Random ideas: Morphosyntax

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Imralu
greek
greek
Posts: 796
Joined: Sun 17 Nov 2013, 22:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Imralu » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 17:01

So, in a sentence like "I'll have you kill him", "I" would be the indirect subject, "you" the direct subject and "him" in absolutive... and the verb could simply be the normal "kill/die" verb, yes?
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
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5764
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Interesting case system

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 17 Jan 2017, 02:08

Hyolobrika wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:And the instigator goes in the "anti-vocative" because he/she/it/they is/are/could be the source of an imperative to the causee?
It could, but not neccesarily,
You see, note that - as in other languages - the vocative identifies the destination of the information while the absolutive and the 'benefactive' identify the destinations of the action.
So - in the same way - the antivocative contains evidential information (it is the source of the information, hence it is the opposite of the vocative) wheras the causative and ergative are sources of the action hence they are opposites of the 'benefactive' and absolutive respectively.
OK, so --
Why isn't "vocative" the same as "logophoric second person",
and "anti-vocative" the same as "logophoric first person"?
Or are they equivalent?
And is "anti-vocative" actually a hearsay evidential mark applied to a noun (or nominal or pronoun or pronominal) instead of to, for instance, a verb? If not, why not?

[hr][/hr]

(1). Is there anything in the latest several posts that you don't understand, and/or couldn't look up?

(2). I bet several of us could understand better some of the things you're saying if you could illustrate them with examples; especially if you could contrast them with near-miss non-examples.
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Frislander » Wed 18 Jan 2017, 14:22

Random idea as to a verb complex.

The verb phrase comes in two main parts: the auxiliary and the main verb. The auxiliary comes from a restricted set of semantically bleached verbs ("be", "go", "do" etc.) and is the part of the complex which can stand on its own. Each auxiliary encodes the valency of the whole verb complex, as well as taking polypersonal marking for the whole verb complex. The main verb selects its auxiliary based on its own inherent valency. This main verb encodes most of the other verbal categories: aspect, mood and evidentiality, which are all mixed into one giant heap of combined forms. Aspect is the most lexicalised of these, with each verb having its own inherent Aktionsart. Perfective verbs display the greatest number of evidentiality distinctions: seen first-hand, first-hand from another sense, reported and deduced from secondhand evidence. Imperfective and stative verbs only make a direct-indirect distinction. These evidentiality markers may instead be replaced by an optative marker pr subordinating affix, or they may coexist with an interrogative marker, where the evidential indicates the expected source of knowledge for the answer.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5764
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 18 Jan 2017, 18:08

Frislander wrote:Random idea as to a verb complex.

The verb phrase comes in two main parts: the auxiliary and the main verb. The auxiliary comes from a restricted set of semantically bleached verbs ("be", "go", "do" etc.) and is the part of the complex which can stand on its own. Each auxiliary encodes the valency of the whole verb complex, as well as taking polypersonal marking for the whole verb complex. The main verb selects its auxiliary based on its own inherent valency. This main verb encodes most of the other verbal categories: aspect, mood and evidentiality, which are all mixed into one giant heap of combined forms. Aspect is the most lexicalised of these, with each verb having its own inherent Aktionsart. Perfective verbs display the greatest number of evidentiality distinctions: seen first-hand, first-hand from another sense, reported and deduced from secondhand evidence. Imperfective and stative verbs only make a direct-indirect distinction. These evidentiality markers may instead be replaced by an optative marker pr subordinating affix, or they may coexist with an interrogative marker, where the evidential indicates the expected source of knowledge for the answer.
To me, this sounds more like light-verb + lexical content-word, rather than auxiliary word + main verb.
(Although it isn't purely either of those.)

Light verbs are semantically "light" rather than semantically "empty"; they don't have much lexical content, but they have some. This may be because they have been semantically "bleached".
Since light verbs can stand by themselves, they have -- or get marked for -- all verbal categories (including valence, agreement, aspect, mood, evidentiality, illocutionary force (e.g. interrogative), polarity, mirativity, pluractionality, validationality) for which any of the language's verbs get marked (either lexically inherent, or derivational, or inflectional, or syntactic, or with an auxiliary word).
If lexical content-words can't stand by themselves as verbs -- that is, as nuclei of clauses -- they syntactically "aren't verbs", in a manner of speaking.

Verbal auxiliary-words, OTOH, are words that tell any of the following (and possibly other) verbal accidents of some syntactically related verb; aspect, modality/mode/mood (possibly including for instance realis/irrealis, declarative/interrogative/imperative, main clause vs subordinate clause), polarity (affirmative or negative), tense, and/or voice.
If an auxiliary word does not inflect, it's a particle, and its distribution and other syntactic behavior may be idiosyncratic.
But if it inflects, it usually behaves syntactically as if it were a verb, and the main verb were its object. This often happens because it is diachronically derived (via semantic bleaching) from a biclausal construction in which the now-auxiliary-word's ancestor was the verb of the main clause, and the now-main-verb's ancestor was the nucleus of a subordinate complement clause.

In your setup what you call "the auxiliary" can "stand on its own" (I assume that means, can be the nucleus of a clause), so it deserves to be called some kind of verb; since it's semantically bleached, it counts as a "light verb". It either has an inherent valency, or can be marked for valency; and it inflects for (polypersonal) agreement with (some -- at least two if there are two) of its participants. So it's a verb.
What you call "the main verb", has some inherent verb-accidents, in particular including valency and aktionsart (lexically-inherent aspectual class); and inflects for aspect, mood, and evidentiality. Apparently it can also inflect for optativity and for subordination, and can take an interrogative auxiliary particle -- unless that particle applies rather to the light-verb, or to the whole clause, instead of to "the main verb".
All of that makes it sound very verb-like.
But if it can't stand on its own as the nucleus of a clause, it can't be completely verb-like, can it?

I'd say the "verbishness" is distributed over the entire light-or-auxiliary-verb + main-verb complex.

[hr][/hr]

This reminds me a lot of a "Tibetan Dwarvish" conlang one of us (Vardelm) worked on, in which verb-complexes were simultaneously both lightverb+contentword and auxiliaryword+mainverb. The light verb carried all the grammatical marking, including all the verbal accidents (and thus also counted as "the auxiliary"); the content-word carried almost all of the lexical, semantic content.
Edit: Also see Ossicone's "Hjusan".
[hr][/hr]

I have more questions, because your idea sounds interesting. I should probably wait and read your next post, though.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Mon 06 Mar 2017, 06:42, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Frislander » Wed 18 Jan 2017, 22:53

eldin raigmore wrote:
Spoiler:
Frislander wrote:Random idea as to a verb complex.

The verb phrase comes in two main parts: the auxiliary and the main verb. The auxiliary comes from a restricted set of semantically bleached verbs ("be", "go", "do" etc.) and is the part of the complex which can stand on its own. Each auxiliary encodes the valency of the whole verb complex, as well as taking polypersonal marking for the whole verb complex. The main verb selects its auxiliary based on its own inherent valency. This main verb encodes most of the other verbal categories: aspect, mood and evidentiality, which are all mixed into one giant heap of combined forms. Aspect is the most lexicalised of these, with each verb having its own inherent Aktionsart. Perfective verbs display the greatest number of evidentiality distinctions: seen first-hand, first-hand from another sense, reported and deduced from secondhand evidence. Imperfective and stative verbs only make a direct-indirect distinction. These evidentiality markers may instead be replaced by an optative marker pr subordinating affix, or they may coexist with an interrogative marker, where the evidential indicates the expected source of knowledge for the answer.
To me, this sounds more like light-verb + lexical content-word, rather than auxiliary word + main verb.
(Although it isn't purely either of those.)

Light verbs are semantically "light" rather than semantically "empty"; they don't have much lexical content, but they have some. This may be cause they have been semantically "bleached".
Since light verbs can stand by themselves, they have -- or get marked for -- all verbal categories )including valence, agreement, aspect, mood, evidentiality, illocution (e.g. interrogative), polarity, mirativity, pluractionality, validationality) for which any of the language's verbs get marked (either lexically inherent, or derivational, or inflectional, or syntactic, or with an auxiliary word).
If lexical content-words can't stand by themselves as verbs -- that is, as nuclei of clauses -- they syntactically "aren't verbs", in a manner of speaking.

Verbal auxiliary-words, OTOH, are words that tell any of the following (and possibly other) verbal accidents of some syntactically related verb; aspect, modality/mode/mood (possibly including for instance realis/irrealis, declarative/interrogative/declarative, main clause vs subordinate clause), polarity (affirmative or negative), tense, and/or voice.
If an auxiliary word does not inflect, it's a particle, and its distribution and other syntactic behavior may be idiosyncratic.
But if it inflects, it usually behaves syntactically as if it were a verb, and the main verb were its object. This often happens because it is diachronically derived (via semantic bleaching) from a biclausal construction in which the now-auxiliary-word's ancestor was the verb of the main clause, and the now-main-verb's ancestor was the nucleus of a subordinate complement clause.

In your setup what you call "the auxiliary" can "stand on its own" (I assume that means, can be the nucleus of a clause), so it deserves to be called some kind of verb; since it's semantically bleached, it counts as a "light verb". It either has an inherent valency, or can be marked for valency; and it inflects for (polypersonal) agreement with (some -- at least two if there are two) of its participants. So it's a verb.
What you call "the main verb", has some inherent verb-accidents, in particular including valency and aktionsart (lexically-inherent aspectual class); and inflects for aspect, mood, and evidentiality. Apparently it can also inflect for optativity and for subordination, and can take an interrogative auxiliary particle -- unless that particle applies rather to the light-verb, or to the whole clause, instead of to "the main verb".
All of that makes it sound very verb-like.
But if it can't stand on its own as the nucleus of a clause, it can't be completely verb-like, can it?

I'd say the "verbishness" is distributed over the entire light-or-auxiliary-verb + main-verb complex.

[hr][/hr]

This reminds me a lot of a "Tibetan Dwarvish" conlang one of us (Vardelm) worked on, in which verb-complexes were simultaneously both lightverb+contentword and auxiliaryword+mainverb. The light verb carried all the grammatical marking, including all the verbal accidents (and thus also counted as "the auxiliary"); the content-word carried almost all of the lexical, semantic content.
Edit: Also see Ossicone's "Hjusan".
[hr][/hr]

I have more questions, because your idea sounds interesting. I should probably wait and read your next post, though.
Alright, thank you for the feedback. Maybe then my statement regarding the independence of the auxiliaries was a little unfounded, so I'll change that to "verb phrases are minimally an auxiliary plus a content verb".

Or perhaps alternatively the verb complex comes in the form light verb + main verb, with person/valency being marked by the light verb + prefixes, while the main verb + suffixes encode aspect, mood & evidentiality?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5764
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 06:51

Frislander wrote:Alright, thank you for the feedback. Maybe then my statement regarding the independence of the auxiliaries was a little unfounded, so I'll change that to "verb phrases are minimally an auxiliary plus a content verb".
Or perhaps alternatively the verb complex comes in the form light verb + main verb, with person/valency being marked by the light verb + prefixes, while the main verb + suffixes encode aspect, mood & evidentiality?


I think to have either of those, you'd have to have them both.

A light verb can't "stand by itself" unless it can be a "finite" (aka "finished") verb, inflected (or derived or whatever) for all the categories for which the nuclear verbs of the language's main clauses are inflected (or derived or whatever).

OTOH, if an auxiliary word is sometimes needed to communicate some values of those grammatical categories (the ones for which the language's main-clauses' nuclear verbs inflect), then the main verbs will, sometimes, not be able to stand by themselves.
For instance, suppose past-tense can be shown by inflection, but future-tense requires an auxiliary word; or, affirmativity can be assumed if there's nothing marking otherwise, but negative polarity requires an auxiliary. Then a clause which is negative-polarity and future-tense would have to have an auxiliary; the main-verb "couldn't stand alone" in such a clause, (even though, perhaps, it could in an affirmative non-future clause).

If a light verb can stand by itself, but can't be marked for every value of aspect and every value of mood and every value of evidentiality, then marking for aspect can't be obligatory; nor can marking for mood, nor marking for evidentiality.

If a category, such as agreement or aspect or evidentiality or mirativity or modality or mode or mood or pluractionality or polarity or tense or validationality or voice, must be mandatorily, obligatorily, marked on a verb, then it must be marked on whichever kind of verb can "stand alone".

If one mandatory obligatory category must be marked on the light verb, and another mandatory obligatory category must be marked on the main verb, then neither of them can stand alone.

[hr][/hr]

Is that understandable?

Is it just wrong?

[hr][/hr]

If some values of some of those categories are marked by means of non-inflecting auxiliary particles, especially if no marking is necessary for certain "default" values, then such an auxiliary won't be unconditionally mandatory.

I don't see anything wrong with requiring both a light "auxiliary-ish" verb, which will be marked for some mandatory categories, and a "main-ish verb-oid", which will be marked for the rest of the mandatory categories.
AFAIK that's not how it's done in any natlang; but so what?
And besides, I might be wrong.
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Frislander » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 11:27

eldin raigmore wrote:
Spoiler:
Frislander wrote:Alright, thank you for the feedback. Maybe then my statement regarding the independence of the auxiliaries was a little unfounded, so I'll change that to "verb phrases are minimally an auxiliary plus a content verb".
Or perhaps alternatively the verb complex comes in the form light verb + main verb, with person/valency being marked by the light verb + prefixes, while the main verb + suffixes encode aspect, mood & evidentiality?


I think to have either of those, you'd have to have them both.

A light verb can't "stand by itself" unless it can be a "finite" (aka "finished") verb, inflected (or derived or whatever) for all the categories for which the nuclear verbs of the language's main clauses are inflected (or derived or whatever).

OTOH, if an auxiliary word is sometimes needed to communicate some values of those grammatical categories (the ones for which the language's main-clauses' nuclear verbs inflect), then the main verbs will, sometimes, not be able to stand by themselves.
For instance, suppose past-tense can be shown by inflection, but future-tense requires an auxiliary word; or, affirmativity can be assumed if there's nothing marking otherwise, but negative polarity requires an auxiliary. Then a clause which is negative-polarity and future-tense would have to have an auxiliary; the main-verb "couldn't stand alone" in such a clause, (even though, perhaps, it could in an affirmative non-future clause).

If a light verb can stand by itself, but can't be marked for every value of aspect and every value of mood and every value of evidentiality, then marking for aspect can't be obligatory; nor can marking for mood, nor marking for evidentiality.

If a category, such as agreement or aspect or evidentiality or mirativity or modality or mode or mood or pluractionality or polarity or tense or validationality or voice, must be mandatorily, obligatorily, marked on a verb, then it must be marked on whichever kind of verb can "stand alone".

If one mandatory obligatory category must be marked on the light verb, and another mandatory obligatory category must be marked on the main verb, then neither of them can stand alone.

[hr][/hr]

Is that understandable?

Is it just wrong?

[hr][/hr]

If some values of some of those categories are marked by means of non-inflecting auxiliary particles, especially if no marking is necessary for certain "default" values, then such an auxiliary won't be unconditionally mandatory.

I don't see anything wrong with requiring both a light "auxiliary-ish" verb, which will be marked for some mandatory categories, and a "main-ish verb-oid", which will be marked for the rest of the mandatory categories.
AFAIK that's not how it's done in any natlang; but so what?
And besides, I might be wrong.
Yeah, it's probably the distributing of verbal categories across two parts of the complex which is not like natlangs. But that's fine, because if I use it it'd probably be for a conlang that's not so based on natlangs; one that aspires to naturalism and workable grammar outside of natlang precedent.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5764
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 19:35

Frislander wrote:Yeah, it's probably the distributing of verbal categories across two parts of the complex which is not like natlangs. But that's fine, because if I use it it'd probably be for a conlang that's not so based on natlangs; one that aspires to naturalism and workable grammar outside of natlang precedent.
I look forward to seeing and/or hearing some examples, when you have some ready to publicize!
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Frislander » Sat 21 Jan 2017, 15:29

eldin raigmore wrote:
Frislander wrote:Yeah, it's probably the distributing of verbal categories across two parts of the complex which is not like natlangs. But that's fine, because if I use it it'd probably be for a conlang that's not so based on natlangs; one that aspires to naturalism and workable grammar outside of natlang precedent.
I look forward to seeing and/or hearing some examples, when you have some ready to publicize!
Actually I'm not incorporating it into a conlang just yet, it was rather a random idea I had (à la the thread title). I might start a conlang using this system in the near-future, though.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4024
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 23:01

I had the idea for language where all content word describe events (like a tiger attacking), which can be modified and connected by functional words. What do you think of it?
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]
Hyolobrika
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2016, 14:45

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Hyolobrika » Sat 01 Apr 2017, 18:35

Creyeditor wrote:I had the idea for language where all content word describe events (like a tiger attacking), which can be modified and connected by functional words. What do you think of it?
I might simply be not knowing technical terms but: modified and connected in what way by what functional words?
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
What about them?
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4024
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor » Sat 01 Apr 2017, 20:29

I imagined it like this:
Let's say a two big leopard is attacking and one of them is climbing up the tree. There are two events: leopard.attack and leopard.climbing.up.a.tree. Let's say they correspond to the words ei and bi. Let's say there is a connector meaning roughly: at least a subset of the agent in one event is also the agent of the other event, let's assume it's pronounced eks. We also need at least to modifiers, one meaning that the event has two agents (tu) and another one meaning that the agent of an event is larger than usual (tri). Now we can put together the words and get.

Tri ei tu eks bi.
big.AGENT leopard.attack two.AGENT SUBSET.AGENT leopard.climbing.up.a.tree
'Two big leopard are attacking and one of them is climbing up a tree.'

About Papuan languages I like the morphophonoly, because they often have really crazy pattern. They also have interesting phonology (minimalistic inventories, strange segments and interesting pitch/tone systems) and some interestig syntax. Other languages, of course, can also have interesting morphophonology. I like lexical semantics, because you can compare the meanings of words across languages with certain tools, which is incredible to me.
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]
Hyolobrika
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2016, 14:45

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Hyolobrika » Sun 02 Apr 2017, 12:33

Creyeditor wrote:About Papuan languages I like the morphophonoly, because they often have really crazy pattern. They also have interesting phonology (minimalistic inventories, strange segments and interesting pitch/tone systems) and some interestig syntax. Other languages, of course, can also have interesting morphophonology. I like lexical semantics, because you can compare the meanings of words across languages with certain tools, which is incredible to me.
This sounds interesting to me too. Canst thou give some examples?
Last edited by Hyolobrika on Sun 02 Apr 2017, 13:35, edited 1 time in total.
Hyolobrika
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2016, 14:45

Re: Interesting case system

Post by Hyolobrika » Sun 02 Apr 2017, 13:34

Imralu wrote:So, in a sentence like "I'll have you kill him", "I" would be the indirect subject, "you" the direct subject and "him" in absolutive... and the verb could simply be the normal "kill/die" verb, yes?
That was precisely what I was getting at!
(and do you have the money [:P])
eldin raigmore wrote:
Hyolobrika wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:And the instigator goes in the "anti-vocative" because he/she/it/they is/are/could be the source of an imperative to the causee?
It could, but not neccesarily,
You see, note that - as in other languages - the vocative identifies the destination of the information while the absolutive and the 'benefactive' identify the destinations of the action.
So - in the same way - the antivocative contains evidential information (it is the source of the information, hence it is the opposite of the vocative) wheras the causative and ergative are sources of the action hence they are opposites of the 'benefactive' and absolutive respectively.
OK, so --
Why isn't "vocative" the same as "logophoric second person",
and "anti-vocative" the same as "logophoric first person"?
Or are they equivalent?
I'm not exactly sure what logophority is but, from what I do know It's not what I mean exactly but it seems close.
And is "anti-vocative" actually a hearsay evidential mark applied to a noun (or nominal or pronoun or pronominal) instead of to, for instance, a verb? If not, why not?
Yes but not necessarily hearsay.
(1). Is there anything in the latest several posts that you don't understand, and/or couldn't look up?
Not apart from logophoricity as far as I can tell.
(2). I bet several of us could understand better some of the things you're saying if you could illustrate them with examples; especially if you could contrast them with near-miss non-examples
"powerful waterfall proximate.LOC.DEF be.PRES reality.ANTI-VOCATIVE" = "There's a greatly gushing waterfall just over there. I know because I saw it with my own senses" (I.e they got it straight from reality)
vs
"powerful waterfall proximate.LOC.DEF be.PRES Genizluh.ANTI-VOCATIVE" = "There's a greatly gushing waterfall just over there. I know because Genizluh told me" (I.e they got it straight from that person)
perhaps even
"powerful waterfall proximate.LOC.DEF be.PRES reality.ANTI-VOCATIVE Genizluh.ANTI-VOCATIVE Posyish.ANTI-VOCATIVE" = "There's a greatly gushing waterfall just over there. I know because Genizluh saw it who told Posyish who told me" (but I tend to like free word order because it allows for more expression of nuances so maybe not)
And the vocative is just your regular average vocative.
Does this clear things up?

Fun forum game: 10 points to anyone who manages to figure out the connection between a thing given, an instrument and a verb(i.e. verbal noun in my VERBAL case) (something similar to this occurs in natlangs with secundative alignment but AFAIK adding verbs/gerunds as verbs was my idea)
LinguoFranco
sinic
sinic
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2016, 16:49

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by LinguoFranco » Mon 03 Apr 2017, 20:34

I have an idea to make a language that blends Uto-Aztecan phonology with Celtic morphology and mutations.
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Frislander » Mon 03 Apr 2017, 20:55

LinguoFranco wrote:I have an idea to make a language that blends Uto-Aztecan phonology with Celtic morphology and mutations.
Well Numic & Hopi already have series of consonant mutations resembling that of Celtic, so I can see the connection.
LinguoFranco
sinic
sinic
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2016, 16:49

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by LinguoFranco » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 18:44

Well, I'm now working on a polysynthetic language using consonant mutations, ablauts for inflection, and use of many infixes. I'm attempting to make a language more phonologically complex than what I usually do, as most of the time, my conlangs phonologies are fairly straightforward.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4024
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor » Tue 27 Jun 2017, 20:50

So, this is not really morphosyntax, but I did not know where to put it. I made up a system of discourse particles while preparing for an exam tomorrow. The system is kind of engelang-y, because it is modelled after a several formal pragmatic theories and very regular. On the other hand it is naturalistic in the sense that all of the factors are used in some natlang. The words in <> are actually just fillers taken from Indonesian and modified from German. What do you think?

Discourse particles
Name (Gloss) Rough Translation <filler>

New information:
alternative particle (DP.ALT) What I am going to say is not the only possibility, but it's the one I consider true: <dong>
question under discussion particle (DP.QUD) I think the following is what you want to know from me right now; As you might wanna know, ... <lah>
important particle (DP.IMP) The following might be important to you in general: <ya>


Old information:
expectation particle (DP.EXP) As you expected me to say, ... <kah>
community membership particle, world knowledge particle (DP.CM) As we both know, because we share the same background, <hal>
premention particle (DP.PM) As one of us already said a while ago, ... <ne>
recent premention particle (DP.RPM) As one of us recently said, ... <si>
physical copresence particle (DP.PC) As we saw a while ago, ... <so>
recent physical copresence particle (DP.RPC) As we saw recently, ... <doh>
prominent physical copresence particle (DP.PPC) As we cleary saw a while ago, ... <em>
recent prominent physical copresence particle (DP.RPPC) As we saw recently, clearly ... <den>


Examples:

New Information:

DP.ALT
A: Why is there no food left?
B: John stole the cake dong.

DP.QUD
A: I wonder what happened?
B: John stole the cake lah.

A: John stole the cake.
B: No, Mary stole the cake, lah.

A: What's that noise?
B: My brother is not playing the trumpet, lah.

A: Who came to the party?
B: I did not, lah.

DP.IMP

Context: Sara is a photographer who takes pictures of white-haired people. Fred says:
A: I saw a white haired person at the farm, ya.

Old Information:

DP.EXP

A: How are you?
B: I'm fine, kah.

A: Do you know what I mean?
B: Of course, kah.

DP.CM

(A and B are Americans)
A: The president of the United states lives in the white house, hal.

DP.PM
A: I like sports.
...
B: So I go to the gym next friday, will you join in?
A: Of course, I like sports, ne.

DP.PM
A: I caught a cold last week.
B: Oh I am so sorry. By the way, have you heard about ....
...
B: Will you come to the party next week?
A: No, I am sorry. I caught a cold, ne.

DP.RPM
A: I don't like cat's. They are so mean.
B: Wow, really? But they are so cute.
A: They are so mean, si.

DP.PC
Context: Two people are going for a walk in the woods. They pass by a church, cross a bridge and leave the forest.
A: The church was really old, so.

DP.RPC
Context: A seminar room in the university.
A: The beamer is broken, doh.

DP.PPC
Context: A enters B's house. There is a dog in the corner sleeping that stinks like hell.
A: The dog stinks, em.

DP.PPC
Context: Two people are going for a walk in the woods. They pass by a dog that stinks like hell, cross a bridge and leave the forest.
A: That dog stinks, den.
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
Omzinesý
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý » Tue 27 Jun 2017, 21:29

Interesting.
I've never had an exam on discourse (particles).
What did you read?
Is that a somehow complete system or could there be more?
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4024
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor » Tue 27 Jun 2017, 21:57

Omzinesý wrote:Interesting.
I've never had an exam on discourse (particles).
What did you read?
Is that a somehow complete system or could there be more?
The system is complete in the sense that I have used all the concepts that we talked about in class. There might be more though and especially more combinations of the different concepts.
The exam is actually more generally about semantics and pragmatics and the properties do in fact refer to DPs in most theories (but not in my conlang). We read a lot of stuff (e.g. on focus, background, giveness,different kinds of definites), if you have any specific interests just PM me.
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