Deriving an agglutinating language

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Deriving an agglutinating language

Post by Ælfwine » Fri 30 Sep 2016, 07:20

Isfendil wrote:
Ælfwine wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:Some people distinguish between core (or morphosyntactical) cases like nominative, accusative, genitive, dative cases and adverbial cases (or semantic cases) like locative, superessive and translative case.
Oh, I see...

Say, any conlangs that people have done that went through the process of agglutination that I may study? Or better yet, any good free online articles/books that do not require a bachelor's degree in linguistics I can read? I just want to study more examples.
Maybe we can demonstrate this to you with our own conlangs? What exactly do you want to see?
I'm not sure. Maybe a step-by-step process-from a proto-lang to a modern language- on how perhaps an isolating or fusional lang got to be agglutinating.

I'm toying around with the two languages that I know - Old Norse and Latin - and seeing what can be regularized. In Old Norse I've noted that in some cases, the first person singular pronoun ek was sometimes attached to the end of the verb. I've extended this tendency to most other singular pronouns.

ex.
hafða + ek = hafðak “I have”
kann + ek = kannk “I can”
heyr + tú = heyrtu “You hear”
fórt + sú = fórsu “She went” (though regularized, this is probably not in the past tense.)

This is a good start, but I am still a bit lost on where to go from here.
The worst thing you can do to an idea is forget about it.
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2316
Joined: Sun 24 Jun 2012, 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Deriving an agglutinating language

Post by clawgrip » Fri 30 Sep 2016, 14:07

In deriving Nandut from Naduta, I went from two cases, nominative and objective, to four pseudo-cases: nominative-direct and nominative-oblique, and objective-direct and objective-oblique. This was caused entirely from sound changes, specifically:
1. voicing of unvoiced stops
2. loss of final vowels
3. devoicing of final voiced stops

Adding a postpositional clitic eliminates rules 2 and 3, causing two distinct forms to appear:
with the example suffix day (nday in Nandut):

Code: Select all

Naduta
                      singular   plural
        nominative    phuta      phurta
        nominative    phuta day  phurta day
        objective     phuy       phurey
        objective     phuy day   phurey day

No difference with or without the postposition in Naduta. But:

Nandut
                      singular   plural
nominative direct     put        pōt
           oblique    puda.ndai  pōda.ndai
objective  direct     pī         purē
           oblique    pī.ndai    purē.ndai
In the animate gender, objective direct and oblique are identical, but in other genders they are different.

So my point is, clitics that alter the application of sound changes in a word can become dependent morphemes, creating new cases.
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Deriving an agglutinating language

Post by Ælfwine » Wed 25 Oct 2017, 07:35

clawgrip wrote:In deriving Nandut from Naduta, I went from two cases, nominative and objective, to four pseudo-cases: nominative-direct and nominative-oblique, and objective-direct and objective-oblique. This was caused entirely from sound changes, specifically:
1. voicing of unvoiced stops
2. loss of final vowels
3. devoicing of final voiced stops

Adding a postpositional clitic eliminates rules 2 and 3, causing two distinct forms to appear:
with the example suffix day (nday in Nandut):

Code: Select all

Naduta
                      singular   plural
        nominative    phuta      phurta
        nominative    phuta day  phurta day
        objective     phuy       phurey
        objective     phuy day   phurey day

No difference with or without the postposition in Naduta. But:

Nandut
                      singular   plural
nominative direct     put        pōt
           oblique    puda.ndai  pōda.ndai
objective  direct     pī         purē
           oblique    pī.ndai    purē.ndai
In the animate gender, objective direct and oblique are identical, but in other genders they are different.

So my point is, clitics that alter the application of sound changes in a word can become dependent morphemes, creating new cases.
This bump is a bit more than a year late but more relevant than ever.

Through a discussion with Isfendil, I've decided to bring back agglutination in my romlang. In order to do this, I want to create a new accusative and dative case from Latin. I've so far come up with a dative that is from the Vulgar Latin preposition, a(d). I've been thinking of ways to make the agglutination fairly naturalistic.

Note that the plural is -i, which like in Romanian disappears and palatalizes before consonants. Also note the sound change t -> z / V_V. The rules are otherwise similar to your Nandut's.

Code: Select all

not "note"
                 singular   plural
nominative       not        nöc (nøts)
dative           noza       nözai
I don't know if you are still around, but if you are: look good to you Clawgrip?
The worst thing you can do to an idea is forget about it.
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2316
Joined: Sun 24 Jun 2012, 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Deriving an agglutinating language

Post by clawgrip » Thu 26 Oct 2017, 14:19

That seems fine to me. I like how the plural works as well, though I wonder if the plural might appear in front of the case ending, if it was already part of the noun.

not - nöc
noza - nöza

Possibly the i does not disappear when followed by ad, so you could have noza - nöze (ia → e) or something along those lines.
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Deriving an agglutinating language

Post by Ælfwine » Thu 26 Oct 2017, 16:55

clawgrip wrote:That seems fine to me. I like how the plural works as well, though I wonder if the plural might appear in front of the case ending, if it was already part of the noun.

not - nöc
noza - nöza

Possibly the i does not disappear when followed by ad, so you could have noza - nöze (ia → e) or something along those lines.
In that case, I think the plural would palatalize the underlying consonant:

not - nöc
noza - nödza

I haven't really defined the allophony yet but it is possible /i/ is still seen as a separate affix instead of something more fusional. Not sure.

Edit: I also found something while browsing Wikipedia that may relate back to your second post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian ... Infinitive

Developing it like Portuguese/Hungarian may be another way to add person marking, though I am still partial to your idea.
The worst thing you can do to an idea is forget about it.
Post Reply