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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:39

Davush wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:23
I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.
One idea would be to have this originally come from aristocratic usage where they would look down on farmers as "resources" more than people.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4464
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 12:42

gestaltist wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:39
Davush wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:23
I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.
One idea would be to have this originally come from aristocratic usage where they would look down on farmers as "resources" more than people.
*sniggers*
Davush
sinic
sinic
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

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

Post by Davush » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 15:37

gestaltist wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:39
Davush wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:23
I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.
One idea would be to have this originally come from aristocratic usage where they would look down on farmers as "resources" more than people.
Poor farmers... [xD] That is certainly a good explanation though! I wonder if there are any more language-based ways I could derive it. I was thinking that the original noun gets an extra suffix meaning something like -tion, and then the original noun just ends up being used to denote occupation.

*nauj- 'to cultivate'
*na:uja 'cultivation' > *-na:uja (suffixed) 'cultivator'
*na:ujatam 'cultivation-tion' (lol)

Although this still doesn't seem satisfactory.
User avatar
Reyzadren
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

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

Post by Reyzadren » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 15:53

Davush wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 15:37
*na:ujatam 'cultivation-tion' (lol)
Don't laugh. In griuskant, these "tion-tion" suffix constructions are grammatically acceptable and encouraged enough to not be awkward, though unusual. In fact, I can even think of 1 particular griuskant word on top of my head now which goes as far as "tion-tion-tion", and even that seems totally fine [xD]
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 16:13

gestaltist wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:39
Davush wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:23
I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.
One idea would be to have this originally come from aristocratic usage where they would look down on farmers as "resources" more than people.
Doesn't "cultivation" mean "farmer" anyway, semantically?

I mean, OK, no, pedantically one can draw a line between the people doing something and the abstract noun for the thing they do. But in practice, it's a very vague line. We talk of a population being people, for instance, rather than just the act of people or the state of being people. We talk of institutions when we really mean the people in them. We talk of "labour", when we mean the labouring workforce, not just when we mean the act of labouring - we talk of "relations between labour and management", where "labour" means "labouring people" and "management" means "managing people". We also, while we're at it, talk of our relations and connexions, when we really mean the people we are related or connected to, not the act of relation or connexion. We talk of "the propulsion" in a spaceship and "the drive" in a vehicle (not 'the thing causing propulsion' and 'the thing causing drive'). We talk about the government, when we mean the people doing the government. We talk about "the home help" (the people who provide the help) and sometimes "the care" (the people who provide care), and when people "live in care" we mean that they live in an institution in which people provide care for them, not that they have been translated into a realm of pure abstract Care.

This sort of conflation is absolutely normal, and just because English has "person who labours in a factory" > "labour" and "someone who helps in a home" > "help", but doesn't have "person who cultivates a field" > "cultivation" is absolutely no reason any other language couldn't have all three (or just the latter).
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 18:33

Davush wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:23
I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.
I would say association -- e.g.,
"I'm going to watch Hawaii 5-0" (a show about cops)...then gives us
"Look out for the 5-0" (the police in general)...then gives us
"You're a 5-0" (an individual cop)

or slang?
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 18:35

Reyzadren wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 15:53
Davush wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 15:37
*na:ujatam 'cultivation-tion' (lol)
Don't laugh. In griuskant, these "tion-tion" suffix constructions are grammatically acceptable and encouraged enough to not be awkward, though unusual. In fact, I can even think of 1 particular griuskant word on top of my head now which goes as far as "tion-tion-tion", and even that seems totally fine [xD]
so its the occupation equivilent of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpenhow_Hill
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 21:54

Took me long enough to remember this one, but the Icelandic word for "farmer", bóndi, comes from the present participle of Old Norse búa, "to reside". I don't know, though, whether the change came about because it was modifying a noun, e.g. maðr, that was later dropped, or if it underwent some sort of slight semantic change, e.g. "residing" > "being one who resides". So, to use "to farm", "farming is a hard" > "to be a farming person is a hard", with the verb "to farm" in this going from something you do to an aspect of who you are.
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
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2390
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 22:19

Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 22:50

sangi39 wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 21:54
Took me long enough to remember this one, but the Icelandic word for "farmer", bóndi, comes from the present participle of Old Norse búa, "to reside". I don't know, though, whether the change came about because it was modifying a noun, e.g. maðr, that was later dropped, or if it underwent some sort of slight semantic change, e.g. "residing" > "being one who resides". So, to use "to farm", "farming is a hard" > "to be a farming person is a hard", with the verb "to farm" in this going from something you do to an aspect of who you are.
I don't think there is a term in German, but there is definitely some kind of link between "farmers" and "general population" maybe that's similar to the Icelandic thing. The idea would be that people who reside are the "normal population" meaning everyone who is not a noble.
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
Reyzadren
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

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

Post by Reyzadren » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 23:21

Keenir wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 18:35
Reyzadren wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 15:53
Don't laugh. In griuskant, these "tion-tion" suffix constructions are grammatically acceptable and encouraged enough to not be awkward, though unusual. In fact, I can even think of 1 particular griuskant word on top of my head now which goes as far as "tion-tion-tion", and even that seems totally fine [xD]
so its the occupation equivilent of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpenhow_Hill
In his conlang, probably, if he wants to include it as such.

In my conlang, nah, said construction is probably not tautological.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3643
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

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

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 09:19

Dormouse559 wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 22:19
Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.
Isn't the present participle ending in Spanish -ando and not -ante, though?
Image
Davush
sinic
sinic
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

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

Post by Davush » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 11:31

@Sangi: Thanks for the example.

@Salmoneus: Thanks, yes once you put it like that I can see what you mean. Not something I had considered before.

@Reyzadren: Perhaps you could give us an example of a tion-tion-tion in action...? [:D]
User avatar
Reyzadren
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

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

Post by Reyzadren » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 12:33

Davush wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 11:31
@Reyzadren: Perhaps you could give us an example of a tion-tion-tion in action...? [:D]
:con: griuskant (without the conscript)

onon
/'ɔnɔn/
NN-NN (literal gloss: tion-tion)
concept

ononon
/'ɔnɔnɔn/
NN-NN-NN (literal gloss: tion-tion-tion)
conception (the concept of a concept, not the act of conceptualisation)
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 8851
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 13:23

Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 09:19
Dormouse559 wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 22:19
Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.
Isn't the present participle ending in Spanish -ando and not -ante, though?
Yes, it is -ando. The translations given for those three words are correct, though.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4464
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:04

shimobaatar wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 13:23
Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 09:19
Dormouse559 wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 22:19
Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.
Isn't the present participle ending in Spanish -ando and not -ante, though?
Yes, it is -ando. The translations given for those three words are correct, though.
The Spanish forms in -ante -iente are descended from the Latin present participle in -āns /-ēns and are called present participles in traditional grammar. However, they’ve largely lost their participial functionality* in verbal constructions and are mostly used as adjectives and nouns. The gerundio in -ando -iendo has assumed the function of a present participle in forming continuous tenses, so modern grammars may prefer to refer to these forms as present participles.

*Actually, I don’t think Latin ever used the present participle to form any compounds but I’m very possibly wrong.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 8851
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:16

DesEsseintes wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:04
shimobaatar wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 13:23
Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 09:19
Dormouse559 wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 22:19
Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.
Isn't the present participle ending in Spanish -ando and not -ante, though?
Yes, it is -ando. The translations given for those three words are correct, though.
The Spanish forms in -ante -iente are descended from the Latin present participle in -āns /-ēns and are called present participles in traditional grammar. However, they’ve largely lost their participial functionality* in verbal constructions and are mostly used as adjectives and nouns. The gerundio in -ando -iendo has assumed the function of a present participle in forming continuous tenses, so modern grammars may prefer to refer to these forms as present participles.

*Actually, I don’t think Latin ever used the present participle to form any compounds but I’m very possibly wrong.
Ah, I see. I don't think I've ever heard anything other than the "modern" description.
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2390
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 16:36

DesEsseintes wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:04
The Spanish forms in -ante -iente are descended from the Latin present participle in -āns /-ēns and are called present participles in traditional grammar. However, they’ve largely lost their participial functionality* in verbal constructions and are mostly used as adjectives and nouns. The gerundio in -ando -iendo has assumed the function of a present participle in forming continuous tenses, so modern grammars may prefer to refer to these forms as present participles.

*Actually, I don’t think Latin ever used the present participle to form any compounds but I’m very possibly wrong.
Regardless of their current state, I think we can agree these words are examples of what was once a participle becoming an agentive noun.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4464
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 16:46

Dormouse559 wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 16:36
DesEsseintes wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:04
The Spanish forms in -ante -iente are descended from the Latin present participle in -āns /-ēns and are called present participles in traditional grammar. However, they’ve largely lost their participial functionality* in verbal constructions and are mostly used as adjectives and nouns. The gerundio in -ando -iendo has assumed the function of a present participle in forming continuous tenses, so modern grammars may prefer to refer to these forms as present participles.

*Actually, I don’t think Latin ever used the present participle to form any compounds but I’m very possibly wrong.
Regardless of their current state, I think we can agree these words are examples of what was once a participle becoming an agentive noun.
Indeed. My point was to clarify that what you said was not wrong.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 8851
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 16:50

Just realized that I didn't know what the discussion surrounding the post I replied to was about. Sorry!
Post Reply