Is this naturalistic?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
greatbuddha
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:01

Is this naturalistic?

Post by greatbuddha » 26 May 2013 22:31

My conlang Behru cesik has a complex verbal system requiring knowledge of four principle parts per stem, the basic stem, compound stem, passive stem, and special compound stem, for example
cet, cidaa, crshiiit, cocash/cocay :speak
cedú (cet-ú) I speak
cidaazénka (cidaa-zén-ka) speaking while going
crshiidú lonkahi (crshiit-ú) I am spoken into being
cocayesú (cocash-es-ú) I can speak

In order to form the past or future tense stems, one inserts the infixes -ni- or -li- before the second syllable or final consonant if there is no second syllable, eg: cet to cenit, crshiit to crshiinit. But things get complicated when you add these infixes to the special compound stem, for example, ceñocayesú would be "I was able to speak", not /conicayesú/. The infix is inserted like this.
first syllable of basic stem-special form of infix-remainder of special compound stem
ce- from cet, -ño- the special form of ni, -cash the remainder of the special compound stem, ceñocash/ ceñocay

Another verb, mála, mëláa, myáala, hmáalash/ hmáalay: move

má- from mála, -ño- special form of ni, -lash remainder of hmáalash/ hmáalay
máñolayesú (máñolay-es-ú) "I was able to move ", from hmáalayesú "I can move"

However, things get more complicated if the basic verb stem has a consonant after the first syllable but before the initial consonant cluster of the second syllable/final consonant that receives a vowel in the special compound stem, eg: xworji, xwërjii, xühngyoorji, xworojii/ xworojiy, in which case the infix is inserted before the vowel receiving consonant in its normal stem, eg; xwo- (from xworji) -ni- (normal form) -rojii (from xworojii/ xworojiy), thus xwonirojiyesú (xwonirojii-es-ú), "I was able to collapse in), from xworojiyesú, "I can collapse in."

Would humans be able to parse and produce such formations, or is this unnaturalistic?
तृष्णात्क्रोधदुःखमिति उद्धो बुद्धः

Ithisa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 May 2013 12:14

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by Ithisa » 27 May 2013 00:28

I think it might depend on whether the four base forms are completely irregular or pseudo-regular (i.e. has five or six classes and few exceptions). I don't think a naturalistic language would introduce irregular random variations for the base forms without a pattern, since that just asks for extremely difficult-to-memorize stuff. Sooner or later, some patterns will emerge and verbs would quickly collapse into a few categories.
Fluent: :chn: :eng:
Intermediate: :jpn:

greatbuddha
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:01

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by greatbuddha » 27 May 2013 00:44

they were regular, they've been made irregular by recent sound changes, it isn't suppletion en masse or anything.
तृष्णात्क्रोधदुःखमिति उद्धो बुद्धः

Ithisa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 May 2013 12:14

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by Ithisa » 27 May 2013 00:55

greatbuddha wrote:they were regular, they've been made irregular by recent sound changes, it isn't suppletion en masse or anything.
Sound changes are generally, guess what, really regular.
Fluent: :chn: :eng:
Intermediate: :jpn:

greatbuddha
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:01

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by greatbuddha » 27 May 2013 01:19

Sound changes made proto-IE ablaut irregular in germanic languages, but regular in sanskrit and bengali
It goes either way.
तृष्णात्क्रोधदुःखमिति उद्धो बुद्धः

Ithisa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 May 2013 12:14

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by Ithisa » 27 May 2013 01:37

greatbuddha wrote:Sound changes made proto-IE ablaut irregular in germanic languages, but regular in sanskrit and bengali
It goes either way.
IIRC it was originally irregular right? Irregular stuff change to regular when sound changes merge the irregular pairs so they sound regular. This happened with Japanese verbs too (though not entirely due to sound changes, and was mostly a huge merging of conjugation patterns).
Fluent: :chn: :eng:
Intermediate: :jpn:

greatbuddha
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:01

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by greatbuddha » 27 May 2013 01:49

In behru cesik, similar sounding verbs are analogized to form their principle parts the same, even if they didn't in the past.
And Proto-IE ablaut was regular, I don't believe it is possible for something to be "originally irregular", because that would imply that that feature of the language had been around since the dawn of mankind, and nothing lasts that long.
तृष्णात्क्रोधदुःखमिति उद्धो बुद्धः

Ithisa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 May 2013 12:14

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by Ithisa » 27 May 2013 03:26

greatbuddha wrote:In behru cesik, similar sounding verbs are analogized to form their principle parts the same, even if they didn't in the past.
And Proto-IE ablaut was regular, I don't believe it is possible for something to be "originally irregular", because that would imply that that feature of the language had been around since the dawn of mankind, and nothing lasts that long.
It makes "sense" that people don't invent messy irregular systems when they develop languages long long ago, but interestingly most languages lose irregularities over time in morphology (while often gaining irregularities in syntax). It makes sense that the original language would contain random irregularities that collapsed over time.
Fluent: :chn: :eng:
Intermediate: :jpn:

greatbuddha
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:01

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by greatbuddha » 27 May 2013 04:07

English (at least my dialect), is growing in morphological complexity, syntax is pretty stable.
Par example
Allthough english no longer has a productive case system except the posessive, it's gained many subject clitics, like v, z, d and l̩, that agree with the number of the subject and tense/aspect of the verb. They've already started combining with pronouns irregularily, such as
I'll /al/ vs that guy'll /ðæt gail̩/, she'll /ʃl̩/ vs the bee'll /ðə bil̩/.
Or, verbs that combine with the clitic /tə/ irregularily (quite distinct from the preposition /tə/)
like going to /gənə/ and want to /wanə/ vs coming to /kəmiŋtə/
the preposition /tə/ distinct entity from the clitic /tə/ as evidenced by these sentences
I'm /going to/ go to the store /gənə/
I'm /going to/ the store /goiŋtə/
A morphological distinction english lacked until recently. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the languages tend to increase syntax at the expense of morphology, that's an overgeneralization of the trends of romance languages. 1000 years ago, Hungarian was an analytical language, yet look at it now.
तृष्णात्क्रोधदुःखमिति उद्धो बुद्धः

Ambrisio
greek
greek
Posts: 497
Joined: 31 Jan 2013 07:48

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by Ambrisio » 27 May 2013 06:15

Nice analysis! I had something similar in mind when I first learned what "Oppan Gangnam Style" means. The -n in oppan is actually a clitic form of the Korean postposition neun ("as for"). It seemed kind of unusual, but soon I realized that English does it too (as in "Oppa's" for "Oppa is"). :-)

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Is this naturalistic?

Post by Prinsessa » 27 May 2013 08:59

Ambrisio wrote:Nice analysis! I had something similar in mind when I first learned what "Oppan Gangnam Style" means. The -n in oppan is actually a clitic form of the Korean postposition neun ("as for"). It seemed kind of unusual, but soon I realized that English does it too (as in "Oppa's" for "Oppa is"). :-)
Plural, genitive and copula. Not bad, /z/.

Post Reply