungarian are affected by the SAE sprachbund
- Insights from ‘mixed Chinese languages’ like Tuhua, Caijia or E
- How Indian do Munda languages look grammatically?
- Are there aspects of Nahuan that technically make it less grammatically Mesoamerican than Oto-Manguean, Totonacan, Mixe-Zoque, Mayan, Tequistlatecan and Huave?
- How Austroasiatic does Chamic (and Acehnese?) grammar look?
- Are there Indo-Aryan languages with features that could not have reasonably developed from Indo-European without a substrate? (I know about gerunds in Vedic Sanskrit, but I’ve heard it’s fairly conservative in most other ways, which may be untrue)
- Moghol
- Historical Khamnigan Mongol/Evenki (apparently the Mongolian dialect had more Evenki features at one point, but they may have only been lexical)
- Theories about grammatical substrate in Tocharian or Armenian?
- Does tonal convergence in East Kru and South Mande belie a grammatical convergence?
- Does Songhay conform to a regional sprachbund to a significant extent?
- Is Kiowa a Plains language ‘grammatically’?

Some languages I have in mind, if it helps:
- Totonacan in Central Mexico, gaining tone and exhibiting both ejectives and phonation (these features split between the two branches of Totonacan in the real world). Developing <f> and <th> as well, conforming to Otomi
- Natchez as a Greek- or Latin-like trade language on the Gulf of Mexico, with some varieties diverging toward Mesoamerican phonology and grammar
- South Asian or East Asian Yeniseian
- “Elamo-Dravidian” or just divergent Dravidian, with a major Semitic substrate, spoken in Yemen or the Fertile Crescent
- A PNW language ‘replacing’ Siouan on the Great Plains. Probably Sahaptian or Wakashan
- Washo conforming to Numic and Puebloan grammar and phonology
- A Nubian language conforming to a different sprachbund in Africa, maybe Ubangian-Central Sudanic or Omotic-Surmic?
- A dialect of Natchez or Timucua becoming thoroughly ‘Algonquianized’
- Chaco or Moxos languages with strong Andean-sprachbund superstrates
- A Songhay or Saharan language with Chadic word shapes and grammatical influence

Thank you

In-universe, the cause/themes/motive could range between:
- A single sentence or mistranslated word causes issues down the line, through no fault of the translators
- Deliberate manipulation of the message by a peripheral nation converting only for strategic reasons, or a large nation that negotiates conversion with missionaries by saying they get final say on the translation
- A fairly simplistic ‘fable-like’ depiction, where a single mistranslated word makes this denomination totally different from its neighbors
- Convincing a group their ancestors/the original followers of the religion were way more brutal (or maybe more peaceful) than they actually were. Maybe the texts were not passed down, but discovered in an unfamiliar script and maliciously translated by a foreign scholar
- Basically just a parody of the word-bending, hair-splitting and endless debates in Christian theology
- A folk etymology, either used to explain a doctrine difference as an accident to take away the autonomy of the group’s/country’s theologians, or to ignore the fact that the belief has pagan/external origins
- It may even lead to continuity issues in the text, like a bad comic book. Words with the connotation of extreme damage/humiliation/death are used, but the characters/groups/nations return. So one denomination believes they have 9 Lazarus-type stories, while the others/original have 2. Or they assume the deity is more forgiving, because their translation says “He banished Gujleb… Gujleb returned, fearful, but Chwetnao accepted him.” Meanwhile the original said “He ordered Gujleb into the desert until he experienced a vision.”

Obviously you could always just change a translation wholesale, but let’s say the goal of the malicious translator is to produce a plausible translation for the missionary, who is partly fluent in the language. Then turn around and begin a theological debate with that exact word/phrase. Alternatively, the goal of the ‘worldbuilder’ is to show how a small error can have knock-on effects.

I’ll list some options for accomplishing this, please share if you come up with any more:

1. Changing an original ‘inclusive-we’ to ‘exclusive-we,’ or interpreting it as ‘exclusive-we’ because their language has no clusivity distinction. Basically as an explanation of how alt-Buddhism/Christianity became an ethnic religion in this region
2. Translating a word with a positive/mild connotation as a similar word with a negative connotation. Let’s say the original text has a word basically meaning “singed,” and the translation gives it the connotation “burst into seething flames.”
3. A word in the original text resembles a word in the receiving language, so this native word is used instead, leading to a major theological difference. Most suitable for a vernacular missionary movement rather than a literate, state-sanctioned one
4. The word actually has its meaning lost in the original language, but its meaning was still known when it was translated into another language a millennium ago. This is confirmed by modern lexicographers
5. A misunderstanding of the original language’s grammar (maybe because it’s being translated from tablets and not a spoken source) causes dozens of mistranslated phrases, where the direct and indirect object are switched, or the habitual aspect is used incredibly frequently because it was confused for the gnomic/generic aspect
6. Evidentiality-terms are mistranslated, leading to additional debates about whether supernatural events in the text are metaphors, hysteria or illusions
7. Various parodies of the semantic distortion of ‘Nimrod’; names are left untranslated, but some are similar to words in the receiving language. Or hunting is assumed to be a low-caste activity even in the original liturgical culture, but was actually a privilege like in Europe
8. A common name in the liturgical language is assumed to indicate that a character is a negative metaphor, because one of the characters with this name is a notable sinner or is punished by the gods. However, no such connection was intended by the original text
9. Something sacred in the original language is interpreted as toil or punishment in the receiving language. Let’s say canal-digging or gold-smelting is sacred or associated with responsibility/proud craft-work in the liturgical language

Edit: I don’t think my post should be interpreted as “how do I leverage the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis for worldbuilding?” The post wouldn’t be **that** different if I meant that, but there would need to be different phrasing in at least a few places. This is separate from even a weak linguistic-relativity theory, it’s just asking how I can explain an accidental or deliberate ideology shift with linguistic features/L2-learning topics. Once something is written in stone and disseminated by an absolute ruler, it’s going to be accepted by at least some of the populace eventually, if that dynasty stays in power and/or the country doesn’t backtrack.

Umlauts actually indicate nasalization in Otomi, it’s underbars that are used to show a vowel lowering/“laxing”, at least for the Mezquital Otomi dictionary I found online. http://docencia.uaeh.edu.mx/estudios-pertinencia/docs/hidalgo-municipios/Valle-Del-Mezquital-Diccionario-Hnahnu.pdf

Both ‘ma’ and ‘meni’ have multiple meanings in the dictionary; it seems clear that ‘ma’ must be getting used as the “place of” adfix when it’s in the Otomi name for Tula, although I didn’t find a massive amount of other placenames with that prefix in the dictionary (there are a lot of ‘ma-‘ words to slog through). I could find Mamt’ų (ų representing u with an underline) for Donthi/a rancheria in Huichapan, Maguani for a town called Alberto near Ixmiquilpan, Mahme for Tlaxcalilla near Huichapan, Magäts’i for Real del Monte in Hidalgo, and Maboza for Zimapan in Hidalgo, and I may be misanalyzing them.

‘Meni’ can apparently mean “washerwoman,” “to wash,” “relative/kinsman” or “landowner/owner” (dueño; maybe historically had the connotation of lord?) [page 175]. The meanings of “kinsman” and “landowner” are given the same entry by the dictionary. That dual meaning might reflect previous beliefs in ancestor worship, I think.

One direct equivalent to this term in Nahua is tecpan, which generally refers to palaces and is only used as a placename in Guatemala and Guerrero. Colhuacan (also spelled Culhuacan) has a good chance of meaning “place of ancestors,” but might mean “curved place.” As an aside/bonus trivia, if it does mean “curved place,” that col- is the same as in Itztlacoliuhqui, the god of winter/ice/punishment or “Curved Obsidian Blade.” His name has also been interpreted to mean “he kills by bending,” referring to how frost kills plants.

1-3 years ago, idc enough to check, high schoolers ritualistically humiliated themselves by jumping up on their desks and yelling “baaQAAAA!!!”

When this brainrot/earworm popped into my head again today I realized they generally splayed out their tongues and opened their mouths extra wide on the second syllable. They, or at least some of the very first meme-originators, are mimicking the exaggerated ‘rude Japanese’ of gangster characters in anime that also roll their r’s, “average out” the diphthong /ai/ to [e:], etc.

Faucalized voice is found in Nilotic languages and in Korean (although it’s a knock-on effect of tensed stops in Korean). Basically it’s an example of a rare but valid distinction in human languages, similar to this.

I think I can consistently hear the difference between the ‘plain’ and ‘tongue-splayed versions’ of all 5 “basic vowels,” so it may be viable. Thoughts?

I was gonna post this on r/conlangscirclejerk but it got flagged as serious for being this long so I’ll jusf post it here

With the rarity of /ʙ/, I have a feeling this sound change is unattested/impossible to comfortably hypothesize. /ɗ/ -> /r/ has a better chance of being attested but I’d also bet it’d not hypothesized for the glottochronology of any language (and it seems less of a salient change than the title scenario)

But in your opinion, how viable is it? I might use this sound change to give a South American or African language with bilabial implosives, bilabial trills (Movima, Arawa, Nüpode Witoto, so many languages in Africa), or maybe Maidu in California.

Why is Killua concerned that he can’t sprint past the Needle People after he gets off the airship with Alluka?

We aren’t given a concrete “charge-up time” for Godspeed, and we aren’t given an explanation that Alluka would die from internal injuries if Killua sprints all-out. The Needle People aren’t depicted as forming a “human wall” that truly blocks Killua in in the manga or anime, in my opinion.

Some lines that would have cleared it up for me (written from Killua’s POV but Illumi’s POV would work too):

- “Jumping telegraphs my movement too much, Illumi would be able to hit me with another “Family-use” needle” (as in, the needle type that he tears out of his head in the Chimera Ant arc)

- “I don’t have a running start, so they can grab Alluka” (not supported by other uses of Godspeed in my opinion, but I could be wrong. Maybe the time he distracts Pouf could support this view of Godspeed)

- “If you get too close to a Needle Person, the needle can fly out of them and target you” (this is not canon and would ruin Illumi’s powerscaling and the general dynamics of nen. But I guess I could accept it as a special case since Illumi would be very close to his needles in this scene. That might allow him to break Nen typology and “Emit” nen to launch the needles or enhance the needles and move them like Gido does his tops)

- “The needle’s nen can extend through the Needle Person and give them sufficient movement speed to grab Alluka. They can’t run as fast as me in Godspeed, but they can put enough nen into one jump to run a major risk of grabbing Alluka” (Probably the most likely explanation, and could also tie into the jumping explanation. But I don’t think it’s portrayed or implied by the manga)

More about Bullet #4: The manga had a chance to establish this in Chapter 329 with Illumi’s massacre of Hunters. One Hunter could’ve thought they were close to getting away until a just-pierced Needle Person jumps towards them and caves their head in (although Illumi could definitely catch up and kill Hunters of that tier himself, without the help of the Needle People). But in my opinion the Needle People are just scaled as “HxH-universe nenless superhumans,” able to run very fast for very long distances because they’re totally ignoring pain and snapped muscles, but unable to perform Enhancer-like feats even once. Meaning they shouldn’t be able to hem Killua in unless they’re forming something closer to a human wall.

- (Secret 5th Option): Killua doesn’t say anything new, but there are twice as many Needle People or they’re closer together

Does anyone else feel this way or am I nitpicking? I guess my view is that the Needle People are intended by Togashi to be closer together than they’re actually depicted as being, forming a functional human wall surrounding Killua. And/or Togashi views them as essentially having the abilities of low-tier enhancers given they outran the airship

Further explanation of the two options Killua mentions:

1. Running back to the airship. Killua talks like he’s worried about making it past the Needle People between him and the airship, but I think he should be able to make it past them given feats. However, the Needle People would probably be able to get onto the airship before he can actually start the engine and take off, and overwhelm him.

2. Getting into the car. He can kill Hishita or drag him out of the car, and hold Alluka in a way that prevents Hishita from hurting her. Or even put her in the backseat first, but that’s very risky too. The other Needle People would have enough time to run up and hurt Alluka in the time it takes Killua to move or kill Hishita. It seems possible that he doesn’t want to kill Hishita since he mentions “moving” him, like Illumi only used “Family-utility” needles on Hishita because Hishita is a butler. Meaning Hishita can recover. But that’s not Illumi’s M.O. and the needles look like Illumi’s normal needles

3. (Third option that Killua doesn’t mention) Fleeing into the woods. I guess the woods could be full of Needle People that could jump in the way or drop from the trees, making it too much of a risk. And I’d accept the threat of Needle People on Alluka if Killua is running through somewhere as disorienting as a forest. Cutting very briefly through the woods to get on the main trail could be safer, but still risky. And he can’t go straight onto the cleared trail/road since Illumi is in the way.

Basically I would also accept Killua saying “I can’t start the airship fast enough… I can’t move Hishita fast enough. Illumi’s in the way of the main road and I bet the woods are full of Needle People…” But as it is, it seems like Killua doesn’t think he can make it past the loose circle of Needle People at all, which doesn’t make sense to me.