Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4581
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » 17 Jul 2017 08:21

cedh wrote:Yet another sound change option for *rj would be to lenite it to /j/.
[+1]

User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 654
Joined: 03 Jul 2015 15:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Adarain » 17 Jul 2017 15:00

Back in ye olden days, I had a plan for Mesak to have a substrate language/civilization, and said language would have clicks. However, I’ve since repurposed Semụr as said substrate.

Do I add clicks to its phonology?
This is the phone inventory, where parentheses are allophonic only:
Spoiler:
Image
Syllable structure is C₁V(C₂) where C₁ is all consonants and C₂ is quite restricted. I would probably add around 15 click phonemes to the C₁ position. The lexicon is fairly empty, so it wouldn’t feel very tacked on imo. I’d also probably restrict clicks to root-initial position, khoi-san style (i.e. not allow them in affixes and particles). I reckon the inventory would be along the lines of:

PoA: Alveolar !, Palatal ǂ, Lateral ‖
MoA: Tenuis !, Nasal !̃, Voiced !̬, Aspirate !ʰ and maybe one more, perhaps preglottalized or voiceless nasal.
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
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4492
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » 17 Jul 2017 16:28

Wow, this is a really beautiful phone inventory. It is beautiful on its own, but clicks would also really fit it, because you already have a contrast in aspiration/voicing and also affricates. So I would say, yes add clicks. Be sure to connect the MOAs to the other consonants though, so voiceless nasal (or other something similar) is a must [:D]
Also yay for having clicks in C1 position only. Very naturalistic.



I also have a tiny question, that has no connection to your question: How front is your a? Is it really front or maybe more central?
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
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 654
Joined: 03 Jul 2015 15:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Adarain » 17 Jul 2017 16:48

Creyeditor wrote:Wow, this is a really beautiful phone inventory. It is beautiful on its own, but clicks would also really fit it, because you already have a contrast in aspiration/voicing and also affricates. So I would say, yes add clicks. Be sure to connect the MOAs to the other consonants though, so voiceless nasal (or other something similar) is a must [:D]
Also yay for having clicks in C1 position only. Very naturalistic.
Thanks for the compliments, and I guess clicks it is.
I also have a tiny question, that has no connection to your question: How front is your a? Is it really front or maybe more central?

I wouldn’t have put it there if it wasn’t front. I usually use /a/ as a central vowel tho (I’d never use the symbol /ä/, instead if I had to contrast front and central I’d use /æ a/).
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.

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 392
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » 20 Jul 2017 01:47

Shonkasika nouns decline differently according to animacy . For the nominative and accusative cases, animate nouns take the suffixes -s and -d while inanimate nouns take -k and -(nothing) respectively. The first and second person pronouns (animate) are different, taking nothing in the animate case.

I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1821
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn » 20 Jul 2017 02:12

felipesnark wrote:I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?
I say yay. I don't know if it's more common in natlangs but I think it makes a lot more sense logistically

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6377
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » 20 Jul 2017 23:01

felipesnark wrote:Shonkasika nouns decline differently according to animacy . For the nominative and accusative cases, animate nouns take the suffixes -s and -d while inanimate nouns take -k and -(nothing) respectively. The first and second person pronouns (animate) are different, taking nothing in the animate case.

I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?
This satisfies the "universal" that,
"if one of the cases is unmarked, it includes as one of its meanings the subject of the intransitive",
only if your 'lang's Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns is Ergative - absolutive .

See https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/na ... p?number=6 and https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/na ... umber=1104.

(https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/na ... number=321 is probably also interesting, but it's relevant to nouns, not pronouns.)

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 392
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » 20 Jul 2017 23:16

eldin raigmore wrote:
felipesnark wrote:Shonkasika nouns decline differently according to animacy . For the nominative and accusative cases, animate nouns take the suffixes -s and -d while inanimate nouns take -k and -(nothing) respectively. The first and second person pronouns (animate) are different, taking nothing in the animate case.

I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?
This satisfies the "universal" that,
"if one of the cases is unmarked, it includes as one of its meanings the subject of the intransitive",
only if your 'lang's Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns is Ergative - absolutive .

See https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/na ... p?number=6 and https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/na ... umber=1104.

(https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/na ... number=321 is probably also interesting, but it's relevant to nouns, not pronouns.)
Well, Shonkasika's alignment is nominative-accusative, so I don't know. But I already have a marked nominative for the inanimate nouns. Those nouns have -k nominative and no ending in the accusative.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6377
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » 20 Jul 2017 23:44

felipesnark wrote:Well, Shonkasika's alignment is nominative-accusative, so I don't know. But I already have a marked nominative for the inanimate nouns. Those nouns have -k nominative and no ending in the accusative.
Marked nominative with marked accusative is attested by several languages in WALS.info's database. I can't tell how many.

However, they included no languages that have marked nominative with unmarked accusative. There may be no such languages.
According to WALS.info, languages that have marked nominative with unmarked accusative are very rare.
Though languages that have marked absolutive with unmarked ergative are even rarer; they know of only one.
They've included 6 languages in their database that do that with their nouns; and 3 (all included among the aforesaid 6) that (also) do that with their pronouns.
Edit: I had misread the parts of the chapter texts for chapters 98 and 99 that had to do with marked nominatives.
Many languages have neither nominative/absolutive, nor accusative, nor ergative, marked on their nouns (98 languages), or on their pronouns (79 languages), or both (70 languages).
The overwhelming majority of such languages all rely on marking the verb instead. (69 out of 79 (~87%) that don't mark their pronouns do mark* their verbs; 76/98 (~78%) that don't mark their nouns do mark* their verbs. 50/70 (~71%) of the languages that mark neither their nouns nor their pronouns for these cases, do mark* their verbs.).
*(That is, mark their verbs in such a way that addressees can tell which participant the speaker means is the agent and which the patient.)

If you make your language marked nominative / unmarked accusative, you will be violating one or two or three "statistical universals".
Since all three are "statistical" rather than "absolute", that means there is some known exception to each one of them.
WALS.info didn't include any such exceptions, as near as I can tell.
Also, there may be no language which is an exception to all three; nor even to any two of them.

So what?
Go for it!
If you can't make it work, or have trouble making it work, you'll gain insight into why it's so rare among natlangs.
If you can make it work, that'll probably be interesting too, especially to the rest of us.

I only wanted you to go into it "with eyes open";
that is, to be aware that it might be unnaturalistic and/or unrealistic, if you want your conspeaker community to consist of standard average modern humans.

However, there are other changes that would be "more naturalistic" and/or "more realistic".
You could make the markings on nouns and/or pronouns be "split-ergative";
or you could make the markings on nouns and/or pronouns be "neutral", and have the agreement-marking on the verb disambiguate for you instead.
Spoiler:
Agents just naturally tend to be animate; consequently addressees just tend to assume that animates must be agents, unless the speaker explicitly marks them as patients.
So you might assume nouns and pronouns for animates are unmarked nominative and marked accusative.


OTOH inanimates just naturally tend to be patients. If an inanimate is an agent, that's a remarkable fact, and the speaker should mark it for the addressee's benefit.
So you might assume nouns and pronouns for inanimates to be unmarked absolutive and marked ergative.

Or else, they are all neutral (no difference between nominative and accusative nor between ergative and absolutive).

Since inanimates are almost always 3rd-person (a 2nd-person inanimate is kinda weird, and a 1st-person inanimate is symptomatic of hallucination):
and also, 1st-persons are always animate, and 2nd-persons are sentient in any "felicitous" speech-act, and usually not only animate, but the same species as the speaker, if the speaker expects a reply or expects the 2nd-person to carry a message:
there's a strong correlation in at least one direction between 1st- and 2nd- person and animacy, and between 3rd-person and inanimacy.

That leads to a somewhat-less-strong correlation between 1st- and 2nd- -person agents and 3rd-person patients.

Your 1st- and 2nd- person pronouns, therefore, are likelier to be unmarked nominative / marked accusative.
Or maybe neutral (nominative/absolutive, accusative, and ergative are all equally unmarked).

3rd-person pronouns may be handled differently depending on the animacy of their referents.
Animate 3rd-person pronouns might be unmarked nominative / marked accusative, (or neutral);
Inanimate 3rd-person pronouns might be unmarked absolutive / marked ergative, (or neutral).

In several split-ergative languages, all animates are unmarked nominative / marked accusative and all inanimates are unmarked absolutive / marked ergative. [citation needed]
In several (5 in WALS.info) split-ergative languages, all pronouns are unmarked nominative / marked accusative and all nouns are unmarked absolutive / marked ergative.

I don't know that I've seen them mentioned, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are languages whose 1st- and 2nd- -person pronouns are all unmarked nominative / marked accusative, but whose 3rd-person pronouns are all unmarked absolutive / marked ergative.[citation needed]
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 25 Jul 2017 12:11, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
MrKrov
banned
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:47
Location: /ai/ > /a:/
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by MrKrov » 21 Jul 2017 00:53

eldin raigmore wrote:However, they included no languages that have marked nominative with unmarked accusative. There may be no such languages.
Now that's just not true. The 6 marked nominative languages are exactly those languages. Languages with marked accusative and marked or unmarked nominative are all lumped into "Nominative - accusative (standard)". Please read the WALS again?

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 392
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » 21 Jul 2017 01:05

Are there systems that are split-ergative by animacy? Like animate nouns are nominative-accusative, and inanimate nouns are ergatative-absolutive?
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 392
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » 21 Jul 2017 01:11

MrKrov wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:However, they included no languages that have marked nominative with unmarked accusative. There may be no such languages.
Now that's just not true. The 6 marked nominative languages are exactly those languages. Languages with marked accusative and marked or unmarked nominative are all lumped into "Nominative - accusative (standard)". Please read the WALS again?
If that's true, my inanimate nouns (marked nominative with -k and unmarked accusative) are okay. I could also switch markings for the inanimate nouns, having nothing for nominative and -k for accusative. Right now, animate nominatives have -s and animate accusatives have -d. At the moment, 1p and 2p personal pronouns have nothing for nominative and -d for accusative. Shonkasika is apriori, but I'd prefer for pick naturalistic alternatives.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4492
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » 21 Jul 2017 14:26

felipesnark wrote:Are there systems that are split-ergative by animacy? Like animate nouns are nominative-accusative, and inanimate nouns are ergatative-absolutive?
I am pretty sure that some Australian languages do this.
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]

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 392
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » 21 Jul 2017 17:01

Okay, I've boiled it down to a couple of options, both regarding nouns/adjectives in general, and the 1p and 2p pronouns in particular.

For nouns in general,
Option A (current system)

Code: Select all

     anim.  inan.
nom. -s     -k
acc. -d     -
voc. -so    -ko
Option B

Code: Select all

     anim.  inan.
nom. -s     -
acc. -d     -k
voc. -do    -ko
Which one?

For pronouns (1p and 2p only. I think 3p will be treated mostly like regular nouns)
Option A (current system)

Code: Select all

nom. -
acc. -d
Option B

Code: Select all

nom. -dz
acc. -
Option C

Code: Select all

    sg. pl.
nom. -i  -s
acc.  -  -
Which? Thanks for your opinions!
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6377
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » 21 Jul 2017 17:23

felipesnark wrote:If that's true, my inanimate nouns (marked nominative with -k and unmarked accusative) are okay. I could also switch markings for the inanimate nouns, having nothing for nominative and -k for accusative. Right now, animate nominatives have -s and animate accusatives have -d. At the moment, 1p and 2p personal pronouns have nothing for nominative and -d for accusative. Shonkasika is apriori, but I'd prefer for pick naturalistic alternatives.
It is true. I had misread the chapter.
in [url]http://wals.info/chapter/98[/url] Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases, Bernard Comrie wrote:Note that the definition of the nominative–accusative system says nothing about how the distinction between S/A and P is marked. In Latvian, both nominative and accusative have overt markers. However, it is also possible for just the accusative to have an overt marker, as in Hungarian, where the word for ‘person’ is ember in the nominative, but ember-t in the accusative. Much less frequently cross-linguistically, it is the nominative that has an overt marker and the accusative that lacks one, as in Harar Oromo (Cushitic, Afroasiatic; Ethiopia) examples (3a–b).
....
Since the “marked nominative” type illustrated by Harar Oromo is a topic of current typological and theoretical interest, it has been given a separate encoding in the maps, contrasting with the standard type where either just the accusative or both nominative and accusative are marked.
Exactly the same paragraph is in http://wals.info/chapter/99 "Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns". Unfortunately, it also has exactly the same examples; which is a shame, because the examples have only full noun-phrases in them; there aren't any examples of marked-nominative / unmarked-accusative pronouns in chapter 99, though three such languages are sampled in map 99A.

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 392
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » 21 Jul 2017 22:26

eldin raigmore wrote:
felipesnark wrote:If that's true, my inanimate nouns (marked nominative with -k and unmarked accusative) are okay. I could also switch markings for the inanimate nouns, having nothing for nominative and -k for accusative. Right now, animate nominatives have -s and animate accusatives have -d. At the moment, 1p and 2p personal pronouns have nothing for nominative and -d for accusative. Shonkasika is apriori, but I'd prefer for pick naturalistic alternatives.
It is true. I had misread the chapter.
in [url]http://wals.info/chapter/98[/url] Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases, Bernard Comrie wrote:Note that the definition of the nominative–accusative system says nothing about how the distinction between S/A and P is marked. In Latvian, both nominative and accusative have overt markers. However, it is also possible for just the accusative to have an overt marker, as in Hungarian, where the word for ‘person’ is ember in the nominative, but ember-t in the accusative. Much less frequently cross-linguistically, it is the nominative that has an overt marker and the accusative that lacks one, as in Harar Oromo (Cushitic, Afroasiatic; Ethiopia) examples (3a–b).
....
Since the “marked nominative” type illustrated by Harar Oromo is a topic of current typological and theoretical interest, it has been given a separate encoding in the maps, contrasting with the standard type where either just the accusative or both nominative and accusative are marked.
Exactly the same paragraph is in http://wals.info/chapter/99 "Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns". Unfortunately, it also has exactly the same examples; which is a shame, because the examples have only full noun-phrases in them; there aren't any examples of marked-nominative / unmarked-accusative pronouns in chapter 99, though three such languages are sampled in map 99A.
Thanks for the WALS info. I actually went and read over those chapters. While marked nominative is attested, I decided to go with Option B, with an unmarked nominative for inanimate nouns. I also decided to stick with the current system for 1p and 2p personal pronouns for now. Thanks for the conversation, guys.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

horizont
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 15
Joined: 03 Jul 2017 11:55

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by horizont » 24 Jul 2017 09:31

felipesnark wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
felipesnark wrote:If that's true, my inanimate nouns (marked nominative with -k and unmarked accusative) are okay. I could also switch markings for the inanimate nouns, having nothing for nominative and -k for accusative. Right now, animate nominatives have -s and animate accusatives have -d. At the moment, 1p and 2p personal pronouns have nothing for nominative and -d for accusative. Shonkasika is apriori, but I'd prefer for pick naturalistic alternatives.
It is true. I had misread the chapter.
in [url]http://wals.info/chapter/98[/url] Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases, Bernard Comrie wrote:Note that the definition of the nominative–accusative system says nothing about how the distinction between S/A and P is marked. In Latvian, both nominative and accusative have overt markers. However, it is also possible for just the accusative to have an overt marker, as in Hungarian, where the word for ‘person’ is ember in the nominative, but ember-t in the accusative. Much less frequently cross-linguistically, it is the nominative that has an overt marker and the accusative that lacks one, as in Harar Oromo (Cushitic, Afroasiatic; Ethiopia) examples (3a–b).
....
Since the “marked nominative” type illustrated by Harar Oromo is a topic of current typological and theoretical interest, it has been given a separate encoding in the maps, contrasting with the standard type where either just the accusative or both nominative and accusative are marked.
Exactly the same paragraph is in http://wals.info/chapter/99 "Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns". Unfortunately, it also has exactly the same examples; which is a shame, because the examples have only full noun-phrases in them; there aren't any examples of marked-nominative / unmarked-accusative pronouns in chapter 99, though three such languages are sampled in map 99A.
Thanks for the WALS info. I actually went and read over those chapters. While marked nominative is attested, I decided to go with Option B, with an unmarked nominative for inanimate nouns. I also decided to stick with the current system for 1p and 2p personal pronouns for now. Thanks for the conversation, guys.
Very interesting thread to follow:)

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 665
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 24 Jul 2017 20:03

felipesnark wrote:Are there systems that are split-ergative by animacy? Like animate nouns are nominative-accusative, and inanimate nouns are ergatative-absolutive?
This is basically the system in Hittite. "Common" nouns are nominative/accusative, and neuter nouns are ergative/absolutive. Though the "common" class includes inanimates as well, it's just that neuter includes only inanimates.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6377
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » 25 Jul 2017 11:56

me wrote:Exactly the same paragraph is in http://wals.info/chapter/99 "Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns". Unfortunately, it also has exactly the same examples; which is a shame, because the examples have only full noun-phrases in them; there aren't any examples of marked-nominative / unmarked-accusative pronouns in chapter 99, though three such languages are sampled in map 99A.
I posted (rather irritatingly many) (and too emphatic) requests to WALS.info for examples just about pronouns, and Matthew Dryer kindly came through.
on July 25th, 2017 at 2:41 am, Matthew Dryer wrote:Correction to previous post:
If you click on Discuss WALS Datapoint Igbo / Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns above (or go directly to http://wals.info/valuesets/99A-igb ), you will see relevant examples.
on July 25th, 2017 at 2:40 am, Matthew Dryer wrote:Correction to previous post:
If you click on Discuss WALS Datapoint Maricopa / Alignment of Case Marking of Pronouns above (or go directly to http://wals.info/valuesets/99A-mar ), you will see relevant examples.
Presumably you can get examples for any language sampled for map 99A by going to http://wals.info/valuesets/99A-xxx where xxx is their "languoid" code for that language.

For instance, (as Dr. Prof. Dryer pointed out), http://wals.info/valuesets/99A-ana gets you to a list of four example sentences in Araona, a language with ergative-absolutive alignment of case-marking of pronouns.
Three of the four example sentences actually contain pronouns.
Sentence igt-1733 is intransitive with first-person-singular (1s-ABS) subject <ema>;
sentence igt-1734 is transitive with first-person-singular (1s-ERG) agent <yama> and second-person (ABS, I guess?) recipient <midya>;
sentence igt-1731 looks (I'm guessing here!) to be "double-subject intransitive" (or "reciprocal", maybe?) with the plural absolutive noun <tata cana> and the 1st-sing-ABS pronoun <ema> as subjects (though perhaps <ema> is the object of an adposition?);
sentence igt-1732 is ditransitive with three full noun-phrases; a plural ergative agent <mama cana ja>, a plural absolutive recipient <tata cana>, and an (ABS?) theme <jana>.

It won't work without both the feature number (99A) and the language code;
that is, you'll just get a 404 error if you try either of
http://wals.info/valuesets/99A
or
http://wals.info/valuesets/.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » 31 Jul 2017 19:36

Should I add diphthong /ie/ to Vålkakil for Slavonic loan words with /e/ after a palatalized consonant? Vålkakil doesn't have diphthongs ATM.

Post Reply