Omzinian Scrap thread

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2534
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Omzinian Scrap thread

Post by Omzinesý » 30 Jan 2019 08:33

My next project will be something morphologically complex.
My latest projects have been morphonologically relatively simple, which allows me concentrate on syntax and still keep the lang consistent. Too complex projects tend to explode and I get messed with them. In Kahichali I just couldn't handle the incorporations.
But the next project will have cross referencing on verbs, many conjugations, a complex TAME system etc. One alternative is to revive Mhilva http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Mhilva
Things would be easier, if I had a proto-lang from which to derive the descendant's complex paradigms, but I never do.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6315
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Omzinian Scrap thread

Post by eldin raigmore » 31 Jan 2019 05:56

Omzinesý wrote:
30 Jan 2019 08:33
My next project will be something morphologically complex.
My latest projects have been morphonologically relatively simple, which allows me concentrate on syntax and still keep the lang consistent. Too complex projects tend to explode and I get messed with them. In Kahichali I just couldn't handle the incorporations.
But the next project will have cross referencing on verbs, many conjugations, a complex TAME system etc. One alternative is to revive Mhilva http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Mhilva
Things would be easier, if I had a proto-lang from which to derive the descendant's complex paradigms, but I never do.
1. Assuming the TAM in TAME stands for Tense, Aspect, and Modality/Mode/Mood; what does the E stand for?
2. Could it stand for Evidentiality?
3. Do you plan to mention Voice and/or Polarity?

————

(Other minor features of verbs include mirativity, validationality, and pluractionality. I’m sure you already know that.)

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2534
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Omzinian Scrap thread

Post by Omzinesý » 31 Jan 2019 11:54

eldin raigmore wrote:
31 Jan 2019 05:56
Omzinesý wrote:
30 Jan 2019 08:33
My next project will be something morphologically complex.
My latest projects have been morphonologically relatively simple, which allows me concentrate on syntax and still keep the lang consistent. Too complex projects tend to explode and I get messed with them. In Kahichali I just couldn't handle the incorporations.
But the next project will have cross referencing on verbs, many conjugations, a complex TAME system etc. One alternative is to revive Mhilva http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Mhilva
Things would be easier, if I had a proto-lang from which to derive the descendant's complex paradigms, but I never do.
1. Assuming the TAM in TAME stands for Tense, Aspect, and Modality/Mode/Mood; what does the E stand for?
2. Could it stand for Evidentiality?
3. Do you plan to mention Voice and/or Polarity?



————

(Other minor features of verbs include mirativity, validationality, and pluractionality. I’m sure you already know that.)
1)2) Yes, yes TAME is a category Tense-Aspect-Mood-Evidentiality. It's "generally used", not my invention. They often coappear in one category. Though petsonally I have started to think of the mood has any single meaning and should still be devided in smaller categories.

3) Voice, in the prototypical situation, is different from TAME. I don't know if it will appear.

How does validationality differ from evidentiality?
Pluractionality is a new handy term, thanks. I have used the category without knowing the name.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6315
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Omzinian Scrap thread

Post by eldin raigmore » 01 Feb 2019 00:23

I tri d to answer and lost it. I’ll try again.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6315
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Omzinian Scrap thread

Post by eldin raigmore » 01 Feb 2019 15:43

Omzinesý wrote:
31 Jan 2019 11:54
1)2) Yes, yes TAME is a category Tense-Aspect-Mood-Evidentiality. It's "generally used", not my invention. They often coappear in one category. Though personally I have started to think of the mood has any single meaning and should still be devided in smaller categories.
3) Voice, in the prototypical situation, is different from TAME. I don't know if it will appear.
How does validationality differ from evidentiality?
Pluractionality is a new handy term, thanks. I have used the category without knowing the name.
I have heard of and seen TAM. I had never previously seen nor heard of TAME.

Among verbal features, the “big five” are, so I have read, in alphabetical order (if English is our metalanguage):
* Aspect
* Modality/Mode/Mood
* Polarity
* Tense
* Voice

(Often these are “the big six”, because various grammarians, in describing various languages, find it necessary to distinguish one of Modality or Mode or Mood from the other two.)

I once read a definition of “verbal auxiliary word” which required a word to help specify one of those “big five (or six)” features, possibly along with others, in order to be called a verbal auxiliary word.

The minor verbal features of which I am aware and can call to mind readily at the moment are:
* evidentiality
* mirativity
* validationality
* pluractionality

See https://books.google.com/books?id=LC3Df ... cs&f=false and following pp., for a discussion of evidentiality, mirativity, and validationality, and the difficulty of teasing them apart from TAM, and in particular of telling evidentiality from validationality.

Also see https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q ... -accidents for a more sensible order than “alphabetical order by English term”.

Evidentiality and mirativity and validationality are all related to alethic and/or epistemic mode or mood; but they aren’t the same as such modes or moods, and also aren’t the same as each other.

Epistemic mood is about how sure the speaker is of what they are saying.

Evidentiality is about how or why they can be that sure; what kind of evidence they have.

Validationality is a kind of “very certain”, especially if it contrasts with how sure the speaker was moments ago, or how sure the addressee or some third person is. It opposes dubitativity, but isn’t precisely its opposite. in my opinion it is quite frequently entangled semantically or pragmatically with the “necessarily” alethic mode or mood.

Mirativity is about how surprising the speaker finds the true thing they just said. If the speaker hasn’t yet wrapped their head around that information, they’ll mark it as mirative. Possibly they’re still hanging on to doubt about their statement, in spite of now having convincing evidence of its truth.

Apparently you already found out about pluractionality!

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2534
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Omzinian Scrap thread

Post by Omzinesý » 04 Feb 2019 16:59

eldin raigmore wrote:
01 Feb 2019 15:43
Evidentiality and mirativity and validationality are all related to alethic and/or epistemic mode or mood; but they aren’t the same as such modes or moods, and also aren’t the same as each other.

Epistemic mood is about how sure the speaker is of what they are saying.

Evidentiality is about how or why they can be that sure; what kind of evidence they have.

Validationality is a kind of “very certain”, especially if it contrasts with how sure the speaker was moments ago, or how sure the addressee or some third person is. It opposes dubitativity, but isn’t precisely its opposite. in my opinion it is quite frequently entangled semantically or pragmatically with the “necessarily” alethic mode or mood.
Isn't being "very certain" just epistemic modality?
You are not mentioning egophoricity. Or is validationality just another name for it?

User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6315
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Omzinian Scrap thread

Post by eldin raigmore » 04 Feb 2019 17:20

Omzinesý wrote:
04 Feb 2019 16:59
Isn't being "very certain" just epistemic modality?
In the same sense that negative polarity is “just” irrealis mood, maybe.
It’s clearly related.
IIUC validationality contains a built-in contrast with either the speaker’s previous degree of certainty, or with some non-first-person’s degree of certainty.
Like retrospective or “perfect” “tenses”; “present perfect” is about an anterior or past or completed event (or whatever), that has present or ongoing relevance. There’s a built-in contrast or comparison.
People whose L1 has no retrospective, tend to use an L2’s retrospective as “recent past”; especially if their L1 has degrees-of-remoteness but the L2 doesn’t.
People whose L1 doesn’t have middle voice tend to have trouble using it correctly in L2 that does have it.
I bet the same is true of validationality.
If you’re having difficulty, it seems that, from what Payne says, you’re in good company.
It appears validationality contrasts with evidentiality moreso than with epistemic mood. Or that it’s confused with evidentiality moreso than with mood. I am not an expert, and my L1 has neither evidentiality nor validationality nor mirativity.
Omzinesý wrote:
04 Feb 2019 16:59
You are not mentioning egophoricity. Or is validationality just another name for it?
I didn’t mention egophoricity because I didn’t think of it; it’s not on the list from Tom E. Payne’s Describing Morphosyntax I was using.
I doubt egophoricity is the same as validationality in every language that has either of them. For some languages maybe they are the same. But perhaps some languages have both.
I think it’s a good think to consider, especially if there’s morphology about it.

————————————————————

Did you get a chance to read any of the docs I indicated to you? In particular, did you read pp 252-253 of Payne’s D.M.?

Post Reply