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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:17

ixals wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:04
In a language that does not have a word for "to have", is the following structure able/likely to turn into the general way to express "to have"?
(example language is also zero copula btw)

táħuc táħuc a ke
house house GEN 1PS
"The house is my house" > "I have a house"

And more difficult things shorten, so that it's basically just a reduplication of the possessed noun:

acá acá ri məŋ a ke
hand hand PL red GEN 1PS
"The hand is/are my red hands" > "I have red hands"
A common strategy without have is to use the Dative or a Locative construction, like in Russian. But I don't see why your way shouldn't work, too. It's pretty cool, actually.
Also, is it likely for a language to have two words for the genitive with one being used only when there is another genitive that will follow?

pəħlí a rim
tree GEN1 fig
"fig tree"

pəħlí cə rim a ke
tree GEN2 fig GEN1 1PS
"my fig tree"
Yes, GEN2 is called an adjectivizer. [;)]
User avatar
Pabappa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:36

If the language is zero copula, would think just a spmple "house-1p" would indicate the required meaning. No need for reduplication unless giving emphasis.

"My hands are red" could then be reanalyzed as "the hands i have are red", adding just 1 morpheme.in most cases the speaker will want to emphasize "red", not the possession, so putting the predicate wherever your language normally does will help with that.

I hope that this was helpful....If you decide to use this setup, please let me know if you have questions, or want to see natlang examples of this arrangement.
Image
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:55

Pabappa wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:36
If the language is zero copula, would think just a spmple "house-1p" would indicate the required meaning. No need for reduplication unless giving emphasis.
I think the default meaning of "house-1p" would be "I am a house" in a zero copula language. This is at least how it works in the languages I know. Possessive constructions then use Dative or something like that, so: "house 1p-DAT" = "I have a house."
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue 28 Jul 2015, 17:43

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

Post by ixals » Tue 09 Jan 2018, 20:56

gestaltist wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:17
A common strategy without have is to use the Dative or a Locative construction, like in Russian. But I don't see why your way shouldn't work, too. It's pretty cool, actually.
The dative or locative case is another option, that's true. I really like the idea as well, because it's a bit different from what I normally do and I'd finally have reduplication in a conlang because I'm generally not that fond of reduplications [:D]
gestaltist wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:17
Yes, GEN2 is called an adjectivizer.
Why would that be an adjectivizer, if you don't mind asking? [O.O]
Pabappa wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:36
"My hands are red" could then be reanalyzed as "the hands i have are red", adding just 1 morpheme.in most cases the speaker will want to emphasize "red", not the possession, so putting the predicate wherever your language normally does will help with that.

I hope that this was helpful....If you decide to use this setup, please let me know if you have questions, or want to see natlang examples of this arrangement.
I'm not quite sure if I'm understanding that correctly. But I'd like to see some examples even if I decide to go with it or not! [:P]
gestaltist wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:55
Pabappa wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:36
If the language is zero copula, would think just a spmple "house-1p" would indicate the required meaning. No need for reduplication unless giving emphasis.
I think the default meaning of "house-1p" would be "I am a house" in a zero copula language. This is at least how it works in the languages I know. Possessive constructions then use Dative or something like that, so: "house 1p-DAT" = "I have a house."
That's how Turkish does it at least. "kadınsın" is "you're a woman" and "kadının" would be "your woman". And Turkish's way to express "to have" is also "there is your woman" ("2PL-GEN woman-2PL.POSS there.is"), although I've also seen it translated by "your woman exists". My proposed version would be like that as well with "woman woman GEN 2PS" with the doubled possessed noun acting as a replacement for the missing "exist/there is". Without the reduplication, the meaning would be "your woman" and I'd like to keep the distinction of these nuances.
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :fra:, :por:, :tur:

Цiски a Central Slavic conlang
Noattȯč a future German conlang [on hold]
Tungōnis Vīdīnōs Proto-Germanic goes Romance [on hold]
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

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

Post by Shemtov » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 05:32

My language, Shàt, has biliteral roots and converbs. I want a way for a converb that connects to a verb with a different subject to take the mood-voice-person from a verb that is not the existensial verb. I've come up with two ways of doing this:
1. Empty root. A "Light" or "Vector" verb. A root with no intrinsic meaning that just takes mood-voice person. Thus:
angry-BECAUSE 1P.PST.SING-PASS 3P.PST-laugh
"I became angry because he laughed".
or
2. Base the mood-voice-person verb on the transitivity of the converb. So motion verbs would take "go", other intransitives "stand", transitives "make" and Ditransitives "give. Thus
angry-BECAUSE 1P.PST.SING-PASS\stand 3P.PST-laugh
"I became angry because he laughed".
Which is more naturalistic, or is there another way of going about this?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 10:44

ixals wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 20:56
Why would that be an adjectivizer, if you don't mind asking? [O.O]
Well, OK, this comment was more provocative than it was useful. I think that if you have two GENs, one would likely function as an adjectivizer of some sort. So in fact, I think "tree ADJZ fig" and "tree ADJZ fig GEN 1s" would be more likely than the absolute right-to-left order you proposed. In theory, two GENs are possible but I think if there is more than one, they are more likely to be divided by function (e.g., adjectivization) than by nesting, as you propose. I might be wrong, though.
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3829
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questi@ons go here

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 11:27

@Shemtov: Personally, I like Option 2 more, but both systems look likely.
Image
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2525
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 11:37

ixals wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:04
In a language that does not have a word for "to have", is the following structure able/likely to turn into the general way to express "to have"?
(example language is also zero copula btw)

táħuc táħuc a ke
house house GEN 1PS
"The house is my house" > "I have a house"

And more difficult things shorten, so that it's basically just a reduplication of the possessed noun:

acá acá ri məŋ a ke
hand hand PL red GEN 1PS
"The hand is/are my red hands" > "I have red hands"
Yes, I've seen examples of that in language books discussing IRL languages which don't have "to have" but use other methods.
Also, is it likely for a language to have two words for the genitive with one being used only when there is another genitive that will follow?

pəħlí a rim
tree GEN1 fig
"fig tree"

pəħlí cə rim a ke
tree GEN2 fig GEN1 1PS
"my fig tree"
I can picture that being the case - maybe in olden days, there was only one ever, but it got drafted into two or more uses, so another was added...and it stayed there, even if the original word returned to just being used for its original function.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue 28 Jul 2015, 17:43

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

Post by ixals » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 13:40

gestaltist wrote:
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 10:44
ixals wrote:
Tue 09 Jan 2018, 20:56
Why would that be an adjectivizer, if you don't mind asking? [O.O]
Well, OK, this comment was more provocative than it was useful. I think that if you have two GENs, one would likely function as an adjectivizer of some sort. So in fact, I think "tree ADJZ fig" and "tree ADJZ fig GEN 1s" would be more likely than the absolute right-to-left order you proposed. In theory, two GENs are possible but I think if there is more than one, they are more likely to be divided by function (e.g., adjectivization) than by nesting, as you propose. I might be wrong, though.
Ok, your comment felt a little bit cheeky but I didn't want to say anything [:P] I get what you mean, it felt unnatural to me, too, so that's why I wanted to ask in this thread. My reasoning for the idea was that the same word (in this case "a") repeated sounded bad to the speakers, so one would be replaced with another word. The last one to be changed makes more sense though, to be honest. What about the following idea?

At the beginning, there was a preposition marking the possessed noun.

cə acá a kur
POSS hand GEN animal
"animal's hand" > "paw"

cə acá cə a kur a ke
POSS hand POSS GEN animal GEN 1PS
"my paw"

Then "cə a" fuses to "ca" and then changes back to "cə" because they sound similar and saying "cə ... cə" is easier than "cə ... ca" for the speakers. They would also have the tendency to say accidently, let's just assume that? [>:)]

cə acá a kur
POSS hand GEN animal

cə acá cə kur a ke
POSS hand POSS animal GEN 1PS

And finally, the word marking the possession is left out of colloquial speech because the genitive marker is making it obvious that the preceding noun is possessed by the following noun. In longer instances, "cə" is retained to connect everything that still belongs, so that in the end we have this:

acá a kur
hand GEN animal

acá cə kur a ke
hand POSS animal GEN 1PS
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :fra:, :por:, :tur:

Цiски a Central Slavic conlang
Noattȯč a future German conlang [on hold]
Tungōnis Vīdīnōs Proto-Germanic goes Romance [on hold]
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 14:43

ixals wrote:
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 13:40
cə acá cə a kur a ke
POSS hand POSS GEN animal GEN 1PS
"my paw"
Shouldn't this be "POSS hand GEN POSS animal GEN 1s" instead?
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue 28 Jul 2015, 17:43

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

Post by ixals » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 15:36

You're right. Ugh, I need to come up with something new again :roll: [:D]
I also noticed just now that the language doesn't have /e/, gdi

cə acá a cə kur a ki
POSS hand GEN POSS animal GEN 1PS

"a cə" fuses to "ac" and the first "cə" is dropped. So in the end it's just an infixed "-c-" for possessed compound nouns, I guess?
Spoiler:
acá a kur > acákur
acá ac kur (a ki) > acáckur (akí)

pəħlí a rim > pəħlárim
pəħlí ac rim (a ki) > pəħlácrim (akí)
acákur / acá<c>kur
paw / <POSS>paw

pəħlárim / pəħlá<c>rim
fig.tree / <POSS>fig.tree
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :fra:, :por:, :tur:

Цiски a Central Slavic conlang
Noattȯč a future German conlang [on hold]
Tungōnis Vīdīnōs Proto-Germanic goes Romance [on hold]
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 16:52

If I had this setup, I would probably end up with circumfixes, I think:
cə acá a cə kur a ki > cacáá kkura ki
or something of the sort...

But I liked your idea with an infixed -c-, as well.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questi@ons go here

Post by Shemtov » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 20:39

Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 11:27
@Shemtov: Personally, I like Option 2 more, but both systems look likely.
Yeah, I'm leaning toward Option 2 myself, since Shàt has a lot of influence from both the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan langs (especially the former) and I know they use a similar system for their non-infinites, though the Indo-Aryan family's application is much broader and makes finer distinction then what I'm proposing here.
BTW, Is there a Dravidian-Indo-Aryan Sprachbund?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue 23 Feb 2016, 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questi@ons go here

Post by WeepingElf » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 21:42

Shemtov wrote:
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 20:39
Yeah, I'm leaning toward Option 2 myself, since Shàt has a lot of influence from both the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan langs (especially the former) and I know they use a similar system for their non-infinites, though the Indo-Aryan family's application is much broader and makes finer distinction then what I'm proposing here.
BTW, Is there a Dravidian-Indo-Aryan Sprachbund?
There is.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4414
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 22:16

I thought it was often called the South-Asian Sprachbund, but upon googling I found only Indosphere.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

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

Post by Shemtov » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 02:47

Creyeditor wrote:
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 22:16
I thought it was often called the South-Asian Sprachbund, but upon googling I found only Indosphere.
You might be confusing it with the SE Asian Sprachbund, which consists of Sinitic, Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, Karen, Chamic, Lolo-Burmese and maybe some other Tibeto-Burman branches that I'm Forgetting.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2022
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 04:37

There is another sprachbund in the Indian subcontinent though. On the other hand I'm unaware of a conventionalized name for it. Indosphere strikes me as a cultural division, so i'm fairly certain it's not the correct term for a linguistic sprachbund.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 13:57

I've only ever seen the sprachbund in question referred to as "South-Asian" or "Indian", which is a common term for the region and definitely not to be confused with the SE sprachbund. As far as I can tell "Indosphere" refers to the wider cultural zone of Indic influence (e.g. Thai is in the Indosphere but the SE-Asian Sprachbund not the South-Asian one).
loglorn wrote:
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 04:37
There is another sprachbund in the Indian subcontinent though. On the other hand I'm unaware of a conventionalized name for it.
Which one would this be?
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2022
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 15:20

Frislander wrote:
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 13:57
I've only ever seen the sprachbund in question referred to as "South-Asian" or "Indian", which is a common term for the region and definitely not to be confused with the SE sprachbund. As far as I can tell "Indosphere" refers to the wider cultural zone of Indic influence (e.g. Thai is in the Indosphere but the SE-Asian Sprachbund not the South-Asian one).
loglorn wrote:
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 04:37
There is another sprachbund in the Indian subcontinent though. On the other hand I'm unaware of a conventionalized name for it.
Which one would this be?
I meant another as contrasted with the SE-Asian one.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue 23 Feb 2016, 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by WeepingElf » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 17:59

Yes, there is a South Asian (comprising Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Munda and some Sino-Tibetan languages) and a Southeast Asian (comprising some other Sino-Tibetan, Mon-Khmer, Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien and some Austronesian) Sprachbund, and they are very different from each other, even if many languages from both use related scripts.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Post Reply