(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Parlox » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 03:29

In a conlang of mine, the person who causes a action against something is marked as A, The thing that was affected by that something is marked E, The transitive verb of a sentence is marked with DC, the intransitive with IC, and the Possible causer of a action as P.

What would this system be called?
I have just been calling it Causative-Affective'

I did not know how to describe it, i hope this is descriptive enough
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 04:59

I'd suggest posting some examples with a morpheme by morpheme gloss and a translation just to be sure other people understand the question as well. For example, I'm not sure what DC and IC are meant to be.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Parlox » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 05:32

Okay, here is two texts showing it

You have killed them!
Ozca’i scu’ta’o aku’na!
You-A kill-PAST-DC them-E

You could have killed them
Ozca’ma osce scu’ta’o aku’na
You-P could kill-PAST-DC them-E

DC is direct causative, a verb to cause something to do something, and IC is indirect causative, it is marked on a verb that does not need to appear with a noun to cause something,
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 17:59

Parlox wrote:Okay, here is two texts showing it

You have killed them!
Ozca’i scu’ta’o aku’na!
You-A kill-PAST-DC them-E

You could have killed them
Ozca’ma osce scu’ta’o aku’na
You-P could kill-PAST-DC them-E

DC is direct causative, a verb to cause something to do something, and IC is indirect causative, it is marked on a verb that does not need to appear with a noun to cause something,
Are all verbs marked with "DC" or "IC"?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Parlox » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 18:34

sangi39 wrote:
Parlox wrote:Okay, here is two texts showing it

You have killed them!
Ozca’i scu’ta’o aku’na!
You-A kill-PAST-DC them-E

You could have killed them
Ozca’ma osce scu’ta’o aku’na
You-P could kill-PAST-DC them-E

DC is direct causative, a verb to cause something to do something, and IC is indirect causative, it is marked on a verb that does not need to appear with a noun to cause something,
Are all verbs marked with "DC" or "IC"?
Transitive verbs are marked with DC, and intransitive verbs with IC.
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 18:58

Parlox wrote:
sangi39 wrote:
Parlox wrote:Okay, here is two texts showing it

You have killed them!
Ozca’i scu’ta’o aku’na!
You-A kill-PAST-DC them-E

You could have killed them
Ozca’ma osce scu’ta’o aku’na
You-P could kill-PAST-DC them-E

DC is direct causative, a verb to cause something to do something, and IC is indirect causative, it is marked on a verb that does not need to appear with a noun to cause something,
Are all verbs marked with "DC" or "IC"?
Transitive verbs are marked with DC, and intransitive verbs with IC.
Hmmm, so "You could have killed them" might better be translated as "you might have killed them" or "you maybe killed them", in the sense of "I don't know if it was you that killed them, but it might have been"?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 19:02

Follow up question: Is the following possible?

Ozca’ma scu’ta’o aku’na
You-P kill-PAST-DC them-E

... and if so, what would it mean?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Parlox » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 19:19

sangi39 wrote:Follow up question: Is the following possible?

Ozca’ma scu’ta’o aku’na
You-P kill-PAST-DC them-E

... and if so, what would it mean?
Yes that phrase is possible, it would probably mean something along the lines of

"You could have killed them but did not"
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 19:22

Parlox wrote:
sangi39 wrote:Follow up question: Is the following possible?

Ozca’ma scu’ta’o aku’na
You-P kill-PAST-DC them-E

... and if so, what would it mean?
Yes that phrase is possible, it would probably mean something along the lines of

"You could have killed them but did not"
Which part is in doubt?
That it was you who killed them?
That killing is what you did to them?
That it was they whom you killed?
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Parlox » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 19:27

eldin raigmore wrote:
Parlox wrote:
sangi39 wrote:Follow up question: Is the following possible?

Ozca’ma scu’ta’o aku’na
You-P kill-PAST-DC them-E

... and if so, what would it mean?
Yes that phrase is possible, it would probably mean something along the lines of

"You could have killed them but did not"
Which part is in doubt?
That it was you who killed them?
That killing is what you did to them?
That it was they whom you killed?
The doubt is that they could have killed them, but did not for whatever reason. It is rather vague though,
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 19:43

Hmmm, so let's have a think:

You-A kill-PAST-DC them-E
"You killed them"

You-P kill-PAST-DC them-E
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have killed them, but you didn't kill them"

You-A kill-PAST-DC
"You killed someone" (I'm assuming that since transitivity is marked objects can be dropped)

You-P kill-PAST-DC
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have killed someone, but you didn't" (again, assuming objects can be dropped)

You-A run-PAST-IC
"You ran"

You-P run-PAST-IC
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have ran, but didn't"


Would those all be roughly correct?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Parlox » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 20:05

sangi39 wrote:Hmmm, so let's have a think:

You-A kill-PAST-DC them-E
"You killed them"

You-P kill-PAST-DC them-E
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have killed them, but you didn't kill them"

You-A kill-PAST-DC
"You killed someone" (I'm assuming that since transitivity is marked objects can be dropped)

You-P kill-PAST-DC
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have killed someone, but you didn't" (again, assuming objects can be dropped)

You-A run-PAST-IC
"You ran"

You-P run-PAST-IC
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have ran, but didn't"


Would those all be roughly correct?
Most of these are correct, 3 and 4 are not though, if an object does not precede the verb in a phrase, then the verb would be marked IC instead of DC, though the sentence would be correct the verb was marked IC
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 20:25

Parlox wrote:
sangi39 wrote:Hmmm, so let's have a think:

You-A kill-PAST-DC them-E
"You killed them"

You-P kill-PAST-DC them-E
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have killed them, but you didn't kill them"

You-A kill-PAST-DC
"You killed someone" (I'm assuming that since transitivity is marked objects can be dropped)

You-P kill-PAST-DC
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have killed someone, but you didn't" (again, assuming objects can be dropped)

You-A run-PAST-IC
"You ran"

You-P run-PAST-IC
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have ran, but didn't"


Would those all be roughly correct?
Most of these are correct, 3 and 4 are not though, if an object does not precede the verb in a phrase, then the verb would be marked IC instead of DC
So transitive verbs have to have an explicit object? Makes sense, IIRC a lot of languages require that.

Looking at it, though, I'm not sure if this is anything much beyond a nom-acc alignment (since the transitive agent is marked identically to the intransitive subject with the transitive object being marked with a second case) and then a transitive agent taking on a third case when there's a change in mood. Since, in this "hypthotical" mood, the transitive agent doesn't take on the same case marking at the object does in the indicative mood (and likewise the object is always marked in the same way), then we're not looking at mood-dependent split ergativity either. It's not tripartite either, since the subject and agent are always marked with the same two cases.

The situation I'd imagine is that you're dealing with a nom-acc alignment system, but in the hypothetical mood, subjects and agents are marked with some third case. This does happen in some natlangs (my knowledge of Georgian is sketchy but something similar happens there, I think). This third case (used with the hypothetical mood), however, would likely be used elsewhere as well, marking some other syntactic role, like a dative, instrumental or a locative case.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Parlox » Sat 15 Jul 2017, 20:54

sangi39 wrote:
Parlox wrote:
sangi39 wrote:Hmmm, so let's have a think:

You-A kill-PAST-DC them-E
"You killed them"

You-P kill-PAST-DC them-E
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have killed them, but you didn't kill them"

You-A kill-PAST-DC
"You killed someone" (I'm assuming that since transitivity is marked objects can be dropped)

You-P kill-PAST-DC
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have killed someone, but you didn't" (again, assuming objects can be dropped)

You-A run-PAST-IC
"You ran"

You-P run-PAST-IC
"You could hypothetically, given the chance, have ran, but didn't"


Would those all be roughly correct?
Most of these are correct, 3 and 4 are not though, if an object does not precede the verb in a phrase, then the verb would be marked IC instead of DC
So transitive verbs have to have an explicit object? Makes sense, IIRC a lot of languages require that.

Looking at it, though, I'm not sure if this is anything much beyond a nom-acc alignment (since the transitive agent is marked identically to the intransitive subject with the transitive object being marked with a second case) and then a transitive agent taking on a third case when there's a change in mood. Since, in this "hypthotical" mood, the transitive agent doesn't take on the same case marking at the object does in the indicative mood (and likewise the object is always marked in the same way), then we're not looking at mood-dependent split ergativity either. It's not tripartite either, since the subject and agent are always marked with the same two cases.

The situation I'd imagine is that you're dealing with a nom-acc alignment system, but in the hypothetical mood, subjects and agents are marked with some third case. This does happen in some natlangs (my knowledge of Georgian is sketchy but something similar happens there, I think). This third case (used with the hypothetical mood), however, would likely be used elsewhere as well, marking some other syntactic role, like a dative, instrumental or a locative case.
Ok thanks, i am still developing the grammar, things might change yet.
I might make it so in sentences with an intransitive verb that the subject might be marked as the object, to make things more interesting.
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Shemtov » Sun 16 Jul 2017, 03:38

Is it totally unnatauralistic for a lnaguge to have an enclitic that attaches itself to a conjugated verb, which allows another verb to go unconjugated while taking the conjugation of the first; ie the opposite of converbs?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Micamo » Sun 16 Jul 2017, 03:57

Shemtov wrote:Is it totally unnatauralistic for a lnaguge to have an enclitic that attaches itself to a conjugated verb, which allows another verb to go unconjugated while taking the conjugation of the first; ie the opposite of converbs?
Examples?
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Shemtov » Sun 16 Jul 2017, 04:00

Micamo wrote:
Shemtov wrote:Is it totally unnatauralistic for a lnaguge to have an enclitic that attaches itself to a conjugated verb, which allows another verb to go unconjugated while taking the conjugation of the first; ie the opposite of converbs?
Examples?
Nok-oo-ku bas
speak-1P-because hate
"I spoke because I hated"

Nok-oo-bu bas
speak-1P-WHILE hate
"I spoke while I hated"
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Micamo » Sun 16 Jul 2017, 12:49

How would this work with a sentence like "I stabbed you because you stole my pig?"
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Shemtov » Sun 16 Jul 2017, 13:08

Micamo wrote:How would this work with a sentence like "I stabbed you because you stole my pig?"
It wouldn't, because the subject or agent of both verbs must be the same.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Micamo » Sun 16 Jul 2017, 13:28

This doesn't make much sense because the construction is clearly a biclausal one, with the upper verb incorporating the complementizer and eating the agreement of the subject along with it. I can't think of any naturalistic mechanism that could block this whenever the two clauses don't have the same subject. You could improve its naturalism by doing this:

2s.P-stab-1s.A-BECAUSE-2s.C 3s.P-steal 1s.GEN pig
I stabbed you because you stole my pig

The 2s.C suffix is the agreement marker attached to the complementizer. You can have a special morphological rule that, in the event that the C agreement slot and the A agreement slot are co-referent, the C agreement slot becomes null-marked. This gives you identical behavior to your first examples.
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
Post Reply