Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

A forum for translations, translation challenges etc. Good place to increase your conlang's vocabulary.
Post Reply
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by eldin raigmore » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 04:02

Feeling inspired by this thread, I wanted to see how languages handle sentences I previously mentioned here.

In which conlangs or natlangs can you say either of the following sentences in just one or two clauses?
And how can you do so?
And do those answers vary depending on the precise meaning?
And how ambiguous or precise is the result?

(a) Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran.
(b) Al convinced Bob to make Carl give Ellie Dobbin for Fran.
Spoiler:
Suppose a language:
  • Has ditransitive clauses.
  • Allows benefactive applicativization.
  • Allows morphological direct causativization.
  • Allows morphological indirect causativization.
  • Allows causativization and applicativization to be applied to ditransitive clauses.
  • Allows causativization and applicativization to both be applied to the same verb at the same time or one after the other.
  • Allows causativization to be applied to a verb that's already been causativized; or IOW allows direct morphological causativization and indirect morphological causativization to both be applied to the same verb at the same time.
(It might be interesting if it also allowed/required polypersonal agreement.)
Spoiler:
(1) For instance, a ditransitive clause might mean
"Carl gave Dobbin to Ellie".
or
"Carl gave Ellie Dobbin".

(2) One could benefactively applicativize (1) to mean
"Carl gave-BEN.APP Francis Ellie Dobbin".
There might be one verb agreeing with all four participants.
Either the verb's voice or the participants' cases or both could show who was the giver, who was the gift, who was the recipient, and who was the beneficiary.

(3) One could instead apply morphological direct causativization to (1) to mean
"Bob made Carl give Dobbin to Ellie".
This would actually be done with just one verb:
"Bob give-DIR.CAU Carl Ellie Dobbin", because the causativization is morphological.
Maybe the verb could agree with all four participants.
Either the verb's voice or the participants' cases or both could show who was the instigator, who was the performer, who was the gift, and who was the recipient.

(4) Or one could put indirect morphological causativization on (1) to mean
"Bob convinced Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie".
Again, this could be done with just one verb; in fact, it has to be done with just one verb to count as morphological causativization.
"Bob give-IND.CAU Carl Ellie Dobbin".

(5) If one could directly causativize (2) or applicativize (3), one could get a clause meaning:
"Bob made Carl give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis" or
"Bob give-BEN.APP-DIR.CAU Carl Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
Again the verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the performer, who the gift, who the recipient, and who the beneficiary.
Could the verb agree with all five participants?
Note that causativizing (2) would imply that Carl did the giving for Francis's sake, while applicativizing (3) would mean Bob did the making for Francis's sake.

(6) If one could indirectly causativize (2) or applicativize (4), one could get a clause meaning:
"Bob convinced Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
"Bob give-BEN.APP-IND.CAU Carl Francis Dobbin to Ellie ".
Again the verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the performer, who the gift, who the recipient, and who the beneficiary.
Could the verb agree with all five participants?
Note that causativizing (2) would imply that Carl did the giving for Francis's sake, while applicativizing (4) would mean Bob did the convincing for Francis's sake.

(7) If one could indirectly causativize (3) or directly causativize (4), one could get a clause meaning:
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie".
or
"Al convinced Bob to make Carl give Dobbin to Ellie".
both of which might look like
"Al give-DIR.CAU-IND.CAU Bob Carl Dobbin to Ellie".
The verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the middle agent, who the performer, who the gift, and who the recipient.
The verb probably wouldn't agree with the middle agent (Bob).
It could agree with the instigator (Al), the performer (Carl), the gift (Dobbin), and the recipient (Ellie).
It could very well be ambiguous; addressees might not be able to tell, from just this one clause, whether the speaker means
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give ..." or "Al convinced Bob to make Carl give ...".
This would especially be true if the "direct causativization" marker on the verb always had to come before (or, always had to come after) the "indirect causativization" marker.
(Even more would (6) be ambiguous if the DIR.CAU marker and the IND.CAU marker weren't different from each other.

(8) Finally, if one could indirectly causativize (5), or directly causativize (6), or benefactively applicativize (7), one could get a clause meaning:
"Al convinced Bob to make Carl give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
or
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
It would probably look more like
"Al give-BEN.APP-DIR.CAU-IND.CAU Bob Carl Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
Spoiler:
Semantically, the order in which the operations were performed, gives this six different interpretations:
Benefactive applicativization, then direct causativization, then indirect causativization:
"Al convinced [Bob to make [Carl, for Francis's sake, [give Ellie Dobbin]]]"

Benefactive applicativization, then indirect causativization, then direct causativization:
"Al made [Bob convince [Carl, for Francis's sake, [give Ellie Dobbin]]]"

Direct causativization, then benefactive applicativization, then indirect causativization:
"Al convinced [Bob, for Francis's sake, [to make [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"

Direct causativization, then indirect causativization, then benefactive applicativization:
"Al convinced, for Francis's sake, [Bob [to make [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"

Indirect causativization, then benefactive applicativization, then direct causativization:
"Al made [Bob, for Francis's sake, [convince [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"

Indirect causativization, then direct causativization, then benefactive applicativization:
"Al made, for Francis's sake, [Bob [convince [Carl to give Ellie Dobbin]]]"

This single clause might not disambiguate between those interpretations at all.


Right, then!
What does anybody think?
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Tue 05 Dec 2017, 19:13, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 14:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Fr

Post by Adarain » Tue 11 Jul 2017, 17:38

:sui: Swiss German

(a) D’Alice het dr Bob drzua brocht, dr Karl z’überreda für da Fran d’Ellie am Dobbin z’ge.

Code: Select all

d=Alice   het dr  Bob drzua brocht,  dr  Karl z=überreda  für da      Frank d=Ellie   am      Dobbin z=ge.
DEF=Alice AUX DEF Bob to_it brought, DEF Karl to=convince for DEF.ACC Frank DEF=Ellie DEF.DAT Dobbin to=give
Where DEF is the masculine (dr) or feminine (d) article in the NOM/ACC case; DEF.ACC is the special prepositional accusative of the masculine article.

(b) D’Alice het dr Bob drzua überredet, dr Karl drzua z’bringa für da Frank d’Ellie am Dobbin z’ge.

Code: Select all

D=Alice   het dr  Bob drzua überredet, dr  Karl drzua z=bringa für da      Frank d=Ellie   am      Dobbin z=ge.
DEF=Alice AUX DEF Bob to_it convinced, DEF Karl to_it to=bring for DEF.ACC Frank DEF=Ellie DEF.DAT Dobbin to=give
:con: Mesak
(a) ñ-Anísnos Boboñ Karos ihaȿakkvknos mbúre Eríoñ Dobinot níñg Prañgok rinakkúko.

Code: Select all

ñ=Anís-no-s         Bob-o-ñ    Kar-o-s     i-haȿ+at+k-vk-no-s            mbúre  Erí-o-ñ      Dobin-o-t     níñg  Prañg-o-k    rin+at+k-ú-ko
ERG=Alice-SG>SG-ABS Bob-SG-DAT Karl-SG-ABS 3ERG-convince-CAUS-SG>SG-3ABS for/to Ellie-SG-DAT Dobbin-SG-ESS BENEF Frank-SG-INC give-ATP-INF
Due to an S/P pivot, the purpostive clause (introduced by mbúre) needs to be antipassivized. I also had to rework the causative construction a bit as it turned out that this sentence would’ve been impossible to express otherwise (it would’ve put the subject of the purpotive clause into a non-core case, which would’ve made it impossible to connect the two due to the pivot rule).
The + in the glosses stands for separation of derivational affixes. The breakdown of these two verbs is:

haȿ: to know
→haȿat: to understand, realize
→→haȿakk: to convince (the +k is a causative marker, but at times it somewhat alters the lexical meaning too)

rin: to own
→rinat: to take
→→rinakk: to give, hand over

(b) ñ-Anísnos Bobos ihaȿakknos mbúre Karoñ Dobinot Eríoñ níñg Prañgok rinakkvkúko.

Code: Select all

ñ=Anís-no-s         Bob-o-s    i-haȿ+at+k-no-s          mbúre  Kar-o-ñ     Dobin-o-t     Erí-o-ñ      níñg  Prañg-o-k    rin+at+k-vk-ú-ko
ERG=Alice-SG>SG-ABS Bob-SG-ABS 3ERG-convince-SG>SG-3ABS for/to Karl-SG-DAT Dobbin-SG-ESS Ellie-SG-DAT BENEF Frank-SG-INC give-CAUS-ATP-INF
I feel like that these warrant a bit more in-depth explanations of what’s going on:
Spoiler:
Mesak has a constraint which states that the S/P of a purpotive clause must be identical to the S/P of the main clause (absolutive pivot). This coincides with an universal that states that the subject of a purpotive clause occurs in the main clause. These combine to form the requirement that the purpotive clause is always intransitive. In both cases here this demans an antipassive. (b) also adds a causative underneath.

(a) Carl(A) Dobbin(P) to Ellie(DAT) for Fran(PP) gave
→ Carl(S) Dobbin(ESS) to Ellie(DAT) for Fran(PP) gave-ATP

(b) Carl(A) Dobbin(P) to Ellie(DAT) for Fran(PP) gave
→ Bob(A) Carl(DAT) Dobbin(P) to Ellie(DAT) for Fran(PP) gave-CAUS
→→Bob(S) Carl(DAT) Dobbin(ESS) to Ellie(DAT) for Fran(PP) gave-CAUS-ATP

This is then made a purpotive clause by adding mbúre in front, eliding the S and making the verb infinitive, and sticking it after the main clause, which goes:

(a) Bob(A) Carl(P) convinced
→Alice(A) Bob(DAT) Carl(P) convinced-CAUS (for Dobbin(ESS) to Ellie(DAT) for Fran(PP) give-ATP-INF)

(b) Alice(A) Bob(P) convinced (for Carl(DAT) Dobbin(ESS) to Ellie(DAT) for Fran(PP) give-CAUS-ATP-INF)
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 12 Jul 2017, 03:14

Thank you, Adarain!

I think the Swiss German is almost what I asked for. If I am not mistaken, it seems to be three clauses (like the English "original" (at least, it was English in this thread's Original.Post.)) rather than two (which I asked for).
Still very interesting! (so thanks!)

The Mesak, OTOH, is just what I asked for! Thanks!
The explanation you put in the spoiler is very much appreciated.

Did you investigate the contents of any of the spoilers I put in the O.P.?
Which of them would Mesak be able to do in just one clause? Especially if Swiss German would need at least two clauses?
If you'd rather answer by PM than here, that's fine. (I'd kind of prefer it here, though, if that's OK!)

Thanks yet a third time!
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Fri 14 Jul 2017, 04:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4400
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Fr

Post by qwed117 » Wed 12 Jul 2017, 04:06

Hmm. Here's my best attempt at Spanish
:esp: Spanish: A Bob Al le hizo a convencer Carl a dar Bobbin a Ellie por Fran*
*I'm assuming that Bobbin is what Fran will ultimately receive, and that Ellie is merely a intermediary

:esp: Spanish: A Bob Al le convenció a hacer Carl a dar Bobbin a Ellie por Fran*

This is a guess though. I think a native Spanish speaker should probably correct this. [:P]
Edit: Fixed the flags.
Last edited by qwed117 on Wed 12 Jul 2017, 04:55, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
Ashtăr Balynestjăr
sinic
sinic
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 18 Jan 2017, 07:17

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Fr

Post by Ashtăr Balynestjăr » Wed 12 Jul 2017, 04:25

qwed117 wrote:Hmm. Here's my best attempt at Spanish
:esp: Spanish: A Bob Al le hizo a convencer Carl a dar Bobbin a Ellie por Fran*
*I'm assuming that Bobbin is what Fran will ultimately receive, and that Ellie is merely a intermediary

:esp: Spanish: A Bob Al le convenció a hacer Carl a dar Bobbin a Ellie por Fran*

This is a guess though. I think a native Spanish speaker should probably correct this. [:P]
I guess I’d say:

Al hizo que Bob convenciera a Carl para que le diera a Dobbin a Ellie para Fran.

It still sounds really unnatural, though...

Edit: Changed 'Charlie' to 'Carl'. I also added 'a' before 'Dobbin', because horses are considered animate in my dialect of Spanish. I wasn’t sure what Dobbin was, and the use of a proper noun without an article or a was one of the reasons why it sounded off to me.
Last edited by Ashtăr Balynestjăr on Wed 12 Jul 2017, 07:03, edited 3 times in total.
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 12 Jul 2017, 06:11

Thanks, qwed117 and Ashtâr Balînestyâr !

btw @qwed117;
Spoiler:
"Dobbin" is/was a prototypical horse's name in English literature of decades, not to say centuries, past; the equine version of "John Doe".
"Bobbin", OTOH, is part of an old-fashioned sewing-machine. (Also used in weaving and lace-making).
IMO it's a perfectly good, if cute, name for a horse or other pet (a robin, maybe?). It's just more original than I was intending.

My original choice of the six participants was Albert, Bob, Charlie, Dasher, Elizabeth, and Francis; just for giving actual names instead of the first six letters of the alphabet.
But that wouldn't fit in the thread title.
So instead of
"Albert convinced Bob to make Charlie give Dasher to Elizabeth for Francis",
I shortened it to
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran",
which did (just) fit.

Responders seem to be picking their own participant names.
That doesn't hurt in the slightest!
But it's more in the spirit if the horse's (or whatever -- anything one is allowed to give someone!) name starts with a D.

"Ardashir convinced Beauregard to make Christopher give Dragonslayer to Eleanor for Faramir" would do.
(Unless it were just too much typing!)
User avatar
Mándinrùh
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun 21 Aug 2016, 19:37
Location: New England

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by Mándinrùh » Wed 27 Jun 2018, 03:51

Image Ecclesiastical Atili:

Yes, it can be done in one clause, but it loses the distinction. I'm assuming Dobbin is an animal and not a human:

Kájil Éli Dábin malon-vi-zuk-am-da-vi-di-zuk-lán-vi-s Bab Al Vuján.
Kájil Éli Dábin give-CLF-CLF-CLF-CAUS-CLF-CAUS-CLF-DAT-CLF-PRET Bab Al Vuján.
‘Kájil (to) Éli Dábin gave caused by Bab caused by Al for Vuján.’

Since nearly all morphology gets smacked onto the verb, we have a bunch of names floating around, tied together only by a single monolithic verb. I think a native or near-native speaker of Ecclesiastical Atili would reject this construction outright. The crux of this matter is the addition of three valency-increasing suffixes, -d (used twice, adds a causative argument), and -lan (adds a dative argument), to a verb that is already inherently ditransitive. In natural speech, the addition of one or two valency-increasing suffixes is not rare, but is mostly done with intransitive or intransitively-used verbs. I truly think that most speakers would wince at this hexavalent monstrosity.

A more likely translation that keeps the distinction is the following pair:

Vah-ví-so-s Al e Bab Kájil vahzelda-vi-zúk-so e Éli malon-vi-zuk-ám-da-vi Dábin Vuján.
make-CLF-CLF-PRET Al REL Bab Kájil make:think-CLF-CLF-CLF REL Éli give-CLF-CLF-CLF-DAT-CLF Dábin Vuján
‘Al made it that Bob convinces Kájil that he (to) Éli gives Dábin for Vuján.’

Al Bab vahzelda-vi-zúk-so-s e vah-ví-so e Kájil malon-vi-zuk-ám-da-vi Éli Dábin Vuján.
Al Bab make:think-CLF-CLF-CLF-PRET REL make-CLF-CLF REL Kájil give-CLF-CLF-CLF-DAT-CLF Éli Dábin Vuján
‘Al Bob convinced that he makes it that Kájil gives (to) Éli Dábin for Vuján.’

However, an additional distinction arises based on which verb you put the dative on...
Spoiler:
Consider the following sentences:

1. Vah-ví-so-s Al e Bab Kájil vahzelda-vi-zúk-so e Éli malon-vi-zuk-ám-da-vi Dábin Vuján.
2. Vah-ví-so-s Al e Bab Kájil vahzelda-vi-zuk-só-do-vi Vuján e Éli malon-vi-zúk-am Dábin.
3. Vah-vi-só-do-vi-s Al Vuján e Bab Kájil vahzelda-vi-zúk-so e Éli malon-vi-zúk-am Dábin.

In #1, Kájil is acting on behalf of Vuján.
In #2, Bab is acting on behalf of Vuján.
In #3, Al is acting on behalf of Vuján.
EDIT: Note to self; don't conlang at quarter to 11. Atili has no voiceless labials.
Last edited by Mándinrùh on Wed 27 Jun 2018, 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
Creator of Image Bwángxùd
Creator of Image Atili
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 27 Jun 2018, 17:51

First; that’s wonderful, Mandinruh! (Sorry about omitting the diacritics!)

Second; Did you read the spoilers in the O.P.?

Your own elaborations directly address most of the issues I brought up.

Thank you ☺️!


—————

Edit: Afterthoughts:
Please confirm or correct:

* CLF means “classifier”. But surely your ‘lang has more than one class, hence more than one classifier? Al and Bob and Carl are probably adult male humans, Dobbin is probably a horse, Ellie and Fran are probably female humans, not necessarily adult. If that helps.

* Your language allows both direct and indirect morphological causativization, but does not distinguish between them. (Or is that the difference between -da and -di?) It allows double morphological causativization. Presumably they could both be direct, or both indirect?

* Your language uses the Dative case both for Recipients and for Beneficiaries. Or does it? It seems you haven’t marked the recipient Ellie at all. The -lan suffix seems to go on whichever verb was done for Fran’s benefit.

* Your language’s verbs agree with up to six participants! Including middle agents!

What does -PRET mean? If it means “preterite”, why didn’t you use -PST or -PFV.PST?
(Not a big deal, I guess!)

How does your ‘lang case-mark or otherwise distinguish the middle agent?
Edit: Guesses:
-vi is the class Al and Bob and Carl are in;
-zuk is the class Ellie and Fran are in;
-am is the class Dobbin is in;
-so is the class complement clauses go in.

Do your classes encode both gender and number, like Bantu noun-classes, or only gender?
User avatar
Mándinrùh
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun 21 Aug 2016, 19:37
Location: New England

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by Mándinrùh » Wed 27 Jun 2018, 23:06

eldin raigmore wrote:
Wed 27 Jun 2018, 17:51
Spoiler:
First; that’s wonderful, Mandinruh! (Sorry about omitting the diacritics!)

Second; Did you read the spoilers in the O.P.?

Your own elaborations directly address most of the issues I brought up.

Thank you ☺️!


—————

Edit: Afterthoughts:
Please confirm or correct:

* CLF means “classifier”. But surely your ‘lang has more than one class, hence more than one classifier? Al and Bob and Carl are probably adult male humans, Dobbin is probably a horse, Ellie and Fran are probably female humans, not necessarily adult. If that helps.

* Your language allows both direct and indirect morphological causativization, but does not distinguish between them. (Or is that the difference between -da and -di?) It allows double morphological causativization. Presumably they could both be direct, or both indirect?

* Your language uses the Dative case both for Recipients and for Beneficiaries. Or does it? It seems you haven’t marked the recipient Ellie at all. The -lan suffix seems to go on whichever verb was done for Fran’s benefit.

* Your language’s verbs agree with up to six participants! Including middle agents!

What does -PRET mean? If it means “preterite”, why didn’t you use -PST or -PFV.PST?
(Not a big deal, I guess!)

How does your ‘lang case-mark or otherwise distinguish the middle agent?
Edit: Guesses:
-vi is the class Al and Bob and Carl are in;
-zuk is the class Ellie and Fran are in;
-am is the class Dobbin is in;
-so is the class complement clauses go in.

Do your classes encode both gender and number, like Bantu noun-classes, or only gender?
1. Thanks!
2. I read the first two, though I admit my eyes must have jumped past the third.
3. Yes, the language has n classifiers, where n is the number of classifiers it ends up having; I keep adding new ones, see, when I find concepts that don't fit in an existing class. I'm not sure how to gloss this effectively. In my reference grammar, I write *VI or *SO. Specifically, *VI is the class for sentient beings (people and gods), *AM is the class for quadrupeds (I feel like Dobbin must be a horse, or dog, or such), and *SO is the class for abstract concepts, including complement clauses. *ZUK is actually not a class, but means "a different referent in the same class as the last one," rather like how in Spanish, -le + -lo -> -selo. I decided to alternate using the real class marker and *ZUK for phonaesthetic reasons, but I don't know if it's actually likely.
4. The causative applicative is actually just "d", but can take on an echo vowel if necessary to satisfy phonological constraints.
5. The dative applicative is only used for beneficiaries. The recipient is a core argument to the verb "malon", "to give."
6. There are no verbs with more than three core arguments, but various applicatives can be applied to verbs to add additional referents, though as I say in my original posting, no native speaker would ever use a verb with that many applicatives tacked on, both because it becomes a bear to pronounce, and is even worse to try to parse.
7. Ack! I meant PST. This is what I mean about not conlanging at quarter to 11. I think my brain was telling me I wanted a sandwich.
8. Referents of differing classes are nonconfigurational, but referents of the same class are distinguished through word order. What may be throwing you off though is the fact that the verb can come basically anywhere in the clause regardless.
9. Number and (actual) gender are not marked (I say actual gender to distinguish from grammatical gender/noun classes, which they definitely mark)
Creator of Image Bwángxùd
Creator of Image Atili
User avatar
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by Reyzadren » Wed 27 Jun 2018, 23:14

That other natlang that I speak can handle that sentence with 2 clauses, but as I don't really like talking about natlangs, here, have a sentence in my conlang which doesn't fit your requirement instead [:D]

:con: griuskant (without the conscript)

ael tisa bob aenskuya karl ara vyzhon zhed aeli zaefand zhas dobin hin fran.
/'el 'tisa 'bɔb 'enskuja 'karl 'ara 'vYʒɔn ʒəd 'eli 'zˤefand ʒas 'dɔbin hin 'fran/
Al cause-V Bob transitivity.want-V Carl do-V situation REL Ellie give-V-T3 T0 Dobbin for Fran

ael aenskuya bob tisa karl ara vyzhon zhed aeli zaefand zhas dobin hin fran.
/'el 'enskuja 'bɔb 'tisa 'karl 'ara 'vYʒɔn ʒəd 'eli 'zˤefand ʒas 'dɔbin hin 'fran/
Al transitivity.want-V Bob cause-V Carl do-V situation REL Ellie give-V-T3 T0 Dobbin for Fran
Last edited by Reyzadren on Tue 23 Oct 2018, 23:01, edited 2 times in total.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by eldin raigmore » Thu 28 Jun 2018, 03:26

Thanks, Reyzadren!
Can you explain in a bit more detail, please?

For instance; was bedeutet -V and -T3 and T0 ?

Qu’est-ce que c’est que vous voulez dire?
(I get the general gist; it’s the details I’m not sure of.)
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Fri 29 Jun 2018, 08:40, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by Reyzadren » Thu 28 Jun 2018, 11:31

eldin raigmore wrote:
Thu 28 Jun 2018, 03:26
Thanks, Reyzadren!
Can you explain in a bit more detail, please?

For instance; was bedeutet -V and -T3 and T0 ?
V is the verb suffix. (Such a simple basic thing is not a standard Leipzig gloss term...)
T3 is the third trigger, which is the circumstantial trigger in griuskant.
T0 is an anti-trigger. It removes the effects of triggers in the area.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by eldin raigmore » Fri 29 Jun 2018, 08:40

Thanks. I need to read your conlangs’s morphology and syntax, I guess.
... ... ...
What is that other natlang you speak? It seems not to be shown on your profile?
User avatar
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by Reyzadren » Fri 29 Jun 2018, 23:00

eldin raigmore wrote:
Fri 29 Jun 2018, 08:40
Thanks. I need to read your conlangs’s morphology and syntax, I guess.
... ... ...
What is that other natlang you speak? It seems not to be shown on your profile?
No worries. My conlang is relatively simple, so I'm quite sure that you will grasp those parts quickly.
***
I don't think there is the profile subfield on this forum, though it is easily deducible even if I don't state it.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
User avatar
Imralu
greek
greek
Posts: 843
Joined: Sun 17 Nov 2013, 22:32

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by Imralu » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 23:54

:tan: Swahili:

I'm reasonably confident about this one:

Al alifanya Rob amshawishe Carl ampe Ellie Dobbin kwa ajili ya Fran.

Code: Select all

Al a-li-fany(a) Rob a-m-shawish(a)-e          Carl a-m-p(a)-e            Ellie Dobbin kwa  ajili     y-a     Fran
Al CL1-PST-make Rob CL1-CL1.OBJ-convince-SBJV CARL CL1-CL1.OBJ-give-SBJV Ellie Dobbin INST sake(CL9) CL9-GEN Fran
And less confident about this more compact but also more word-order-dependent version. I think it's theoretically correct but too ridiculous for anyone to say.

Al alimshawishisha Rob Carl ampee Fran Ellie Dobbin.

Code: Select all

Al a-li-m-shawish(a)-ish(a)      Rob Carl a-m-p(a)-e(a)-e            Fran Ellie Dobbin
Al CL1-PST-CL1.OBJ-convince.CAUS Rob Carl CL1-CL1.OBJ-give-APPL-SBJV Fran Ellie Dobbin
EDIT: Removed the passive I randomly added to the second sentence for no reason.
Last edited by Imralu on Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:46, edited 1 time in total.
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: 6186
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 10 Jul 2018, 01:14

I’m impressed, Imralu! I really enjoyed that!
Post Reply