"Make these work together" game.

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

"Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 04 Jun 2013, 18:45

One thing I miss about the CWBB is the "make these work together" thread.
Somebody would come up with a set (usually ten or fewer) of concultural features, or conworld features, each of which could be described in a single sentence or single line; and responders would try to come up with precis or summary of a consistent conculture that would have those features, or a consistent conworld that would have them.

I think the same thing could be done with conlangs instead of concultures or conworlds.

IMO ten features is too many; I think three is a more reasonable number.

Try to make each one of the features be one that is actually attested in some natlang.

Ideally, each proper subset of your list should be attested by some natlang, but no natlang should have all of them. For instance, if you list three features, for each two of them there ought to be a natlang having those two, but no natlang (as far as anyone knows) having all three. You would want any easily-thought-of way to make two features work together, to make it challenging to fit the third feature in.

For instance:

1. The language's unmarked "word-order" is verb-initial.
2. It also tends to be topic-first and focus-last.
3. There's no limit to subordination-within-subordination-within-...-etc....
4. If agent and patient are both full noun-phrases rather than pronouns, and none of the above precludes it, the agent is usually mentioned before the patient in main clauses.
5. There are no "articles".

(I admit I haven't checked to make sure every two of the above features occur together in some natlang, much less that every four of them do. This is just an example, not necessarily a good example.)
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Wed 05 Jun 2013, 22:49

eldin raigmore wrote:1. The language's unmarked "word-order" is verb-initial.
2. It also tends to be topic-first and focus-last.
I don't think these two are compatible, unless you somehow exclude the (finite) verb from the topic vs. focus opposition. (Broad focuses tend to include verbs, AFAIK, and narrow focuses seem to be more marked.)

If you permit not counting a (backgrounded) verb as part of the (broad) focus, I think Classical Arabic combines 1-4.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Creyeditor » Thu 06 Jun 2013, 20:47

eldin raigmore wrote:
1. The language's unmarked "word-order" is verb-initial.
2. It also tends to be topic-first and focus-last.
3. There's no limit to subordination-within-subordination-within-...-etc....
4. If agent and patient are both full noun-phrases rather than pronouns, and none of the above precludes it, the agent is usually mentioned before the patient in main clauses.
5. There are no "articles".
I would suggest that this language works with a lot of "auxilary verbs" and makes extensive use of a inverse-like voice. There are indeed no articles. Demonstratives can be used if definitness is needed. Word basic word order is AUX-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-TOPIC-INFINITIVE VERB-FOCUS

Bip bau hama tü i.
bip-Ø bau ham-a
AUX-ACTIVE dog bite-INF girl little
The dog bit the little girl.

Bipon tü i hama bau
Bip-on tü i ham-a bau
AUX-INVERSE girl little bite-INF dog
The little girl was bitten by the dog. or
As for the little girl, the dog bit her.

I am sure I forgot something, but this is my try for the first and second one.
Edit: 1. No cases
2. No possesive affixes
3. A class of obligatorly possessed nouns
Last edited by Creyeditor on Thu 06 Jun 2013, 21:32, edited 1 time in total.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2457
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Keenir » Thu 06 Jun 2013, 21:07

Creyeditor wrote:I am sure I forgot something, but this is my try for the first and second one.
I think the only thing you forgot, was to put up the next list, as you accomplished the first list.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Creyeditor » Thu 06 Jun 2013, 21:32

Keenir wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:I am sure I forgot something, but this is my try for the first and second one.
I think the only thing you forgot, was to put up the next list, as you accomplished the first list.
Done
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2457
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Keenir » Thu 06 Jun 2013, 23:16

Creyeditor wrote:I am sure I forgot something, but this is my try for the first and second one.
Edit: 1. No cases
2. No possesive affixes
3. A class of obligatorly possessed nouns
The absence of possessive afixes {and thus in/alienable possession} can be overcome by utilizing the possessed noun class; this also can be used for things like locative. When the possessed noun is needed to, it can cover a broad ground...and may be turning into TAM.

Shilasse shilabbe
Si-las:e Si-las:e
1-heart 1-feet
I am here. {lit, I heart, I feet}

Scavassa gambe
xa-vas:a gam-be
1-hair dog-side
My dog.

Shilasse shilabbe Tibetejonne
Si-las:e Si-lab:e {Tibet}-jon:e
1-heart 1-feet {Tibet}-intestine
I am in Tibet.

Shilasse shilabbegalt Tibet.
Si-las:e Si-lab:e-galt {Tibet}
1-heart 1-feet-sneeze {Tibet}
I'm {now,currently} leaving Tibet.


Should that be satisfactory...
1. Distinguishes the future from the present&past.
2. Is easy to learn.
3. Noun phrases follow verb phrases.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Thu 06 Jun 2013, 23:38

basilius wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:1. The language's unmarked "word-order" is verb-initial.
2. It also tends to be topic-first and focus-last.
I don't think these two are compatible, unless you somehow exclude the (finite) verb from the topic vs. focus opposition. (Broad focuses tend to include verbs, AFAIK, and narrow focuses seem to be more marked.)
I deliberately chose two word-order features that are a challenge to put together.
Verb-initial and topic-first are in fact hard to accomodate in the same clause, just as you point out.
I was expecting a solution making use of the word "unmarked" in #1.
Your solution appeals to me more, though.

Some languages, e.g. Russian, have a "given first, new last" word-order.
"Given" may be interpreted broadly or narrowly; "new" may also be interpreted broadly or narrowly.
Many clauses in some of these languages have "transitional information".
If both "given" and "new" are interpreted broadly, the "transitional information" is in both; but if both "given" and "new" are interpreted narrowly, the "transitional information" is in neither.

If we say "topic" and "focus" instead of "given" and "new", you're suggesting that the verb is usually part of the "broad" topic if there is a broad topic (and therefore not usually part of the "narrow" focus). Something different could happen, but if it did, it would be marked, not unmarked.

I like that.

Did I understand you correctly?


If you permit not counting a (backgrounded) verb as part of the (broad) focus, I think Classical Arabic combines 1-4.
Interesting! Thanks.

And thanks, Creyeditor and Keenir.
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Mon 10 Jun 2013, 17:42

eldin raigmore wrote:
basilius wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:1. The language's unmarked "word-order" is verb-initial.
2. It also tends to be topic-first and focus-last.
I don't think these two are compatible, unless you somehow exclude the (finite) verb from the topic vs. focus opposition. (Broad focuses tend to include verbs, AFAIK, and narrow focuses seem to be more marked.)
I deliberately chose two word-order features that are a challenge to put together.
Verb-initial and topic-first are in fact hard to accomodate in the same clause, just as you point out.
I was expecting a solution making use of the word "unmarked" in #1.
Well, if "unmarked" implies "statistically prevalent", then we have a problem. If, however, we define "unmarked" in some other way, e. g. claim that "unmarked" word order is what one sees in thetic (topic-less, "all-new") sentences (which are in fact relatively rare in text corpora), then we may have a rigid verb-first WO in thetic sentences combined with obligatory topic-fronting.
Some languages, e.g. Russian, have a "given first, new last" word-order.
This is in fact a huge simplification: fronting the focus=rheme isn't infrequent, and there are other phenomena like separating (parts of the) topic=theme into a kind of afterthought-tag. But "theme first, rheme last" is indeed the least marked WO, and this rule tends to override all rules referring to the constituent composition whenever possible.
"Given" may be interpreted broadly or narrowly; "new" may also be interpreted broadly or narrowly.
Well, I think that on the cognitive-theoretical level the notions of "given" vs. "new" (or "presupposed" vs. "asserted") aren't very controversial; that is, normally a declarative utterance can be analyzed in such terms (or identified as "thetic") without implying any other bits (on the same level of analysis; there are entities that may belong to a different dimension, like e. g. "parenthesized" material).

The problem is, however, that such cognitive-theoretical notions are hardly ever directly conveyed by any grammaticalized categories of a human language. That is, when we discuss "topics" or "rhemes" or anything of that sort in a particular language, we're probably more concerned about its structural features and grammatical categories, and we are very lucky if at least the prototypical (canonical) use of some grammaticalized entities matches more-less straightforwardly anything belonging to the cognitive-theoretical domain.

But even such prototypical uses of more straightforwardly cognitive grammatical categories can be more sophisticated and/or sensitive to additional factors. For example, what is treated as topic=theme may imply a specific degree of contrastivity; what is treated as focus=rheme may be required to be a narrow focus, or to be "cataphorically" foregrounded (i. e. marked as the topic of subsequent narration/discussion); or else, there may be an orthogonal factor like "in-focus" vs. "backgrounded", with only "in-focus" material allowed to form either a "topic domain" or the "focus domain", with anything "backgrounded" treated as a separate category of its own.

Considerations like the above make me think that it is perfectly legal to analyze a specific language in such a way that some material in declarative utterances may belong to neither "topic" nor "focus", without demanding any alternative terms to be used instead of "topic" (or "theme") and "focus" (resp. "rheme") because of the mismatch with our preset cognitive-theoretical notions.

And finite verbs seem to be very good candidates for such "neither-topic-nor-focus" status, for it is much more common for topics (and focuses, except with monovalent verbs) to be the verb's dependents rather than the verb itself, and it is very common cross-linguistically to replace the finite verb with a non-finite form plus an auxiliary when the verb is the contrastive topic or narrow focus (cf. in English: Remember him, I did &like). So, although I don't know unquestionable natlang precedents, I think a language which can be plausibly analyzed as never treating finite verbs as topics is plausible :) (which BTW looks compatible with Creyeditor's proposal).
Many clauses in some of these languages have "transitional information".
If both "given" and "new" are interpreted broadly, the "transitional information" is in both; but if both "given" and "new" are interpreted narrowly, the "transitional information" is in neither.
It appears that I've seen this notion of "transitional information" only in references, and I'd be grateful for any pointers to convincing analyses applying this category to specific languages.

I suspect that it's an instance of what I was speaking of above: an adequate description of a particular language's structures may demand "a third category".
If we say "topic" and "focus" instead of "given" and "new", you're suggesting that the verb is usually part of the "broad" topic if there is a broad topic (and therefore not usually part of the "narrow" focus). Something different could happen, but if it did, it would be marked, not unmarked.
It seems that you mistyped "focus" for "topic" (or vice versa) somewhere... But I think the answer is, yes, a language may treat not all of the "given" as belonging to "topic", and not all of the "new" as belonging to "focus", and thus it may exclude finite verbs from both domains most of the time.
If you permit not counting a (backgrounded) verb as part of the (broad) focus, I think Classical Arabic combines 1-4.
Interesting! Thanks.
Well, actually, I haven't seen any stats. But its thetic sentences are VSO, constructions with any dependents in pre-verbal position seem to be marked, the ordering of the post-verbal material is rather "free", and it seems that rheme is usually put last.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 01:00

Thanks, basilius.

So:
Does anyone (e.g. basilius, but also anyone else) have another conlanging "make these work together" challenge?
Or do most cbbers not much like this "game"?
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 01:52

eldin raigmore wrote:Does anyone (e.g. basilius, but also anyone else) have another conlanging "make these work together" challenge?
Or do most cbbers not much like this "game"?
I am interested (including in the similar game in the conworlds section), but it appears to be not so easy to formulate a good challenge.

OK, my first attempt at one, perhaps not really challenging (and certainly allowing for several solutions).

I am thinking of a natural-looking language with the following features:

1. It's monosyllabic, has at least three tones which are never subject to positional neutralizations, and has very few potential clitics (or, better, none); that is, even if there are "grammatical" words, they are also used independently or at least can carry full phrasal stress.
2. It is not isolating. Its nouns have at least three cases which, among other things, disambiguate between agent-like and patient-like arguments of transitive verbs, as well as at least two numbers; it may also have some morphology in verbs; bonus points for having three or more genders, preferably with at least partly non-semantic-based gender assignment.
3. There are no restrictions on the phonetic shape of the least marked form of noun, i. e. any phonotactically permitted syllable can be in principle the dictionary form of some noun.

(Sure, I am asking not for a detailed description, only for an outline of main traits, morphological techniques in the first place.)
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2457
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Keenir » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 05:28

{i forgot how to delete a post}
Last edited by Keenir on Tue 11 Jun 2013, 06:18, edited 1 time in total.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2457
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Keenir » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 06:17

1.
basilius wrote:I am thinking of a natural-looking language with the following features:
1. It's monosyllabic, has at least three tones which are never subject to positional neutralizations, and has very few potential clitics (or, better, none); that is, even if there are "grammatical" words, they are also used independently or at least can carry full phrasal stress.
2. It is not isolating. Its nouns have at least three cases which, among other things, disambiguate between agent-like and patient-like arguments of transitive verbs, as well as at least two numbers; it may also have some morphology in verbs; bonus points for having three or more genders, preferably with at least partly non-semantic-based gender assignment.
3. There are no restrictions on the phonetic shape of the least marked form of noun, i. e. any phonotactically permitted syllable can be in principle the dictionary form of some noun.
am tackling this.....and here:

1.
bírm bírg bír ò Yáy vè RheaƏ
bír-m bír-g bír ò Yáy vè Rhea-Ə
1-A 1-D 1 NP birthday POSS {name}-P
I am here for Rhea's birthday.

2.
bírm kèsh bō nƏ LokiƏ

bír-m kèsh bō nƏ Loki-Ə
1-A gun,shoot dual P {name}-P
I shot Loki twice.

is a form of reduplication for when the Patient is not aware of it {and is a root for the word "surprise"}

3.
bìrm kèsh ò rō sè sèƏ vè bír
bìr-m kèsh ò rō sè sè-Ə vè bír
2-A mouth,eat NP paucal dog dog POSS 1
You ate my dogs.


2.
keenir wrote:1. Distinguishes the future from the present&past.
2. Is easy to learn.
3. Noun phrases follow verb phrases.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 13:37

Keenir: it looks nice, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough, for it seems that you overlooked the two bits that were supposed to make it a challenge :)
Keenir wrote:bír-m bír-g bír ò Yáy vè Rhea-Ə
(Underlining added)

And:
I wrote:3. There are no restrictions on the phonetic shape of the least marked form of noun, i. e. any phonotactically permitted syllable can be in principle the dictionary form of some noun.
If bírm and bírg are phonotactically permitted syllables, then the language shouldn't disallow nouns whose dictionary form ends in -írm and -írg; now, the question which was supposed to make it a challenge is: how are the cases you glossed "A" and "D" formed with nouns already ending in (e. g.) -írm and -írg in their dictionary form?

The solution must also comply with the following:
I wrote:It <...> has very few potential clitics (or, better, none); that is, even if there are "grammatical" words, they are also used independently or at least can carry full phrasal stress.
The latter condition also means that you were supposed to explain how ò 'NP', 'POSS', 'dual', /Ə 'P', 'paucal' in your examples are used independently, or under full phrasal stress.

You seem to make a hint of that sort here:
is a form of reduplication for when the Patient is not aware of it {and is a root for the word "surprise"}
- but I don't understand "reduplication" in this context, and I'd expect some elaboration on why 'unaware-P marker' and 'surprise' are indeed one word and aren't perceived as simply homophones.
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2457
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Keenir » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 15:52

basilius wrote:Keenir: it looks nice,
thank you.
Keenir wrote:bír-m bír-g bír ò Yáy vè Rhea-Ə
(Underlining added)
And:
I wrote:3. There are no restrictions on the phonetic shape of the least marked form of noun, i. e. any phonotactically permitted syllable can be in principle the dictionary form of some noun.
If bírm and bírg are phonotactically permitted syllables, then the language shouldn't disallow nouns whose dictionary form ends in -írm and -írg; now, the question which was supposed to make it a challenge is: how are the cases you glossed "A" and "D" formed with nouns already ending in (e. g.) -írm and -írg in their dictionary form?
i meant to add that the syllables are CVCC and CVCV only, vowel-initial is not permitted. hence, no irms.
The solution must also comply with the following:
I wrote:It <...> has very few potential clitics (or, better, none); that is, even if there are "grammatical" words, they are also used independently or at least can carry full phrasal stress.
The latter condition also means that you were supposed to explain how ò 'NP', 'POSS', 'dual', /Ə 'P', 'paucal' in your examples are used independently, or under full phrasal stress.
I tackled what I could, and tried dabbling at the rest.
is a form of reduplication for when the Patient is not aware of it {and is a root for the word "surprise"}
- but I don't understand "reduplication" in this context,
the vowel repeats, and is fronted by a required consonant in a rare CV (yes, the lone o should have been Co)
and I'd expect some elaboration on why 'unaware-P marker' and 'surprise' are indeed one word and aren't perceived as simply homophones.
okay, i should have said "'surprise' is derived from this word" instead.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 16:57

Keenir wrote:2.
keenir wrote:1. Distinguishes the future from the present&past.
2. Is easy to learn.
3. Noun phrases follow verb phrases.
I understand (3) as implying that a verb must precede its dependents which are NP's, and *not* implying that a verb must precede a noun which is its syntactic head; nor that a dependent which isn't NP (e. g. is an adverb) must follow its head verb.

Also, I understand (1) as not specifying how the future is distinguished from non-future (i. e. whether it's a separate tense of the verb or something else).

Also, I understand (2) as implying that the grammatical structure must use few purely grammatical morphemes and allow for an optimization of the size of root lexicon.

Also, I am choosing a form of description which is intended to be logical but not necessarily easy for perception. The way of teaching the language should match the structure of the students' L1 anyway. For example, in explaining the preposition-verbs to a European student, one should probably first introduce them as prepositions (i. e. something familiar) and only later on to explain that they can also be used as regular verbs.

None of the conditions seems to require that the constructions of the language should be compact.

(A) Any verb has just one argument NP; with semantically transitive verbs, such NP is usually the agent-like argument.

(B) The main finite verb can have, and normally has, one or more lexical adverbs which are put before it. The sequence of such adverbs usually begins with an adverb setting the time frame for the verb.

Knowing (A) and (B), we can construe our first sample sentences:

Code: Select all

Ni        sipi  wawa.
Presently sleep dog.
'The dog is sleeping.' 

Nana         awa  lapa wawa.
A.moment.ago away run  dog.
'The dog has just run away.'
(C) If the verb has no timeframe adverb before it, it is implied that the time frame is the same as with a preceding verb; this "zero time frame" is glossed '<while>' in the examples below.

Code: Select all

Nana         yawa    wawa ∅       awa  lapa si.
A.moment.ago wake.up dog  <while> away run  3.
'The dog has just woken up and run away.'
(D) Verbs in zero time frame can be used as equivalents of prepositions.

Code: Select all

Na          kimi si ∅       iti           tama. 
In.the.past come 3  <while> be.the.source town.
'He came from the town.'  

Ni        ta si ∅       unu           tapa.
Presently be 3  <while> be.whereunder table.
'It is under the table.'
(E) Such preposition-verbs include a few with rather abstract meanings like 'be perceived', 'be the result' and 'be the object of action'; these are used to introduce the patient-like arguments of intransitive verbs.
Edit: Obviously, I meant "transitive" :(

Code: Select all

Na          yasi mi ∅       ya           wawa.
In.the.past see  1  <while> be.perceived dog. 
'I saw a dog.'

Na          tili  mi ∅       pa            si.
In.the.past break 1  <while> be.the.object 3.
'I broke it.'

Na          tili  si ∅       pa            tapa ∅       pu            wama.
In.the.past break 3  <while> be.the.object wall <while> be.the.result hole.
'He tore a hole in the wall.'
(F) Nominal predicates are by default construed by repeating the verb ta 'be'.

Code: Select all

Ni        ta si ∅       ta talu.
Presently be 3  <while> be tree.
'It's a tree.' 
(G) Relative clauses are construed with the relative pronoun wi 'which' put immediately after the head noun. If the head noun's role in the relative clause is the subject-like argument of the clause's first verb, no other marking is needed.

Code: Select all

Yana   wi    na          tili  ∅       pa            tapa ∅       pu            wama.
Person which in.the.past break <while> be.the.object wall <while> be.the.result hole.
'The person who tore the hole in the wall.' 
(H) If the head noun's role in the relative clause is an argument of any verb other than the first one, the so-called passive marker ka is put in the position where the respective argument would normally be placed.

Code: Select all

Tapa wi    na          tili  si ∅       pa            ka   ∅       pu            wama.
Wall which in.the.past break 3  <while> be.the.object PASS <while> be.the.result hole.
'The wall which he tore the hole in.'

Wama wi    na          tili  si ∅       pa            tapa ∅       pu            ka.
Hole which in.the.past break 3  <while> be.the.object wall <while> be.the.result PASS.
'The hole which he tore in the wall.' 
(I) Lexical equivalents of adjectives are verbs which are often used in relative clauses; zero time frame can be used if the relative clause denotes a constant characteristic of the head noun, or when the time frame is the same as in the main clause.

Code: Select all

Ni        mawa   tuma.
Presently be.big house.
'The house is big'.

Tuma  wi    mawa.
House which be.big.
'A big house'. 
(J) If there are several relative clauses with one head noun, they must be construed as coordinated (mostly with the conjunction wa 'and').

Code: Select all

Wama wi    mawa   wa  wi    na          tili  si ∅       pu            ka   ∅       pa            tapa.
Hole which be.big and which in.the.past break 3  <while> be.the.result PASS <while> be.the.object wall. 
'The big hole he tore in the wall.' 
(K) The relative wi can be followed by a noun, which is the default equivalent of the genitive construction. Such constructions may still include a time-frame adverb.

Code: Select all

Tuma  wi    mi.
House which 1.
'My house'.

Tuma  wi    na          mi.
House which in.the.past 1.
'My former house'.

(L) Relative clauses can be used without a head noun. Such headless relative clauses are often used to front or postpone an argument.

Code: Select all

Na          ta wawa ∅       ta wi    yasi mi ∅       ya           ka.
In.the.past be dog  <while> be which see  1  <while> be.perceived PASS.
'It was a dog that I saw.'

Na          ta wi    yasi mi ∅       ya           ka    ∅       ta wawa.
In.the.past be which see  1  <while> be.perceived PASS. <while> be dog.
'What I saw was a dog.' 
(M) Clauses can be substantivized using the subordinating particle ku; time-frame adverbs become optional.

Code: Select all

Na          yasi mi ∅       ya           ku   tili  si ∅       pa            tapa ∅       pu            wama.    
In.the.past see  1  <while> be.perceived that break 3  <while> be.the.object wall <while> be.the.result hole.
'I saw him tearing a big hole in the wall. '
(N) To demote an argument one can replace it with the indefinite pronoun ma 'one, someone'.

Code: Select all

Nu            awa  mu  lapa wawa ∅       ta yasu   ∅       ta ku   ni        nupa ma      pa            si  ki         talu.
In.the.future away not run  dog  <while> be reason <while> be that presently tie  someone be.the.object 3   be.whereto tree. 
The dog won't run away because it is tied to the tree. 
Probably enough for now :)
Last edited by basilius on Tue 11 Jun 2013, 23:47, edited 3 times in total.
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 17:51

Keenir wrote: i meant to add that the syllables are CVCC and CVCV only, vowel-initial is not permitted. hence, no irms.
OK. Suppose a foreigner comes and informs the speakers of your language that his name is Kírg, and his girlfriend's name is Sírm.

The forms bírg and bírm in your examples seem to imply that kírg and sírm are well-formed syllables in the language (or at any rate that nothing is wrong with their coda clusters).

My third condition says that it's illegal to claim that such syllables are not permitted as dictionary forms of nouns.

So, how are the cases of the two names in question formed?
and I'd expect some elaboration on why 'unaware-P marker' and 'surprise' are indeed one word and aren't perceived as simply homophones.
okay, i should have said "'surprise' is derived from this word" instead.
That's not enough; you're saying that the two items are etymologically connected, but this doesn't automatically mean that they are one word. In English, will (the future auxiliary) and will (the noun, and the independent verb) are etymologically connected, too, but they can hardly be considered the same word.

Your claim about the connection between the two items solving the problem in my first condition might work, for example, if one of the following two statements were true.

(1) Case markers are underlyingly nouns; this requires an explanation of what is their underlying syntactic position when they are used as case markers, and some examples of other nouns used in the same type of construction (if other nouns aren't used in the same position, then the claim that case markers are nouns is obviously void).

(2) Case markers aren't nouns but represent another class of words, and the words in this class can be productively substantivized. Basically, this implies the same type of elaboration as above, only quirkier :)
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2457
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Keenir » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 21:30

basilius wrote:
Keenir wrote: i meant to add that the syllables are CVCC and CVCV only, vowel-initial is not permitted. hence, no irms.
OK. Suppose a foreigner comes and informs the speakers of your language that his name is Kírg, and his girlfriend's name is Sírm.
The forms bírg and bírm in your examples seem to imply that kírg and sírm are well-formed syllables in the language (or at any rate that nothing is wrong with their coda clusters).

My third condition says that it's illegal to claim that such syllables are not permitted as dictionary forms of nouns.
true. but you also said its not isolating...and its monosylabic. so I had to decide which was more important - to keep it monosylabic with cases, or to have every syllable (and its components*) in the dictionary.

speaking of which, you handled my 3-set very well. now its your turn to post your next 3-set for whomever goes next. that is how I understand the rules of this enjoyable game.


* = imho, it seems strange to say that, if BIR and BIRM are syllables, that the fragment IRM should also be a syllable. (wouldn't that make it b-ir-m ?)
okay, i should have said "'surprise' is derived from this word" instead.
That's not enough; you're saying that the two items are etymologically connected, but this doesn't automatically mean that they are one word. In English, will (the future auxiliary) and will (the noun, and the independent verb) are etymologically connected, too, but they can hardly be considered the same word. [/quote]

i suppose more like "bat" (to hit) and "batten down" (preparing for being hit by X)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 23:09

Keenir wrote:
basilius wrote:<...>
The forms bírg and bírm in your examples seem to imply that kírg and sírm are well-formed syllables in the language (or at any rate that nothing is wrong with their coda clusters).

My third condition says that it's illegal to claim that such syllables are not permitted as dictionary forms of nouns.
true. but you also said its not isolating...and its monosylabic. so I had to decide which was more important - to keep it monosylabic with cases, or to have every syllable (and its components*) in the dictionary.
No, I didn't mean that all the possible syllables are assigned meanings, only that no combination of sounds/features permitted in well-formed syllables can be forbidden in dictionary forms of nouns. (Actually, I'd be even happier if this had been extended to also cover verbs and other open classes of words, but it seemed that perhaps I could have wanted too much...)

And yes, I think "non-isolating" and "monosyllabic" are compatible with this requirement, even if combining them is indeed a challenge.

There are some more-less obvious solutions, but if applied straightforwardly, they'll look a bit engelangish, and I want a naturalistic language.

OK, if no-one proposes a solution (or, better, an overview of possible solutions) in, like, a couple days, I'll post some hints.
speaking of which, you handled my 3-set very well.
Thank you! I tried very hard to :)
now its your turn to post your next 3-set for whomever goes next. that is how I understand the rules of this enjoyable game.
Well, as I said, it doesn't seem easy to me to formulate an interesting challenge... I tried, and it seems that I failed... the wordings of my conditions, obviously, weren't very clear, and I didn't insist enough that yes sure I do indeed want literally all the three with no reservations whatsoever to be nicely combined in precisely one natural-looking language :)

So I suggest softening the rule a bit, even if it was supposed to be like you said.
Last edited by basilius on Fri 14 Jun 2013, 18:41, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 23:24

basilius wrote:... it doesn't seem easy to me to formulate an interesting challenge... I tried, and it seems that I failed... the wordings of my conditions, obviously, weren't very clear, ....
What he said, but change the antecedent of "I" and "me" to "eldin raigmore".
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 23:36

eldin: in fact, this makes the game doubly challenging, that is, even more interesting :)

EDIT: and, by the way, even misinterpreted challenges can lead to interesting combinations of features, like e. g. in Keenir's treatment of mine.
Post Reply