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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Nachtuil
sinic
sinic
Posts: 424
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 23:16

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

Post by Nachtuil » 04 Aug 2018 20:43

k1234567890y wrote:
04 Aug 2018 10:32
Nachtuil wrote:
04 Aug 2018 02:36
In languages with a system of polypersonal agreement on the verb, is that marking ever lacking for possession verbs? Especially if the possession verb is irregular?
uncertain, maybe unlikely? I guess either they still exist on possession verbs or such verbs have become highly irregular...or maybe you can have this as the semantic development to have a "no-mark possessive verb"? demonstrative > "to be(copula)" > "to be(locational and existential), to have", but uncertain

btw I tend to use the existential verbs for possession verbs too, as it is not uncommon for natlangs not to have a specific verb for the meaning "to have"

Thanks Ky. I really want to try a language like that, where you don't have a verb for possession! Are there any good example languages to look at for that?

I guess in my case, I may just keep the marking on the verbs, irregular though they are. My possession verbs are QUITE irregular too. haha.

User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 3000
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

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

Post by k1234567890y » 04 Aug 2018 20:45

Nachtuil wrote:
04 Aug 2018 20:43
k1234567890y wrote:
04 Aug 2018 10:32
Nachtuil wrote:
04 Aug 2018 02:36
In languages with a system of polypersonal agreement on the verb, is that marking ever lacking for possession verbs? Especially if the possession verb is irregular?
uncertain, maybe unlikely? I guess either they still exist on possession verbs or such verbs have become highly irregular...or maybe you can have this as the semantic development to have a "no-mark possessive verb"? demonstrative > "to be(copula)" > "to be(locational and existential), to have", but uncertain

btw I tend to use the existential verbs for possession verbs too, as it is not uncommon for natlangs not to have a specific verb for the meaning "to have"

Thanks Ky. I really want to try a language like that, where you don't have a verb for possession! Are there any good example languages to look at for that?

I guess in my case, I may just keep the marking on the verbs, irregular though they are. My possession verbs are QUITE irregular too. haha.
In languages like Japanese and Manchu, you traditionally say something like "there is a car at Nachtuil" instead of "Nachtuil has a car" to indicate the meaning "Nachtuil has a car"...although Japanese seems to be developing a verb for "to have".

You can look at this to draw inspirations: http://wals.info/chapter/117
...

brblues
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 41
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 14:34

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

Post by brblues » 04 Aug 2018 21:37

Nachtuil wrote:
04 Aug 2018 20:43

Thanks Ky. I really want to try a language like that, where you don't have a verb for possession! Are there any good example languages to look at for that?
Turkish has possessive suffixes, i.e. one suffix for each person of possessor (a suffix for "my", "yours" etc.). The concrete form of the suffix is determined by vowel harmony.

So for instance:

araba = car
araba-m
car-POSS1sg
"My car"

(You won't see vowel harmony in the suffix in action here as it ends in a vowel).

To express "to have", you just use the noun in the possessed form plus "var" (which expresses existence, but isn't a verb - at least it's not conjugated).

Arabam var => I have a car

EDITED TO ADD:

It gets more interesting once you have a third-person possessive, as you can add the possessor in genitive then, and you can stack posessions - well you do that in English too actually, but rather with genitives only:

"My teacher's car"
öğretmen-im-in araba-sı
teacher-POSS1sg-GEN car-poss3sg

And following on from that: "My teacher doesn't have a car"
öğretmen-im-in araba-sı yok
teacher-POSS1sg-GEN car-poss3sg non-existent
(teacher-my-'s car-his doesn't exist)

Full disclosure - I'm just an extremely amateurish learner of Turkish myself and since the lessons I taught myself online quite a lot of time has passed, so correct me if I'm spouting nonsense here!
Last edited by brblues on 05 Aug 2018 15:28, edited 2 times in total.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1587
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 04 Aug 2018 23:03

Irish is a close-to-home example of the 'at me' strategy. Tá madra agam, "Stands a dog at me" ("I have a dog") (not literally 'stands' - its lost its original non-auxiliary meaning). Sometimes 'with' is used instead: tá madra liom, "Stands a dog with me" ("I own a dog"). The difference is apparently complicated, but in general 'with' is used meaning 'in my possession', whereas 'le' is used meaning 'belonging to me'. Also, 'on' can be used with abstract possession - tá brón orm, "Stands a sorrow on me" ("I'm sorry").

This used to be common throughout Europe - Latin used it too, though it used a dative rather than a locative.

In WALS' classification, have-possession is the most common strategy, but still only accounts for about a quarter of their language sample. Their other strategies are:
- locative/dative: "the dog is at me"
- genitive: "the dog is of me"
- topicalisation: "as for me, a dog exists"
- conjunction: "I exist and also a dog"

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 126
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 05 Aug 2018 22:12

Can /c͡ç/ survive without phonemic /c ç/? What about /ɟ͡ʝ/ without a phonemic /ɟ/? There's been a /j→ʝ/ merger in Aʻatun and, possibly a /ç→ɕ/ merger as well.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3192
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 05 Aug 2018 23:38

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
05 Aug 2018 22:12
Can /c͡ç/ survive without phonemic /c ç/? What about /ɟ͡ʝ/ without a phonemic /ɟ/? There's been a /j→ʝ/ merger in Aʻatun and, possibly a /ç→ɕ/ merger as well.
Hungarian, apparently (although it seems that whether the palatals are plosives or affricates is debated).
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.

Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 828
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 00:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 06 Aug 2018 00:00

Salmoneus wrote:
04 Aug 2018 23:03
Irish is a close-to-home example of the 'at me' strategy. Tá madra agam, "Stands a dog at me" ("I have a dog") (not literally 'stands' - its lost its original non-auxiliary meaning). Sometimes 'with' is used instead: tá madra liom, "Stands a dog with me" ("I own a dog"). The difference is apparently complicated, but in general 'with' is used meaning 'in my possession', whereas 'le' is used meaning 'belonging to me'. Also, 'on' can be used with abstract possession - tá brón orm, "Stands a sorrow on me" ("I'm sorry").

This used to be common throughout Europe - Latin used it too, though it used a dative rather than a locative.

In WALS' classification, have-possession is the most common strategy, but still only accounts for about a quarter of their language sample. Their other strategies are:
- locative/dative: "the dog is at me"
- genitive: "the dog is of me"
- topicalisation: "as for me, a dog exists"
- conjunction: "I exist and also a dog"
I'm thinking of using this construction for my germaniclang. I imagine til would be the preposition of choice.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Mannish — A North Germanic language spoken on the Calf of Man
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 126
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 06 Aug 2018 01:57

Thanks. Could /ʈ͡ʂ~c͡ç ɖ͡ʐ~ɟ͡ʝ/, or does the difference in sibilance between, for example, /ʈ͡ʂ c͡ç/ preclude such a relationship?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3192
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 06 Aug 2018 03:40

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
06 Aug 2018 01:57
Thanks. Could /ʈ͡ʂ~c͡ç ɖ͡ʐ~ɟ͡ʝ/, or does the difference in sibilance between, for example, /ʈ͡ʂ c͡ç/ preclude such a relationship?
As least in Hungarian, it looks like the distinction would be between laminal palatal affricates and apical post-alveolar affricates, and, if I remember rightly, languages like Serbo-Croatian, Sanskrit, and Slovak, make similar contrasts. As always, though, if someone wants to correct me (annoyingly, my Russian friend's wife is Croatian but we can't agree on terminology enough to settle this [:P] )
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.

Nachtuil
sinic
sinic
Posts: 424
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 23:16

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

Post by Nachtuil » 06 Aug 2018 05:27

Thank you guys for the information about non-verbal possession strategies! I'm going to look into them :)

brblues
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 41
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 14:34

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

Post by brblues » 06 Aug 2018 10:06

Ælfwine wrote:
06 Aug 2018 00:00
Salmoneus wrote:
04 Aug 2018 23:03
Irish is a close-to-home example of the 'at me' strategy. Tá madra agam, "Stands a dog at me" ("I have a dog") (not literally 'stands' - its lost its original non-auxiliary meaning). Sometimes 'with' is used instead: tá madra liom, "Stands a dog with me" ("I own a dog"). The difference is apparently complicated, but in general 'with' is used meaning 'in my possession', whereas 'le' is used meaning 'belonging to me'. Also, 'on' can be used with abstract possession - tá brón orm, "Stands a sorrow on me" ("I'm sorry").

This used to be common throughout Europe - Latin used it too, though it used a dative rather than a locative.

In WALS' classification, have-possession is the most common strategy, but still only accounts for about a quarter of their language sample. Their other strategies are:
- locative/dative: "the dog is at me"
- genitive: "the dog is of me"
- topicalisation: "as for me, a dog exists"
- conjunction: "I exist and also a dog"
I'm thinking of using this construction for my germaniclang. I imagine til would be the preposition of choice.
If you're referring to the dative construction, I have heard "Mir [DATIVE PRONOUN] ist ..." for "I have ..." in German, although it sounded *very* weird to my native (Swabian) ears, probably being something more North German (and non-standard). Also, it is likely used rather in the context of "XXX gehört mir ..." (which is perfectly normally, literally "... belongs to me", though more idiomatically " ... is mine"),.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4520
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 06 Aug 2018 15:13

brblues wrote:
06 Aug 2018 10:06
If you're referring to the dative construction, I have heard "Mir [DATIVE PRONOUN] ist ..." for "I have ..." in German, although it sounded *very* weird to my native (Swabian) ears, probably being something more North German (and non-standard). Also, it is likely used rather in the context of "XXX gehört mir ..." (which is perfectly normally, literally "... belongs to me", though more idiomatically " ... is mine"),.
This is not Northern German, it some weird thing I heard people do in the very west, around the town of Siegen. People in Northern Germany generally use the haben 'to have' for predicative possession. In questions we usually use gehören 'to belong to someone', e.g. Wem gehört das? 'Whose is it? lit. Whom does that belong to?'. That's the context in which I have heard the dative construction in Siegen most often, i.e.Wem ist das? 'Whose is it? lit. Whom is that?'
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]

brblues
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 41
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 14:34

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

Post by brblues » 06 Aug 2018 19:42

Creyeditor wrote:
06 Aug 2018 15:13
brblues wrote:
06 Aug 2018 10:06
If you're referring to the dative construction, I have heard "Mir [DATIVE PRONOUN] ist ..." for "I have ..." in German, although it sounded *very* weird to my native (Swabian) ears, probably being something more North German (and non-standard). Also, it is likely used rather in the context of "XXX gehört mir ..." (which is perfectly normally, literally "... belongs to me", though more idiomatically " ... is mine"),.
This is not Northern German, it some weird thing I heard people do in the very west, around the town of Siegen. People in Northern Germany generally use the haben 'to have' for predicative possession. In questions we usually use gehören 'to belong to someone', e.g. Wem gehört das? 'Whose is it? lit. Whom does that belong to?'. That's the context in which I have heard the dative construction in Siegen most often, i.e.Wem ist das? 'Whose is it? lit. Whom is that?'
I know I should be more exact on a forum dealing with linguistic matters, but for me anything north of the Danube is "the North" :p But yeah it was in a very similar context I heard it, it was verbatim "Ist das gar nicht euch"? I remember so clearly cause I found the expression pretty darn hilarious at 11 years old. How to translate "gar" in its various contexts is a headache for another time!

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4520
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 06 Aug 2018 19:58

brblues wrote:
06 Aug 2018 19:42
Creyeditor wrote:
06 Aug 2018 15:13
brblues wrote:
06 Aug 2018 10:06
If you're referring to the dative construction, I have heard "Mir [DATIVE PRONOUN] ist ..." for "I have ..." in German, although it sounded *very* weird to my native (Swabian) ears, probably being something more North German (and non-standard). Also, it is likely used rather in the context of "XXX gehört mir ..." (which is perfectly normally, literally "... belongs to me", though more idiomatically " ... is mine"),.
This is not Northern German, it some weird thing I heard people do in the very west, around the town of Siegen. People in Northern Germany generally use the haben 'to have' for predicative possession. In questions we usually use gehören 'to belong to someone', e.g. Wem gehört das? 'Whose is it? lit. Whom does that belong to?'. That's the context in which I have heard the dative construction in Siegen most often, i.e.Wem ist das? 'Whose is it? lit. Whom is that?'
I know I should be more exact on a forum dealing with linguistic matters, but for me anything north of the Danube is "the North" :p But yeah it was in a very similar context I heard it, it was verbatim "Ist das gar nicht euch"? I remember so clearly cause I found the expression pretty darn hilarious at 11 years old. How to translate "gar" in its various contexts is a headache for another time!
I can relate to that. For me everything south of the Elbe also feels a bit Southern [:D]
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]

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2399
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 06:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 06 Aug 2018 23:42

k1234567890y wrote:
04 Aug 2018 20:45
In languages like Japanese and Manchu, you traditionally say something like "there is a car at Nachtuil" instead of "Nachtuil has a car" to indicate the meaning "Nachtuil has a car"...although Japanese seems to be developing a verb for "to have".

You can look at this to draw inspirations: http://wals.info/chapter/117
This isn't really how Japanese does it. It's more like, "A car exists in the context of Nachtuil".

Japanese does sort of have a verb for have (motsu), but this is actually the verb for hold or carry, and is not always used for the type of permanent/longer-term possession that "have" frequently implies (though it can be...you could rephrase the sentence above using this verb). Is this the verb you are talking about when you say Japanese is developing a verb for have?

User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 3000
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

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

Post by k1234567890y » 07 Aug 2018 05:18

clawgrip wrote:
06 Aug 2018 23:42
k1234567890y wrote:
04 Aug 2018 20:45
In languages like Japanese and Manchu, you traditionally say something like "there is a car at Nachtuil" instead of "Nachtuil has a car" to indicate the meaning "Nachtuil has a car"...although Japanese seems to be developing a verb for "to have".

You can look at this to draw inspirations: http://wals.info/chapter/117
This isn't really how Japanese does it. It's more like, "A car exists in the context of Nachtuil".

Japanese does sort of have a verb for have (motsu), but this is actually the verb for hold or carry, and is not always used for the type of permanent/longer-term possession that "have" frequently implies (though it can be...you could rephrase the sentence above using this verb). Is this the verb you are talking about when you say Japanese is developing a verb for have?
yes...and thanks for saying
...

brblues
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 41
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 14:34

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

Post by brblues » 07 Aug 2018 10:14

clawgrip wrote:
06 Aug 2018 23:42
k1234567890y wrote:
04 Aug 2018 20:45
In languages like Japanese and Manchu, you traditionally say something like "there is a car at Nachtuil" instead of "Nachtuil has a car" to indicate the meaning "Nachtuil has a car"...although Japanese seems to be developing a verb for "to have".

You can look at this to draw inspirations: http://wals.info/chapter/117
This isn't really how Japanese does it. It's more like, "A car exists in the context of Nachtuil".
If I understand correctly, that would then be the topicalization strategy mentioned by Salmoneus as being one of the four strategies differentiated in WALS. FWIW, Korean does the same.

Cheo-neun cha-ga isseoyo
I-TOP car-SUBJ exist

(I struggle with typing hangul, so haven't included them, and the romanization might not be perfect either - well even if it were perfect according to the Revised Romanization standard, it would basically still be somewhat sucky :D).

The same verb is also used for being located somewhere.

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2399
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 06:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 08 Aug 2018 02:10

Yes, exactly. The Japanese verb is also used for things being located somewhere.

私は、車があります。
Watashi wa, kuruma ga arimasu.

1-TOP car NOM exist

However, as k1234567890y mentioned, this can also be said using the hold verb:

私は、車を持っています。
Watashi wa, kuruma o motte imasu.

1-TOP car ACC hold-ADV be.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1587
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 09 Aug 2018 01:00

It occurred to me: does this mean there are no languages the primary possessive predicates of which take the form "I am rich in/to/with one dog" or "I am the owner of a dog"?

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4520
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 09 Aug 2018 11:19

I think it does not. Pre-defined comparative concepts like the categories in WALS cannot be used to proof the absence of structures that do not fit the categories.
On a a related note, the WALS chapter mentions adjectival possession coding:
WALS wrote:A second instance of grammaticalization of predicative possessive structures might be called Adjectivalization. In some linguistic areas, we find possessive constructions in which the possessed NP is construed as the predicate (or part of the predicate) and treated in the same way as predicative adjectives are treated. [...]
(11) Kanuri (Cyffer 1974: 122)
kam kura-te kugena-nze-wa (genyi)
man big-the money-his-ADJ (NEG.COP)
‘The big man has (no) money.’
[...]
Cases like these are probably best viewed as the result of a grammaticalization process by which the possessed noun phrase (together with its marker, if it has one) is gradually reanalyzed as the predicate of the construction. Depending on whether the possessed noun phrase bears a marker or not, the source of such products of adjectivalization can be traced back to a Conjunctional Possessive or a Topic Possessive. Therefore, cases of adjectivalization are not represented separately on the map, but are coded in accordance with their source type.
The Kanuri example is nice, because it adjectivized the possessed noun.

The second example you give is pretty much parallel to a Hausa construction I learned in my Hausa course, where instead of owner, you use something like 'master'. Interestingly this can also be used for things that we usually think of as adjectives, like character traits and stuff.
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]

Post Reply