Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Sun 17 Dec 2017, 00:05

Absolutely, we don't see reduplication in conlangs nearly as often as we should seeing how common it is in natlangs.
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3829
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 11:02

Frislander wrote:
Sun 17 Dec 2017, 00:05
Absolutely, we don't see reduplication in conlangs nearly as often as we should seeing how common it is in natlangs.
...I have to agree. (Also, a few of mine use partial or full REDUP.)
Image
User avatar
Tuyono
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun 06 Aug 2017, 14:09

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Tuyono » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 20:07

Frislander wrote:
Sun 17 Dec 2017, 00:05
Absolutely, we don't see reduplication in conlangs nearly as often as we should seeing how common it is in natlangs.
Thanks [:)] I'll definitely use it for something, I just wasn't sure whether it would sense for aspect marking.
:isr: (native) :eng: (fluent) :deu: (beginner)
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 23:16

Tuyono wrote:
Mon 18 Dec 2017, 20:07
Frislander wrote:
Sun 17 Dec 2017, 00:05
Absolutely, we don't see reduplication in conlangs nearly as often as we should seeing how common it is in natlangs.
Thanks [:)] I'll definitely use it for something, I just wasn't sure whether it would sense for aspect marking.
Absolutely it's fine for aspect marking! (see the attached chapter to the map. Also good for this is the Conlangery episode on it, which is full of examples and comes with natlang examples).
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1695
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gestaltist » Tue 19 Dec 2017, 09:25

Tuyono wrote:
Sat 16 Dec 2017, 23:44
Should I use partial reduplication of verb stems to form the habitual aspect?
some examples of what it would look like:
ʃal → ʃaˈʃal
i͡at→ atˈi͡at
luɟ → luˈluɟ
teˈmish → teteˈmish
aːɲu → aːɲaɲu
Reduplication is often used with verbal roots to either mark intensity, duration, or repeatability of action, so this is perfectly realistic, as others have said. One thing you might want to keep in mind: languages that productively use partial reduplication practically always also use full reduplication. So you might want to find some other place in the grammar for full reduplication.
markski
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun 03 Jul 2016, 18:33

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by markski » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 00:29

Should I form verbs of motion (specifically, moving other objects) in my language derive from incorporated object + relational noun + dative?

example: at first I wanted to make a verb meaning "pull", and I thought "why not make some compound w/ the word for "arm" and "inwards", i.e. "move inward w/ one's arm", so I made the compound

pə́ssaj pā́fət
pə́ssaj-pā́f-ət
arm.GEN-center-DAT
"inward by the arm"

I figured that adding an auxiliary like "xuk" (go, move) or "ŋóv" (push) would make an already four-syllable word too long, so I wondered if I can just use this as a verb itself, eg.

sēŋir ək ku i pə́ssaj pāfət
sēŋi-r=∅-ə́k ku=i=pə́ssaj-pā́f-ət
hair-PAT=3sg-LOC 1s.AGT=3s.PAT=arm.GEN-center-DAT
"I pull(ed) his hair"

then I wondered if it would be possible to drop the "pə́ssaj" (by the arm) altogether and incorporate the object into the verb instead for sake of conciseness

xik ku sēŋir pā́fət
xi-k ku=sēŋi-r=pā́f-ət
DEM-LOC 1sg.AGT=hair-PAT=center-DAT
"I pull(ed) his hair"

So I scrapped the pə́ssaj- compound strategy since it seemed unnecessary and then started trying other verbs of motion

ku mef tīxə́t naŋít
ku=mef=tīx-ə́t naŋi-ə́t
1sg.AGT=water=top-DAT drink-DAT
"I bring/brought up water to drink"

Of course, I could just do the first (non-incorporated) structure but with the object in normal object position, i.e.

mef ku tīxə́t naŋít
mef ku=tīx-ə́t naŋ-ə́t
water 1sg.AGT=top-DAT drink-DAT
"I bring/brought up water to drink"

But I feel like incorporating it makes it more obvious that the relational noun is being verbalized here (since in isolation "tīxə́t" means "upwards", not "move upwards")

What do y'all think? Should I stick with this, or just make unique verbs of movement?
Last edited by markski on Fri 22 Dec 2017, 02:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 13:52

markski wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 00:29
example: at first I wanted to make a verb meaning "pull", and I thought "why not make some compound w/ the word for "arm" and "inwards", i.e. "move inward w/ one's arm", so I made the compound

pə́ssaj pā́fət
pə́ssaj-pā́f-ət
arm.GEN-center-DAT
"inward by the arm"

I figured that adding an auxiliary like "xuk" (go, move) or "ŋóv" (push) would make an already four-syllable word too long, so I wondered if I can just use this as a verb itself, eg.

sēŋir ək ku i pə́ssaj pāfət
sēŋi-r=∅-ə́k ku=i=pə́ssaj-pā́f-ət
hair-PAT=3sg-LOC 1s.AGT=3s.PAT=arm.GEN-center-DAT
"I pull(ed) his hair"
The closest thing I know of to this in natlangs is what happens in many Papuan and a few Australian languages with restricted verbal lexicons, where they incorporate the object and have a generic verb (sometimes as vague as "hold"), maybe plus a cislocative affix denoting inward motion, so (using a new language) you'd have something like:

hane-kal-ton
arm-hold-CIS
"pull (with the arm)"

And this is a systematic pattern throughout the language, with most verbs being formed this way.
then I wondered if it would be possible to drop the "pə́ssaj" (by the arm) altogether and incorporate the object into the verb instead for sake of conciseness

xik ku sēŋir pā́fət
xi-k ku=sēŋi-r=pā́f-ət
DEM-LOC 1sg.AGT=hair-PAT=center-DAT
"I pull(ed) his hair"
You can incorporate more than one noun, e.g.

some-hane-kal-ton
hair-arm-hold-CIS
"pull hair"

One other point to note is that incorporated nouns pretty much always drop their case marking (the same applies to the above example).
So I scrapped the pə́ssaj- compound strategy since it seemed unnecessary and then started trying other verbs of motion

ku mef tīxə́t naŋít
ku=mef=tīx-ə́t naŋi-ə́t
1sg.AGT=water=drink=top-DAT drink-DAT
"I bring/brought up water to drink"
I think your glossing is slightly confusing here, why are there two "drinks" in the gloss and an extra clitic marker =.
Of course, I could just do the first (non-incorporated) structure but with the object in normal object position, i.e.

mef ku tīxə́t naŋít
mef ku=tīx-ə́t naŋ-ə́t
water 1sg.AGT=drink=top-DAT drink-DAT
"I bring/brought up water to drink"
Same issue here.
But I feel like incorporating it makes it more obvious that the relational noun is being verbalized here (since in isolation "tīxə́t" means "upwards", not "move upwards")
Well maybe you could treat it like a verb and inflect it like a verb, i.e. drop the case marking.
What do y'all think? Should I stick with this, or just make unique verbs of movement?
I say incorporate, we don't see enough conlangs with restricted verbal lexica.
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5655
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Lao Kou » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 15:42

Frislander wrote:
Sun 17 Dec 2017, 00:05
Absolutely, we don't see reduplication in conlangs nearly as often as we should seeing how common it is in natlangs.
Frislander wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 13:52
I say incorporate, we don't see enough conlangs with restricted verbal lexica.
For my money, what we don't see enough of is just *stuff*. (Step away from WALS ever so briefly.) Linguistic legerdemains are lovely and all, but if your heptonal Iroquoian incorporating agglutinative lang with a double back leniting reduplicating twist written in an abugida doesn't tell me where the acorns are buried (acornacorn burybury [akoɾnøɠaʁnbʊɾiβɓɪ̈ʁjɛ̃]), then who cares? I understand it's fun to play with the Legos, but sheesh (and few play with pragmatics, 'cause how many langs ever get that far?).
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 15:56

Lao Kou wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 15:42
I understand it's fun to play with the Legos, but sheesh
Putting aide the fact that I can't actually work out what you're trying to say with most of your response, can I just point out that for me and the rest of the UK "Lego" is a mass noun, and that therefore "the Legos" sounds weird af to me? Just random trivia for you.
Last edited by Frislander on Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:47, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3829
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:12

Lego is singular, it means one individual Lego brick. Hence, Legos.

Also, I think Lao's point is that even if something seems a little weird, just do it and see what happens. That way, there are many more fun developed conlangs for us to read about!
Image
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:54

Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:12
Lego is singular, it means one individual Lego brick. Hence, Legos.
Well in the UK Lego refers to the company/product as a whole, not to the individual bricks. It's just one of those minor differences between Englishes on either side of the pond that really sticks out when it comes up.
markski
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun 03 Jul 2016, 18:33

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by markski » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 03:11

Frislander wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 13:52
markski wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 00:29

So I scrapped the pə́ssaj- compound strategy since it seemed unnecessary and then started trying other verbs of motion

ku mef tīxə́t naŋít
ku=mef=tīx-ə́t naŋi-ə́t
1sg.AGT=water=drink=top-DAT drink-DAT
"I bring/brought up water to drink"
I think your glossing is slightly confusing here, why are there two "drinks" in the gloss and an extra clitic marker =.
Of course, I could just do the first (non-incorporated) structure but with the object in normal object position, i.e.

mef ku tīxə́t naŋít
mef ku=tīx-ə́t naŋ-ə́t
water 1sg.AGT=drink=top-DAT drink-DAT
"I bring/brought up water to drink"
Same issue here.
My bad. I had changed the words in the sentence around at one point but didn't properly fix the gloss. Fixed now.
But I feel like incorporating it makes it more obvious that the relational noun is being verbalized here (since in isolation "tīxə́t" means "upwards", not "move upwards")
Well maybe you could treat it like a verb and inflect it like a verb, i.e. drop the case marking.
The main reason I kept the case marking was because without it it doesn't have an adverbial/motion sense. Just tīx means "head, top", whereas "tīxə́t" means "upwards" and is thus more transparently related to the meaning of the verb "lift". So I guess in reality it's more deriving a verb from an adverb, rather than from a noun.

But at the same time, I see what you're trying to explain. If I just make pə́ssa- (the unmarked form) a verb-forming prefix that can attach to relational nouns likewise unmarked for case, this could be the strategy for forming verbs of translation. To be honest though, I kinda like both these strategies (the prefixing and the dative), do you think it would be possible for a language to have both, perhaps with certain dialectical/semantic/pragmatic difference associated?
What do y'all think? Should I stick with this, or just make unique verbs of movement?
I say incorporate, we don't see enough conlangs with restricted verbal lexica.
So are you saying that if I go this route I would be choosing to make what you call a "restricted-verb language"? Do you have any resources or advice about what such lexicons are like in general?
User avatar
esoanem
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2017, 13:03
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by esoanem » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 04:31

Frislander wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:54
Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:12
Lego is singular, it means one individual Lego brick. Hence, Legos.
Well in the UK Lego refers to the company/product as a whole, not to the individual bricks. It's just one of those minor differences between Englishes on either side of the pond that really sticks out when it comes up.
I believe the same is too in Danish as well (not that that's especially relevant to US usage)
My pronouns are they/them/their

:gbr: native | :esp: advanced | :deu: intermediate | :fra: intermediate | :rus: basic | :ell: lapsed | :navi: lapsed | :con: making a bunch
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3829
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 06:37

Frislander wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:54
Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:12
Lego is singular, it means one individual Lego brick. Hence, Legos.
Well in the UK Lego refers to the company/product as a whole, not to the individual bricks. It's just one of those minor differences between Englishes on either side of the pond that really sticks out when it comes up.
So to be clear, if a kid was assembling something on the kitchen table and got mad and swept all the bricks onto the floor in a huff, his mother might say, "Pick up your Lego!"? That just sounds so weird to me.
Image
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4628
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 09:02

Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Fri 22 Dec 2017, 06:37
Frislander wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:54
Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:12
Lego is singular, it means one individual Lego brick. Hence, Legos.
Well in the UK Lego refers to the company/product as a whole, not to the individual bricks. It's just one of those minor differences between Englishes on either side of the pond that really sticks out when it comes up.
So to be clear, if a kid was assembling something on the kitchen table and got mad and swept all the bricks onto the floor in a huff, his mother might say, "Pick up your Lego!"? That just sounds so weird to me.
Sounds perfectly legit to me.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10393
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 09:15

Case in point. Dialects are different.
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5655
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Lao Kou » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 09:42

DesEsseintes wrote:
Fri 22 Dec 2017, 09:02
Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Fri 22 Dec 2017, 06:37
Frislander wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:54
Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 17:12
Lego is singular, it means one individual Lego brick. Hence, Legos.
Well in the UK Lego refers to the company/product as a whole, not to the individual bricks. It's just one of those minor differences between Englishes on either side of the pond that really sticks out when it comes up.
So to be clear, if a kid was assembling something on the kitchen table and got mad and swept all the bricks onto the floor in a huff, his mother might say, "Pick up your Lego!"? That just sounds so weird to me.
Sounds perfectly legit to me.
As it does to me. Whether it's countable or uncountable seems to depend on context. "Pick up your Lego!" sounds fine, and saying "a Lego" as in "She threw a Lego at her brother." sounds a little weird to me. On the other hand, "Ow! Son of a bitch, I just stepped on a Lego!" is also okay. (a piece of Lego? a Lego piece? -- mebbe) Lego is not really part of my world, so it just doesn't come up much.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 12:31

markski wrote:
Fri 22 Dec 2017, 03:11
Frislander wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 13:52
markski wrote:
Thu 21 Dec 2017, 00:29
But I feel like incorporating it makes it more obvious that the relational noun is being verbalized here (since in isolation "tīxə́t" means "upwards", not "move upwards")
Well maybe you could treat it like a verb and inflect it like a verb, i.e. drop the case marking.
The main reason I kept the case marking was because without it it doesn't have an adverbial/motion sense. Just tīx means "head, top", whereas "tīxə́t" means "upwards" and is thus more transparently related to the meaning of the verb "lift". So I guess in reality it's more deriving a verb from an adverb, rather than from a noun.

But at the same time, I see what you're trying to explain. If I just make pə́ssa- (the unmarked form) a verb-forming prefix that can attach to relational nouns likewise unmarked for case, this could be the strategy for forming verbs of translation. To be honest though, I kinda like both these strategies (the prefixing and the dative), do you think it would be possible for a language to have both, perhaps with certain dialectical/semantic/pragmatic difference associated?
Well you kind of answered your own question there; yes you could. I'd reckon that the dative construction would be more formal because it's more verbose. Also what'd be neat would be to have similar strategies with other body parts/generic nouns.
What do y'all think? Should I stick with this, or just make unique verbs of movement?
I say incorporate, we don't see enough conlangs with restricted verbal lexica.
So are you saying that if I go this route I would be choosing to make what you call a "restricted-verb language"? Do you have any resources or advice about what such lexicons are like in general?
Well if you're using it for a verb class as basic as motion verbs then I would say so yes, and I'd probably expect it to be extended to other verbs as well, including newly innovated verbs, as well as things like verbs of perception and so on.
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Davush » Sat 23 Dec 2017, 10:36

Word-initial clusters are quite rare in Qutrussan, but so are vowel-initial words. In fact, no roots are vowel initial and this only occurs due to certain inflections. However, if a word ends in a consonant and the next word begins with a cluster, there is an epenthetic vowel. I'm thinking of making this epenthetic (always unstressed) vowel appear in the written language, so in effect there would be vowel-initial words, but no cluster-initial words.

Stias > Istias
Htuppu > Uhtuppu
Qsúmu > Uqsúmu
Prá > Aprá

etc.

I'm not sure which I prefer...Although I would be quite sad to see word initial qs cs ps go. Perhaps I could go Spanish and only have sC clusters have an epenthetic vowel? sC clusters are rarer than others, having been simplified very early in the proto-language and regained by other means.
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:26

Davush wrote:
Sat 23 Dec 2017, 10:36
Word-initial clusters are quite rare in Qutrussan, but so are vowel-initial words. In fact, no roots are vowel initial and this only occurs due to certain inflections. However, if a word ends in a consonant and the next word begins with a cluster, there is an epenthetic vowel. I'm thinking of making this epenthetic (always unstressed) vowel appear in the written language, so in effect there would be vowel-initial words, but no cluster-initial words.

Stias > Istias
Htuppu > Uhtuppu
Qsúmu > Uqsúmu
Prá > Aprá

etc.

I'm not sure which I prefer...Although I would be quite sad to see word initial qs cs ps go. Perhaps I could go Spanish and only have sC clusters have an epenthetic vowel? sC clusters are rarer than others, having been simplified very early in the proto-language and regained by other means.
I like the idea of only disallowing certain initial cluster, a la Spanish. You could decide to disallow a different type of initial cluster though, besides sC if you want. This reminds me of a similar issue I'm pondering for my conlang.

I'm thinking of making a change to certain Shonkasika neuter nouns, inspired by Slavic languages. There is an overlap in consonant stems and î-stems ( /ɪ/) in that they inflect the same for all forms, except the indefinite nominative singular, which is -î for î-stems and -∅ for consonant stems unless they end in a disallowed consonant cluster. In that case, I append an epenthetic -î, thus making them for all intents and purposes î-stems.

*dobr > dobrî roof, ceiling

Instead, I am thinking of placing the -î before the final consonants, acting a fill vowel as what happens in certain cases and numbers in some Slavic languages:

*dobr > dobîr
In forms with endings, like the accusative, the î would switch places:
acc. dobrîk

Yay or nay?
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
Post Reply