As I, my TTS cohort(s), or both or all *insert number here* of us would explain to the students, the grammar of a language governs the ways in which the meaning of words used together is expressed. And since we've established the phonology, phonotactics, and syntax of the four protolangs, their grammar is now a priority.,
https://youtu.be/RF3xQMH1DOw
There are multiple ways for grammar to manifest, as one can figure out from reconstructions of IRL extinct proto-languages. But for all the grammatical feature that exists, let's go through each of them one by one.First up, grammatical number, which is the way a language handles plurals. English speakers, though not all of them, are familiar with the language using a singular and plural system. Many other languages are the same, though some languages take it a step further or don't use plurality at all, with that last part being the case for Mandarin and others. Speakers of Mandarin can either infer plurality from context or specify using adjectives or numeral words. There might be other languages without plurality marking that do the same as well. Some languages use a dual number to represent two of something, those languages include Greek, Navajo, and Arabic.A trial number exists for three of something, a quadral for four. There is a paucal number for a small number of something(languages like Fijian and some Ethiopian ones), a lesser paucal for smaller, a greater paucal for a large number of something(Mele-fila), a collective for an entire group of something(German), etc. High Valyrian's number system uses singular, paucal, plural, and collective. Oqolaawak's system uses singular, dual, paucal(was originally going to be trial), and plural. The plural marker of a language is derived from a word in that language for the following: many, some, all, etc. Another means is via reduplication when part or all of a word is repeated to express grammatical change. This information about grammatical numbers is useful, especially for deciding the grammatical number systems of the four protolangs.Proto-Language 1 Number: singular, dual(suffix form of "two"), and plural(suffix form of "some")Proto-Language 2 Number: singular and plural(suffix form of "all")Proto-Language 3 Number: singular and plural("many")Proto-Language 4 Number: singular and pluralFor the students: What would the teams and/or solo students decide for the plurality factor of their conlang(s)?Talking about affirmation and negation, that, in a nutshell, is an encoding of positive and negative polarity in languages. English does this with the words "yes" and "no" and with the words "true" and "false". Spanish does the same thing, and a language universal rule is said to require this, so let's stick with that for the four protolangs. But how do languages even handle negation and affirmation? Well, it varies. Some languages put it on the auxiliary verb while others put it on the lexical verb.On the topic of those types of verbs, there are languages without auxiliary verbs and languages without lexical verbs. I'll play it safe and let the four protolangs include both.I'm still new to it, though looking it up, languages use a particle meaning "no", "not", etc. to express negation, including Indo-European ones. Some languages put it after the affirmative, while others put it before it. Some languages, like French, put it in both places. Another thing to note is the existence of double negatives. English's double negatives lead to affirmative, aside from some dialects letting it still mean a single negative, and other languages use it to apply greater negation. By my findings, it's expressed via two negators. Using this information, I could think of some ideas.Proto-Language 1 Negation Expression: two negators(either one goes ??? the affirmative, or affixed to it on that side), negation falling on the auxiliary verb(s), double negatives expressed with a prefix and a suffix to signify greater negationProto-Language 2 Negation Expression: a negator after nouns and before verbs, prefixed to the verb and adjective, negation falling on the auxiliary verb(s), no double negativesProto-Language 3 Negation Expression: a negator after verbs, negation falling on both types, no double negativesProto-Language 4 Negation Expression: a negator after verbs, negation falling on the lexical verbs, no double negativesGoing back to the students and their choices: What would the teams and/or solo students decide for the inclusion of auxiliary verbs and/or lexical verbs(but not verbs in general) in their conlang(s)?Via what method(s) would each of the conlang(s) of each team and/or solo student express negation? What verb(s) would it fall on? Would (any of) their conlang(s) express double negatives? If so, by what method?Questions are mandatory in every language, and speakers of various ones use different means of asking them based on how the language they're speaking does it. English utilizes word order for asking questions, Finnish uses a particle to indicate a yes/no question, and languages like Spanish are said to eliminate the distinction between questions and sentences, although there might be or are, Spanish doesn't seem to be one of them as it includes interrogatives. Others use auxiliaries like the copula. This information, and looking into languages that inspired the four protolangs, give me some ideas for the distinctions, or lack thereof, to provide the students with further examples and demonstrations.Proto-Language 1: distinction included between polar questions and sentences via a question particle, interrogativesProto-Language 2: distinction included between polar questions and sentences, the language using an echo verb for affirmation, while using a negator after the echo verb for negation, interrogativesProto-Language 3: no distinction(yet), no interrogativesProto-Language 4: distinction, interrogatives that either are lost or kept upon evolution, which we'll get to laterFor the students: What would distinctions between yes/no questions and statements be like in the conlang(s) of each team and/or solo student?How would they handle interrogatives?Evidentiality inclusion is also a language universal rule to never do without. But how would a language handle that? Well, they use differing methods. European languages use modal verbs like Spanish and the northern European ones or other lexical verbs like English does. Others use distinct grammatical categories. Not all languages possess systems for evidentials, but that doesn't mean they didn't include them at all. Biblaridion explains evidentiality with this video of his Feature Focus series.,
https://youtu.be/SWI8b-xRns0
In a language, evidentials can be split among categories like direct and indirect. Knowing this, our four protolangs could include their own ways of handling evidentials.Proto-Language 1: no systemProto-Language 2: a basic distinction between direct and indirectProto-Language 3: no systemProto-Language 4: no systemFor mirativity, we might not need to do anything with it with the choices for the protolangs, meaning that the ones without systems might express it via auxiliary means, similar to those other languages. A new question regarding the students: Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include evidentiality marking? If so, which ones, and via what method(s) of distinction?Languages use something known as interjections to express the feelings of the speaker. English does this all the time, the punctuation of English writing reflecting the usage. Other languages use different methods, though the meaning of each interjection in each language allows for correspondences and equivalents to be found. Wierzbicka (1992), Dodson and Vanderplank (2009), Dingemanse and Torreira (2013), and Wharton (2003) wrote documents that flesh out information regarding how different languages handle interjections. Foul-mouthed cursing also classifies as a usage of interjections, those sources being used and cited in a section of the Wikipedia article fleshing out interjections themselves. Looking at those sources, or the section itself, could lead to interesting inclusions of interjections in the protolangs.Protolang 1 Interjections and Cursing: interjections included, cursing excluded(though one of the descendants might evolve it)Protolang 2 Interjections and Cursing: interjections included(though one of the descendants might express it in a different way while the others preserve the original ways, though they'd sound different than they used to), cursing excluded(though one of the descendants might evolve it)Protolang 3 Interjections and Cursing: interjections included, cursing excludedProtolang 4 Interjections and Cursing: interjections included, cursing excluded Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include evidentiality marking? If so, which ones, and via what method(s) of distinction?Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include cursing? If so, via what method(s) of distinction?A bonus note: The existence of pejoratives in a language could lead to the culture including factors of prejudice.Okay. Now to talk about more basic factors once more. For this one, we'll talk about grammatical gender. I, or one or more of my TTS cohorts(either alongside or in place of me) would discuss this with the students talking about the English distinction of genders via masculine and feminine, whether or not it is true, and that other gender systems exist, like masculine, feminine, and neuter, Dutch with common and neuter, etc.Not all languages have grammatical gender systems. And there are other choices for grammatical gender, as David J. Peterson pointed out to viewers of him on Wired, his YouTube videos, and his 2020 Google Talk. Those options include physical vs non-physical, big vs large, tool vs plant, living vs non-living, natural vs non-natural, etc. This video by him fleshes out the operations of grammatical gender very well.,
https://youtu.be/EmJGpnC9qXk
And so does this one by Biblaridion.,
https://youtu.be/-XLDwzxLpKs
Using this information, the gender systems for the protolang could be thought up well enough.Protolang 1 Genders: masculine and feminineProtolang 2 Genders: noneProtolang 3 Genders: big vs largeProtolang 4: none, though might evolve it later on(I'm thinking animate vs inanimate)Presumably, the choices for noun classes and genders could impact, be influenced by, or coincide with the taxonomy of the speakers. Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include gender distinctions? If so, which genders, and via what method(s) of distinction? In terms of noun classes, let's keep them out of the four languages. I'm still putting classifiers in protolang 3, and they are the following: generic, human, and animal.Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include noun classes, classifiers, or neither? If one of the first two, which ones, and via what method(s) of distinction? For nominalization and/or nominal, let's avoid touching that. Long story short, they're a grouping together of nouns and adjectives regarding shared properties. Pronouns are also included as long as the criteria are met.Now to talk about tenses, as well as aspects and moods. Tenses are the time frame in which an event occurs, occurred, will occur, will have occurred, etc. Languages like Mandarin, Ewe, and others, including Ilothwii by Biblaridion are tenseless languages. Yet, they'd utilize auxiliary methods to express the point in time for an event's occurrence, one of which being the usage of adverbs or time phrases for Mandarin. Finnish uses a past/non-past distinction, expressing the future with adverbs. English somewhat uses the same method with the word "will". Turkish includes as many as 20 different tenses, which could also be seen as fusions of base tenses with aspects and/or moods. Other tenses include a habitual tense(which may be indistinguishable from or is not to be confused with the habitual aspect) to describe events occurring universally, tenses like near and remote ones that distinguish between recent past events and much earlier ones, something like that but for the future, others use a hypothetical or subjunctive tense, a relative tense for events that occurred in the past relative to another verb, etc. No language is expected to include every single tense, aspect, or mood, the latter two we'll discuss soon.A common occurrence among languages is the present tense being unmarked. Unless there's a special marking or auxiliary method to suggest otherwise, the tense is assumed to be the present one. The future tense could evolve from various places, via verbs that mean the following English definitions: "go", "stand", "want", "be", "hope", "need", etc. It could also evolve from adverbs like words that mean "later". Auxiliary verbs are often used for tense marking, these verbs often modifying the main verb, which are the lexical verbs. The past tense is tricky to figure out, given the rarity of languages with a single dedicated past tense.With this information, and given the existence of whatever tenses exist in a language, as well as a naturalistic conlang, we'll include a few tenses for our protolangs.Protolang 1 Tenses: past and non-past(the future being represented by an affix evolved from a verb meaning "go")Protolang 2 Tenses: past and non-past(the future being represented by an affix meaning "need")Protolang 3: perfect(past)(represented with reduplicating the first syllable) and imperfect(present)(the future being expressed via an auxiliary verb meaning "hope")Protolang 4: past, present, and future(a suffix meaning "want")Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include tenses? If so, which ones, which tenses for each, and via what method(s) of representation? Aspects are the manner of the event's occurrence independent of the verb independent of the timeframe and can help with expressing the past. A distinction between perfective, the completion of the action as a whole within a single timeframe, and imperfective, the indefinite occurrence of the action over a timeframe, is the most common across the world's languages. The perfective aspect could evolve from terms like "finish", "have", "come", etc., and the imperfective from "be", "go", "sit", or left unmarked. Other types of aspects exist, like habitual(encodes the verb occurring regularly, and evolves from "know", "like", "live", etc.), inchoative(encodes the verb starting to occur, and evolves from "start/begin", "come", etc.), usitative/past habitual(encodes the verb that used to occur regularly, and evolves from the past tense of the habitual aspect, and words like "stay", "live", etc.), aorist, cessative, continuous, etc. Using this information, the protolangs could suffice with interesting aspectual distinctions.Protolang 1 Aspects: perfective(an affix meaning "come") and imperfectiveProtolang 2 Aspects: perfective(an affix meaning "have") and imperfective, with an auxiliary to represent the habitualProtolang 3 Aspects: cessative(an auxiliary verb meaning "finish"), continuous, and habitual(an auxiliary verb meaning "know")Protolang 4 Aspects: perfective(an affix meaning "finish") and imperfectiveWould any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include aspects? If so, which ones, which tenses for each, and via what method(s) of representation? On the topic of grammatical moods, they represent the attitude of the speaker in relation to their topic of speaking, like in AAVE. Different linguistic moods exist, the most basic distinction being the indicative(speaking the considered truth) and the subjunctive(expressing wishes, emotions, possibilities, obligations, judgments, or future actions, none of which are currently the case). Other moods exist, like the operative(expresses wishes, hopes, or commands), the imperative(for direct commands and requests), the interrogative(just for questions), the hypothetical(which is self-explanatory) the optative(expressing desires, evolves from "want", "hope", etc.), etc.Asking the AIs about it, some of them say that the indicative could evolve from plain declaratives, the imperative from verb forms used to ask others to do something, the subjunctive from verbs used in certain types of subordinate clauses, and conditionals from a mixture of subjunctive and/or imperative forms with words like "if". I figured out ideas for the moods for the protolangs, though not what the moods would evolve from.Protolang 1 Moods: indicative, imperative, and subjunctiveProtolang 2 Moods: noneProtolang 3 Moods: noneProtolang 4 Moods: noneWould any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include moods? If so, which ones, which moods for each, and via what method(s) of representation? Even though there are too many words now, demonstratives are a feature of grammar in languages. In a nutshell, the English demonstratives are the words "this" and "that". For a formal definition, they are used by a speaker of a language that includes them to indicate the entities, whether they be an actual person or object, being referred to and to ensure a distinction between those entities and others. There might be languages without demonstratives that utilize auxiliary means, but I can't find any at the moment. I'll need to update this with that information. Of course, some languages like Seri seem to have as many as four distinct demonstratives, yet they are derived from two base ones with mixtures of plural markers and/or deictic elements. For each of our languages, let's give all of them the basic two demonstratives that mean "this" and "that".For the students: Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include demonstratives? If so, which ones, and via what method(s) of representation?Returning to nouns, there is something known as noun cases, which is something used to mark nouns and signify their role in the phrase. There are languages without them, though for those that do have them, the amount varies, with two cases as the minimum. Commonly occurring cases in languages include the following: nominative(used to mark the subject, unmarked in most languages), accusative(used for the direct object, marked with adpositions like words for "to", "at", "against", etc.), genitive(used to mark the possessor, marked with "related to", "of", "with", "from", etc.), and dative(used to mark the indirect object, marked with "for", "to", and "onward").Other case systems are the absolutive(used to mark the subject and indirect object, unmarked in most languages with ergative systems), the ergative(used to mark the agent of a transitive verb, marked with "by", "with", "from", etc.), the instrumental(used to mark the nouns as the means by which the verb is carried out, marked with "with", "by means of", "using", etc.), the comitative(which the instrumental sometimes overlaps with, used to mark the accompaniment or association with an adjacent noun, marked with "with", "along with", "together", etc.), the locative(used to mark the location at, in, or on the noun, marked with "at", "in", "on", "to", etc.), the ablative(used to mark movement away from the noun, marked with "from", "away from", etc.), the vocative(used to mark direct address, marked with "oh", any greeting, "listen", etc.), the construct state(used to mark the possessee, marked with "of", "with", genitive pronouns, etc.), etc. Explanation thanks to Biblaridion on his video about grammatical evolution as well as this video on case-marking.,
https://youtu.be/IFPnGUF1l5Q
Utilizing this information, and with other foundations laid down behind the scenes in regards to intentions, I could give the four proto-languages their own case systems, or lack thereof.Protolang 1 Cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, and locativeProtolang 2 Cases: noneProtolang 3 Cases: noneProtolang 4 Cases: noneWould any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include noun cases? If so, which ones, and via what method(s) of representation? Conjunctions are common in languages, though there are languages without them, utilizing alternate auxiliary methods, and I still need to look for examples. For languages that do use them, however (and IDK what conjunctions would evolve from), it's variable to decide which ones to use. English's conjunctions are "and", "but", and "or", though there are languages that also use "it" as a conjunction(even though English has that word) and languages that don't use "but" as a conjunction at all. Some information about conjunctions can be found here.,
https://youtu.be/PDCA4N_W1f8
For the protolangs, let's decide for each of the languages to use "and" and "or" as their two basic conjunctions.Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include conjunctions? If so, which ones, and via what method(s) of representation?Augmentatives and diminutives are something also featured in languages. Their purpose involves expressing whether something is harmless or dangerous, but mostly their size. There are languages without them, and languages with just the diminutive, as far as I'm aware, though it is likely, and perhaps obvious, that some languages use only an augmentative and no diminutives at all. Whatever the case, it's still an interesting thought to think about, even for the four protolangs.Augmentatives are derived from adjectives meaning "great" or similar ones. Diminutives are derived from adjectives meaning "small" or similar ones to that. Including these could help with derivation. The cultural metaphors of the language's speakers could help out with ideas, as diminutives could apply a sense of irritation to the noun it modifies, and an augmentative could be applied on top of that to indicate serious setbacks or hardships. Biblaridion, in his video on grammatical evolution, which I might talk about when we actually come around to that, fleshed out examples of languages with multiple types of augmentatives and diminutives, and languages that limit the appliance of augmentatives and/or diminutives to only a small subset of nouns. Utilizing this information would lead to ideas for our starting languages.Protolang 1 Augmentatives and Diminutives: none, though will evolve themProtolang 2 Augmentatives and Diminutives: both(augmentative derived from "big", diminutive derived from "small")Protolang 3 Augmentatives and Diminutives: noneProtolang 4 Augmentatives and Diminutives: none(though might evolve them)Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include augmentatives and/or diminutives? If so, which ones, and via what method(s) of representation? Now then, we English speakers are all familiar with the words "a" and "the". Turns out, those words are articles, for definiteness. The word "a" is an indefinite article, and "the" is a definite one. There are other languages with articles, and languages without them. Latin and Mandarin lack them, resulting in ambiguity. Turkish only has an indefinite article, while Malagasy and Icelandic only use a definite article. There are languages like Seri that not only use an indefinite article, but also more than one definite article. Seri uses four of those, which varies based on distance. While the indefinite article is almost always evolved from the number word for "one", most definite articles are evolved from demonstratives or pronouns. Thinking about this information, this could give ideas for the four starting languages.Protolang 1 Articles: noneProtolang 2 Articles: bothProtolang 3 Articles: both(indefinite represented by "one" and definite represented by a demonstrative)Protolang 4 Articles: none, but will evolve themWould any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include articles? If so, which ones, and via what method(s) of representation?Person-marking is a common feature among languages, and is done via pronouns, English being one of those languages. There are languages without pronouns like Vietnamese, Indonesian, Hungarian, Finnish, and Mandarin. Japanese is another one, utilizing auxiliary means via being a pro-drop language. If pronouns were to be included in a conlang by the person creating it, they'd need to consider the types of persons. PIE is reconstructed to only include first and second person. Languages like Seri include 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th persons. Languages like Finnish are said to use a "zero-person". There's also a fifth-person in languages and so forth, though I need to look for examples of them. Anyway, for the four protolangs, let's just give each of them the classes distinction between first, second, and third, with pronouns to represent them.Asking about the students' choices: What would the teams and/or solo students decide for the persons in their conlang(s)? How would they be represented in each one?One interesting feature of grammar in languages that English lacks is clusivity. To explain it, there are times when two people speaking English are talking to each other, with one of them saying "we/us" meaning themselves and the person they're talking to(with or without others involved). Other times, they could mean themselves and others, never the speaker. It would, at times, cause me to think that things should be different, so I asked about it, and learned from others about the existence of clusivity, which utilizes a distinction of inclusion or exclusion, in terms of pronouns. A conlang called Trigedasleng, a future form of English created by David Peterson to be spoken by forest dwellers in the series "The 100", evolved clusivity when diverging from Modern English. For our protolangs, let's exclude it, though we'll let later versions and/or descendants of the third and fourth ones evolve it.Though when talking about the students: Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include clusivity? If so, via what method(s) of representation?Now we can talk about the copula. A copula in a language links a subject to a compliment. English does this with the word "is", which derived from "(to) be". There are languages without a single copula at all, and some languages use more than one of those, like a second copula known as a locative copula, and a third one for . There are languages with copulas that don't have a word for "be" at all, and perhaps that might be a recurring default option across the world's languages. Other languages use different options for a copula verb besides "be", usually using forms of posture: "sit", "stand", "lie", etc. There are other options, though it's best to be careful with the choices. Anyway, I thought of a few ideas for copulas that the protolangs would be using.Protolang 1 Copula: a word for "be"Protolang 2 Copula: a word for "be"Protolang 3 Copula: three copulas, which are a general one for "be", a locative one for "exist", and an identification one for "look" or "see"Protolang 4 Copula: a word for "be"Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include (a) copula(s)? If so, and more than one, which ones, and via what method(s) of representation?Infinitive verbs are an enigma with multiple definitions and purposes. The word "to" in English helps with the formation of infinitives, along with the -ing ending that forms gerunds. There are other languages with infinitives that use different methods, including other Indo-European ones. There are also languages without infinitives, such as many of the Native American languages, Arabic, Japanese, etc. Of course, there would still be ideas for the protolangs.Protolang 1 Infinitives: rich in themProtolang 2 Infinitives: rich in them(though one or two of its descendants would lose them), or none(though one of its descendants would evolve them)Protolang 3 Infinitives: none(though one of its descendants might evolve them, or not)Protolang 4 Infinitives: none(though will evolve them)Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include infinitives? If so, via what method(s) of representation?Finally, we can discuss valency. Valency-changing operations are used in a language for the ways in which a verb takes an object, also called transitivity. Transitive verbs can only take objects, while intransitive verbs only take the subject. A number of verbs seem to lack due to them not solely stating the object itself. Many languages evolve methods of altering the transitivity of verbs, with the exceptions of languages like Georgian and Basque, which are ergative languages. These methods are known as valency-changing operations, and different types of them exist, one type being active vs mediopassive, the most common type being the passive vs the causative.Passives reduce valency, and so do antipassives. Valency is amplified by causatives, as well as applicatives, so there could be systems like the antipassive vs the applicative. There are other choices to go for in terms of which two operations a conlanger could choose for their conlang. This information could lead to completing the interesting grammatical features of the protolangs.Protolang 1 Valency-Changing Operations: passive(evolved from "have") vs causative(evolved from "make")Protolang 2 Valency-Changing Operations: passive(evolved from "gain") vs causative(evolved from "command")Protolang 3 Valency-Changing Operations: passive(evolved from "come") vs causative(evolved from "give")Protolang 4 Valency-Changing Operations: passive(evolved from "take") vs causative(evolved from "cause")Would any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include valency-changing operations? If so, which ones, and via what method(s) of representation?One final piece of language I want to demonstrate is the usage of a number system, especially since our languages use grammatical number. There are languages with grammatical number that don't use number systems and languages that do, as well as languages of both categories that don't use grammatical number at all. Number systems are not synonymous with grammatical number though.There are several factors that go into creating a number system: the base being used, the way it is being used, the glyphs and their values, the sets of number words, the patterns, etc. Edgar "Artifexian" Grunewald and Mitch Halley a.k.a. jan Misali flesh out these factors very well with videos on the former's channel about number systems.,
https://youtu.be/H5EUjnEKzjQ
,,
https://youtu.be/OXozmFbmR00
But what are the ways in which number systems in a language would evolve naturally? There are multiple methods, as explained in the second video. Number words could be derived from names of body parts, or from random terms. James Grime pointed out when talking with Brady Haran about duodecimal, better off recognized as dozenal, and others pointed out as well, that people would use the segments of their fingers to count in twelves. I discovered an image demonstrating that people could count to sixteen and 256 with the tips of their fingers and the lines separating the different segments. The Eskaleut cultures, for about their entire history, have counted items in twenties, with small bundles of five, which is the inspiration for the Kaktovik numerals.,
https://youtu.be/EyS6FfczH0Q
,,
https://youtu.be/Pas7A1mZbdU
There is an image on DeviantArt that demonstrates a base-12 or duodecimal a.k.a. dozenal number system that is written via vertical lines for the units, horizontals on the bottom for fours, and positional notation. It's described as a mix of Roman Numerals and Mayan Numerals. In a number of cases, perhaps glyphs could evolve from logographs for specific amounts of something. The glyphs would only be possible if the language would use a writing system, though we'll get to writing systems later down the line. I could imagine LH/CG and perhaps TGAMM and Kiff characters counting with base-8 or base-16(as Edgar described when working on his number system for Oa) due to them being four-fingered like The Simpsons, which Simon Singh discussed regarding the relationship between that series and pi.Using this overall information about number systems could help out with ideas for the number systems of the protolangs.Protolang 1 Number System: base-12, plain and ordinalProtolang 2 Number System: base-10Protolang 3 Number System: naming numbers based on prime factorization(reduplication of final syllable could be useful)Protolang 4 Number System: base-6, plain and ordinalWould any of the team(s) and/or solo student(s)'s conlang(s) include number systems? If so, which ones, and what would the systems be like? With all these grammatical features established, we can finally coin words, thus creating the lexicons.
Add Media
Style