Random ideas: Morphosyntax

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6072
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Ahzoh » Thu 30 Jul 2015, 03:47

eldin raigmore wrote:
qwed117 wrote:dis-"source"- indicating sources
wouldn't that be "di-source" -- two sources?
no, dis- "asunder, apart, away" + source
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor » Thu 30 Jul 2015, 12:59

eldin raigmore wrote:@Creyeditor; Thanks.
So would "pop" and "bang" be disourse particles?
And are you expecting the conlang to be a Romlang?
Either these or the reduplicated /retriplicated .... forms. Also, it would phonetically maybe something like [pʼʰʷɔ̥p̚]. I guess either that or a roam- or roarlang.
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]
User avatar
Ear of the Sphinx
metal
metal
Posts: 1987
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2010, 00:41
Location: Nose of the Sun

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Ear of the Sphinx » Thu 30 Jul 2015, 22:25

Ahzoh wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
qwed117 wrote:dis-"source"- indicating sources
wouldn't that be "di-source" -- two sources?
no, dis- "asunder, apart, away" + source
No, that would be “dissourse”, not “disourse”.
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5765
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore » Fri 31 Jul 2015, 12:54

Creyeditor wrote:I guess either that or a roam- or roarlang.

A roarlang? That makes sense.

OTOH if this were spoken by the first humans to try to enter the Americas, they might have done so much sooner than in RealLife.
If it's true that the "short-faced cave bear" held up such a settlement for a long time.
User avatar
Sights
sinic
sinic
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 20:47

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Sights » Mon 03 Aug 2015, 07:13

The following are two features of Ba which I had developed independently of each other:

1) Obligatory possession for (most) body parts nouns:

pandiahu
pandia-hu
shoulder-1SG.POSS
"my shoulder"

2) Lots of body parts also function as prepositions:

pandia
"beside"

(Not at the same time, of course. There would be little to no ambiguity as to whether a certain word is a noun like "shoulder" or a preposition like "beside".)

When I first decided to use body part locatives, the fact that body parts nouns were supposed to be obligatorily possessed sort of slipped my mind. I forgot about the subject and went on to develop other parts of the grammar. I recently revisited this and it hit me that I might have inadvertently created a system of conjugated prepositions, like that of Irish.

Atheue pandiahu.
Athé=we pandia-hu
Stand=2SG beside-1SG.POSS
"You stand next to me".

Thoughts? [:)]
Last edited by Sights on Mon 03 Aug 2015, 08:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6072
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Ahzoh » Mon 03 Aug 2015, 07:17

Seems logical.

I wonder if it would be sensible to have gender agreement of a body part that belongs to someone of a gender:

their-NEUT heart-NEUT
her-FEM heart-FEM
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9115
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 03 Aug 2015, 07:43

Sights wrote:The following are two features of Ba which I had developed independently of each other:
Spoiler:
1) Obligatory possession for (most) body parts nouns:

pandiahu
pandia-hu
shoulder-1SG.POSS
"my shoulder"

2) Lots of body parts also function as prepositions:

pandia
"beside"

(Not at the same time, of course. There would be little to no ambiguity as to whether a certain word is a noun like "shoulder" or a preposition like "beside".)
When I first decided to use body part locatives, the fact that body parts nouns were supposed to be obligatorily possessed sort of slipped my mind. I forgot about the subject and went on to develop other parts of the grammar. I recently revisited this and it hit me that I might have inadvertently created a system of conjugated prepositions, like that of Irish.

Athewe pandiahu.
Athé=we pandia-hu
Stand=2SG beside-1SG.POSS
"You stand next to me".

Thoughts? [:)]
All interesting ideas. I'm guess I'm unclear, however, about something regarding the final example there. Would that be an example of the language before or after you remembered that you had required body parts to be possessed? If it's after, what would that example have looked like before?
Ahzoh wrote:Seems logical.

I wonder if it would be sensible to have gender agreement of a body part that belongs to someone of a gender:

their-NEUT heart-NEUT
her-FEM heart-FEM
Cool! Also, that doesn't seem all that outlandish to me.
User avatar
Sights
sinic
sinic
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 20:47

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Sights » Mon 03 Aug 2015, 08:27

shimobaatar wrote:All interesting ideas. I'm guess I'm unclear, however, about something regarding the final example there. Would that be an example of the language before or after you remembered that you had required body parts to be possessed? If it's after, what would that example have looked like before?
Right, I wasn't too clear about that, heh. Obligatorily possessed nouns show possession by means of suffixes, which differ from the personal pronouns. For all other nouns, the possessor simply follows the possessee. Before I remembered, the example I gave would have been:

Atheue pandia hau
Athé-ue pandia hau
Stand-2SG beside 1SG
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9115
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 03 Aug 2015, 18:48

Sights wrote:Obligatorily possessed nouns show possession by means of suffixes, which differ from the personal pronouns. For all other nouns, the possessor simply follows the possessee. Before I remembered, the example I gave would have been:

Atheue pandia hau
Athé-ue pandia hau
Stand-2SG beside 1SG
Cool! Thanks for the clarification. [:D]
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by k1234567890y » Sat 26 Sep 2015, 17:48

I have an idea about a language where the speaker is forced to express his/her own feeling towards everything or event talked about, and if the speaker doesn't have a bad feeling towards it, he/she must use markers for good feelings.
Click here and here to know more about me.

夢見るオンナノコ(Dreaming girls)
だれでもプリンセス(All of them are princesses)
恋するオンナノコ(Girls in love)
ホンキ!ムテキ!カンペキ!(Serious! Invincible! Perfect!)
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5765
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore » Sun 27 Sep 2015, 04:11

k1234567890y wrote:I have an idea about a language where the speaker is forced to express his/her own feeling towards everything or event talked about, and if the speaker doesn't have a bad feeling towards it, he/she must use markers for good feelings.
On the CWBB there was talk about a pheromonal language. Pheromones are much like hormones save they are meant to affect one's conspecifics rather than oneself. Any "utterance" would certainly contain the "speaker's" emotional state as a big part of its information content; and, for the most part, would trigger a similar-but-perhaps-slightly-lesser emotion in the "addressee". Lying (to members of one's own species, at least) would be impossible. (Not that one couldn't deceive them non-linguistically.) (And specimen of other species could "lie" -- falsely imitate the right pheromones -- in order to gain some advantage over the speakers' society.)
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by k1234567890y » Sun 27 Sep 2015, 05:09

eldin raigmore wrote:
k1234567890y wrote:I have an idea about a language where the speaker is forced to express his/her own feeling towards everything or event talked about, and if the speaker doesn't have a bad feeling towards it, he/she must use markers for good feelings.
On the CWBB there was talk about a pheromonal language. Pheromones are much like hormones save they are meant to affect one's conspecifics rather than oneself. Any "utterance" would certainly contain the "speaker's" emotional state as a big part of its information content; and, for the most part, would trigger a similar-but-perhaps-slightly-lesser emotion in the "addressee". Lying (to members of one's own species, at least) would be impossible. (Not that one couldn't deceive them non-linguistically.) (And specimen of other species could "lie" -- falsely imitate the right pheromones -- in order to gain some advantage over the speakers' society.)
ok :)

thank you for your information, Eldin :)
Click here and here to know more about me.

夢見るオンナノコ(Dreaming girls)
だれでもプリンセス(All of them are princesses)
恋するオンナノコ(Girls in love)
ホンキ!ムテキ!カンペキ!(Serious! Invincible! Perfect!)
HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sat 16 May 2015, 17:48

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by HoskhMatriarch » Wed 30 Sep 2015, 04:49

I don't think this is remotely naturalistic, but I got an idea for a language with nothing but verbs. Every kind of grammatical information is represented by verbal affixes, and noun stems and such can never appear seperately from verbs. So you would say things like (yes, this is somewhat incoherent rambling)

I-man-heard.of he-thereto-went he-thing-brought-PLU-and he-wife-had she-talked.to-me-and I-was.alone-because I-home-be.at-not I-work-have-because I-do-NECC-it

So basically, the most extreme head-marking imaginable, where a clause is a verb and a verb is a clause.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5765
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 30 Sep 2015, 18:06

HoskhMatriarch wrote:I don't think this is remotely naturalistic, but I got an idea for a language with nothing but verbs. Every kind of grammatical information is represented by verbal affixes, and noun stems and such can never appear seperately from verbs. So you would say things like (yes, this is somewhat incoherent rambling)
I-man-heard.of he-thereto-went he-thing-brought-PLU-and he-wife-had she-talked.to-me-and I-was.alone-because I-home-be.at-not I-work-have-because I-do-NECC-it
So basically, the most extreme head-marking imaginable, where a clause is a verb and a verb is a clause.
In the "most extremely" polysynthetic languages, a clause whose participants are all pronominal, is likely to consist just of the verb -- if I understand correctly (Micamo will know).
And, IIRC, there's a South Asian polylang in which "apple" is "-k-". It only ever shows up incorporated into something.

So I think your idea may turn out to be more naturalistic than you thought. In other words: ANADEW.

The unlikely thing in your example is the subordinate clauses. Polysynthetic languages don't usually have a lot of relative clauses; "the house that Jack built" is hard to translate into a (very) polysynthetic language, or so I hear.
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by loglorn » Wed 30 Sep 2015, 20:46

eldin raigmore wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:I don't think this is remotely naturalistic, but I got an idea for a language with nothing but verbs. Every kind of grammatical information is represented by verbal affixes, and noun stems and such can never appear seperately from verbs. So you would say things like (yes, this is somewhat incoherent rambling)
I-man-heard.of he-thereto-went he-thing-brought-PLU-and he-wife-had she-talked.to-me-and I-was.alone-because I-home-be.at-not I-work-have-because I-do-NECC-it
So basically, the most extreme head-marking imaginable, where a clause is a verb and a verb is a clause.
In the "most extremely" polysynthetic languages, a clause whose participants are all pronominal, is likely to consist just of the verb -- if I understand correctly (Micamo will know).
And, IIRC, there's a South Asian polylang in which "apple" is "-k-". It only ever shows up incorporated into something.

So I think your idea may turn out to be more naturalistic than you thought. In other words: ANADEW.

The unlikely thing in your example is the subordinate clauses. Polysynthetic languages don't usually have a lot of relative clauses; "the house that Jack built" is hard to translate into a (very) polysynthetic language, or so I hear.
Salishan languages can be analyzed as having no nouns, only verbs. There are arguments against it, but i haven't read them.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
qzorum
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed 25 Feb 2015, 01:41
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by qzorum » Fri 22 Apr 2016, 17:45

loglorn wrote:Salishan languages can be analyzed as having no nouns, only verbs. There are arguments against it, but i haven't read them.
Honestly I'm not sure why the Salish languages always get singled out as lacking a noun/verb distinction. They definitely have syntactic nouns and verbs, it's just that roots can be cast into any syntactic role, regardless of semantics. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, that's not actually all that unusual (Classical Nahuatl functioned something like that), it's just not usually characterized in the same way as the Salish languages are.
Native :usa: | Fluent :nld: | Proficient :zho: :esp: | Basic :tur: :rus:

:con: Lavvìnko and Botharu, sister languages of the early modern Malay Peninsula

500 Word Answers, a blog about conlangy things and a couple other things too
Iyionaku
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sun 25 May 2014, 13:17

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Iyionaku » Fri 22 Apr 2016, 21:01

qzorum wrote:
loglorn wrote:Salishan languages can be analyzed as having no nouns, only verbs. There are arguments against it, but i haven't read them.
Honestly I'm not sure why the Salish languages always get singled out as lacking a noun/verb distinction. They definitely have syntactic nouns and verbs, it's just that roots can be cast into any syntactic role, regardless of semantics. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, that's not actually all that unusual (Classical Nahuatl functioned something like that), it's just not usually characterized in the same way as the Salish languages are.
My conlang Caelian has quadriliteral roots that can be formed morphologically to represent nouns, verbs, and adjectives; there is nothing special or difficult about it. However, as far as I'm concerned what loglorn means is that there is no structure in the salishan languages that acts like a verb usually does: it "conveys an action (bring, read, walk, run, learn), an occurrence (happen, become), or a state of being (be, exist, stand)" (Wikipedia). I have only seen few glosses from Salishan, but it appears that there are state markers that seem to be morphologically nouns and so describe the action: So instead of saying "The walking man suddenly managed to see a woman he had not seen for years", Salishan would say something like "Man on foot at a beginning eye on top of a woman a castback of finals years ago" or something like that.

However, we all should think honestly about it and to say it after Mark Rosenfelder: If there was a language that has a noun that describes "castback of finals years ago": Why would we translate it that way and not how it is: "had not seen years ago"?

Yet I think as a predicate conveys the "heart" of a sentence, it should, in my opinion, be way easier to create a language consisting just of verbs like proposed before than without nouns. But there is the same: walk-road-SUBL-1SG-PST-IMPF would be translated as a Subject - Predicate - Adverbial sentence in English: "I have been walking down the road" instead of "*roadwalkeddownmyself" or such.
Heaven and Earth, but I feel the color of the cake when you keep the Victoria.
I had a mantra on the moss and I had to go to bed.


Oh, and there is a [ɕ] in my name!
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9115
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by shimobaatar » Sun 10 Jul 2016, 02:48

Two very quick ideas based on my misunderstanding of a question Keenir asked in the "(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here" thread.

Possessive adjectives take different forms depending on the presence and/or role of the possessor in the sentence. Superscript numbers signify different words.

I see my¹ book. (The possessor is the agent.)
My² book hit me. (The possessor is the patient.)
My³ book is next to me. (The possessor is the oblique argument.)
I am running with my⁴ book. (The possessor is the experiencer.)
You ate my⁵ book. (The possessor is only involved as the possessor.)

If I ever use this idea, there probably won't be so many distinctions, but those are just possibilities that came to me.

Pronouns are replaced by possessive adjectives if a possessive adjective is present elsewhere in the sentence.

I see a book.
I see the book.
My see my book.

I just wanted to share these; I'm not sure how realistic these ideas are, but I at least found them interesting.
User avatar
Imralu
greek
greek
Posts: 796
Joined: Sun 17 Nov 2013, 22:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Imralu » Sun 31 Jul 2016, 05:57

qzorum wrote:Honestly I'm not sure why the Salish languages always get singled out as lacking a noun/verb distinction. They definitely have syntactic nouns and verbs, it's just that roots can be cast into any syntactic role, regardless of semantics. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, that's not actually all that unusual (Classical Nahuatl functioned something like that), it's just not usually characterized in the same way as the Salish languages are.
From what I've read, Classical Nahuatl has unidirectional flexibility, meaning morphological nouns can be freely inflected and used as verbs, but morphological verbs are marked to be used in nouny positions. It's been argued that this is also the case for Salishan and Wakashan languages, but there are also instances where verby-words are used in nouny positions without being marked and the guy who has argued that they only have unidirectional flexibility concedes this point, so it's kind of unsettled. If it does turn out that Salishan and/or Wakashan languages do have bidirectional flexibility, this will probably be unique among natlangs.

There are also other languages, mostly Austronesian and I think also Munda (?) languages, that are argued to be "precategorical", with lexemes not being assigned a role as either nouns or verbs ... but I can't see how this is anything other than extensively applied zero-derivation as the noun meanings and the verb meanings are non-systematically related to each other.
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific, AG = agent, E = entity (person, animal, thing)
________
MY MUSIC
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor » Mon 08 Aug 2016, 19:05

I had an idea for a naturalistic self-segregating morphosyntax. Instead of using segments one could use phonological features or prosodic units. An example would be a language where words can only start with a marked laryngeal feature, e.g. aspirated stops, a glottal stop, etc. Phrases always end in a nasal sound (stolen from a similar process in Konni) or if you want to be even more natural in a long vowel. Here are some strings and there automatic segregation. I guess there may be similar features in natlangs for utterances and/or morphemes, especially if we look at suprasegmental features like tone.

bʰäntʰugʰamkʰebʰenʔigãkʰodägodikʰoduqinpʰagʰogiqan = bʰän, tʰu gʰam, kʰebʰen, ʔigã, kʰodägodi kʰoduqin, pʰa gʰogiqan.
pʰãkʰuqanʔetapetĩʔimgʰotidän = pʰã kʰuqan, ʔetapetĩ, ʔim, gʰotidän.
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]
Post Reply