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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Random8k
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Aug 2017 05:05
Location: Probably at the computer

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

Post by Random8k » 25 Jan 2019 23:13

Is it possible for a conlang to have two methods of inflections used almost exclusively for that particular part of speech? Like say, agglutinative nouns, yet fusional verb forms?
Native: :eng:
Interest: :jpn: :deu:

:con: Qianshogō, Xjanae

shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 11267
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 26 Jan 2019 00:26

Random8k wrote:
25 Jan 2019 23:13
Is it possible for a conlang to have two methods of inflections used almost exclusively for that particular part of speech? Like say, agglutinative nouns, yet fusional verb forms?
For a conlang, there's very little that isn't possible.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6281
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » 26 Jan 2019 04:21

Random8k wrote:
25 Jan 2019 23:13
Is it possible for a conlang to have two methods of inflections used almost exclusively for that particular part of speech? Like say, agglutinative nouns, yet fusional verb forms?
What shimobaatar said; and:
It’s common for different parts of natlangs to be in different parts of the isolating/analytic/synthetic/fusional/agglutinative landscape.
So, though I don’t have an example in mind, it’s reasonable as far as I know to guess that there might be a natlang with agglutinative nouns and fusional verbs.

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3292
Joined: 14 May 2016 17:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » 26 Jan 2019 13:19

An example - if you had a language which before had most of its inflection on its nominals, then those could be reduced to fusional endings by sound changes, but new more agglutinative verbal morphology could then be grammaticalised, producing the disconnect between the two.

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 162
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by WeepingElf » 26 Jan 2019 13:54

Random8k wrote:
25 Jan 2019 23:13
Is it possible for a conlang to have two methods of inflections used almost exclusively for that particular part of speech? Like say, agglutinative nouns, yet fusional verb forms?
Yes. Modern Armenian is pretty much like that. And, think about it, Spanish.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3186
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 27 Jan 2019 00:52

The closest real-world example I can think of might be Japanese and languages like Navajo, where there's almost no marking at all on nouns, but the verbs are highly inflected, but those are instances of isolating morphology on nouns and fusional/agglutinative morphology on verbs.

Ooo, maybe Tocharian? IIRC, Tocharian verbs are pretty typically Indo-European and seem fusional, but then nouns are declined in an agglutinative way, with case endings being distinct from number marking (so you have a noun, then add a plural ending, then add a case ending). I think verbs retained ablaut as well, while nouns lost it.
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.

Tristan Radicz
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 Sep 2018 00:56

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

Post by Tristan Radicz » 27 Jan 2019 12:26

Bulgarian has predominantly fusional⁄flective verbal system and marks definiteness on nominals and determiners in agglutinative-fusional fashion, while demonstrating otherwise rather analytic syntax.

holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 170
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 28 Jan 2019 14:05

Quick question:

Let's suppose my lang has polypersonal verbal affixes. There is also a split ergativity in that animate nouns are nom-acc, and inanimates are erg-abs. Would is be naturalistic (and if not, fun and reasonable) to have the verbal affixes corresponding to animates arguments be prefixes, while the affixes for inanimate arguments be suffixes?

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2509
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 28 Jan 2019 14:13

holbuzvala wrote:
28 Jan 2019 14:05
Quick question:

Let's suppose my lang has polypersonal verbal affixes. There is also a split ergativity in that animate nouns are nom-acc, and inanimates are erg-abs. Would is be naturalistic (and if not, fun and reasonable) to have the verbal affixes corresponding to animates arguments be prefixes, while the affixes for inanimate arguments be suffixes?
I see no logical reason why such a system couldn't appear.
I don't know if it's typologically attested. But all features in a conlang don't need to be typolically attested for the lang to be "naturalistic".
It being fun depends on how you do it. Reasonable, do we really have reasons for making conlangs?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3186
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 29 Jan 2019 01:59

I think Georgian roughly does this. The 1st and 2nd person markers for both the "subject" and "object" are prefixes, while the 3rd person "subject" is marked by a suffix, but I think the equivalent "object" was marked with a prefix. Georgian conjugation still confuses the hell out of me, so I can't actually remember how all the the subject and object affixes interact with each other and the plural suffix.
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.

holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 170
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 29 Jan 2019 16:06

Sweet. Next question, just to make sure I've got the idea of an applicative right (as I understand it, it's something that raises an oblique argument to a patient role). Let's assume that for more-than-two argument verbs, the higher something rests in the animacy hierarchy, the more likely it is to NOT be oblique, but rather a patient. For example:

The man gave his friend a gift
MAN-agent FRIEND-patient GIFT-oblique GIVE

The man gave a gift
MAN-agent GIFT-patient GIVE-applicative

Does this look right, or have I misunderstood the matter?

User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 85
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 31 Jan 2019 16:56

This is probably due to my native language instinct, and the fact that you used the verb "to give" as an example: if the oblique argument is a receiver, I have a hunch it's more likely to be animate, ergo less likely to be a patient.

However, languages which work the way you intended do exist, and they have a funky term attached to them. It's similar to the accusative - ergative dichotomy, but applies to a different pair of arguments. (I'd love to see a language that was both ergative and secundative [:D] I think English can sort of mimic that by passivizing a dative-shifted sentence.) In that context, I think you nailed the use of the applicative.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2551
Joined: 22 May 2012 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » 01 Feb 2019 05:01

I'm probably missing something really obvious, but I prefer the opinions of you friends, over my own doubts.


Both of these refer to the past, I know; so is there a difference between
a. "Cats remember their being gods."
b. "Cats remember their godhood."

...because both -hood and being refer to a state of being, yes? (like the OE poem about the three 'hoods)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
LinguistCat
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 161
Joined: 06 May 2017 06:48

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

Post by LinguistCat » 01 Feb 2019 07:16

Keenir wrote:
01 Feb 2019 05:01
I'm probably missing something really obvious, but I prefer the opinions of you friends, over my own doubts.


Both of these refer to the past, I know; so is there a difference between
a. "Cats remember their being gods."
b. "Cats remember their godhood."

...because both -hood and being refer to a state of being, yes? (like the OE poem about the three 'hoods)
I feel like the version with "being gods" look at the state of being actively, like them remembering back to the entire period of time they were worshiped, while the one with "godhood" looks at it as a discrete state, they remember they were gods, but not in a manner concerned with duration. If that makes sense.

Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2551
Joined: 22 May 2012 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » 01 Feb 2019 10:31

LinguistCat wrote:
01 Feb 2019 07:16
I feel like the version with "being gods" look at the state of being actively, like them remembering back to the entire period of time they were worshiped, while the one with "godhood" looks at it as a discrete state, they remember they were gods, but not in a manner concerned with duration. If that makes sense.
it does; and it ties in neatly with another, unrelated, idea I'd had for this. thank you.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6219
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 01 Feb 2019 17:06

I decided I'd have three or more multipurpose postpositions that work together with my case system. I have one defined as such:

bar ("someone receives"):
+INSTR = for (benefactive), by (means)
+ACC = at (locative)
+GEN = by (oblique agent)
+ABL = out of (exessive)
+ALL = into/through (inessive)

I was wondering if anybody here has ideas on what these two should be:
ha (???):
+INSTR =
+ACC =
+GEN/+NOM =
+ABL =
+ALL =

ku (???):
+INSTR =
+ACC =
+GEN =
+ABL = far
+ALL = near
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2909
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 03:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 01 Feb 2019 20:15

Does adding converbs to a language that has the following features seem kitchen-sinky?:
-Clicks
-Ergativity
-A rich verbal voice system
- Rich, productive derivational morphology
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2551
Joined: 22 May 2012 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » 01 Feb 2019 23:28

Shemtov wrote:
01 Feb 2019 20:15
Does adding converbs to a language that has the following features seem kitchen-sinky?:
-Clicks
-Ergativity
-A rich verbal voice system
- Rich, productive derivational morphology
I would say No of varying severity...depending on the answer to this: is that all it has? / what does it not have?
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
LinguoFranco
sinic
sinic
Posts: 413
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 16:49

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

Post by LinguoFranco » 03 Feb 2019 20:56

How essential is it to have a conpeople to speak a conlang? I’m working on a personal language that still strives to be naturalistic, and I’m starting to think I should have people who speak it.

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 » 03 Feb 2019 21:27

Heartlangs don't need conpeople.
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