Duplication/Plural

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
lhykv
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 42
Joined: 13 Aug 2014 05:48
Location: Hong Kong SAR

Duplication/Plural

Post by lhykv » 23 Aug 2014 07:33

Question 1
Assume that there are two words, /sa/ which means 'water' and /kab/ which means 'two' (not 'second'.)
Then, it is possible to have the following combinations:
/sasa/ (water+water)
/sakab/ (water+two)
/kabkab/ (two+two)
/kabsa/ (two+water)
/sasakab/ (water+water+two)
... etc
Up to this point, is it possible to make other words by using the above combinations?

Question 2
Assume that there is a symbol/character expressing the duplication of a certain word, say /-d/.
Using /sa/ as an example, what is the difference between /sasa/, /sad/, and /sakab/ (or even /sasakab/, /sadkab/ and so on)?

In such a way, are there any differences between the concepts of 'duplication' and 'plural'?
Please also give me examples on how you express duplication in your conlang. Thanks [:)]
xexev monus kotumon
possibility realm.GEN up.LOCZ
beyond the realm of possibility

Conlang: Emedim (Elementi), the Language of Creation

Alomar
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 113
Joined: 13 Apr 2012 16:02
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Alomar » 12 Dec 2014 21:38

Answer 1:
I think those are the straight-forward ways to combine those two syllables/building blocks/whatevers, but you could reduce or delete vowels yielding things like:
/səkab/
/skab/
/kbas/ -> /kpas/ or /gbas/

You could 'infix':
/ksab/

And I'm sure there are other possibilities.

Answer 2:
When you say it represents a duplication of the stem, that seems a little odd to me if you genuinely mean "sasa" could equally be rendered as "sad". I think it could easily represent a dual suffix, but I'm nearly positive that's not what you're asking.
If you genuinely mean that it does represent reduplication, then I think...it doesn't. But maybe you could use such a suffix to represent the types of things that reduplication is often used for.

Duplication (duals?), paucal, plural and (there's another 'pluraly' thing that I don't remember the name of, maybe a collective) vary widely among languages and you could probably cut up the difference between those two categories in interesting ways.

In Mychai, the dual is simply represented by using the word for two in a NP, dhuim, or dim if the referent is a human.
Native: :usa:
Conversational: :deu:
Learning: :fra: :ita: :grc:
Check out my Mychai Blog

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7786
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Lambuzhao » 13 Dec 2014 17:40

Question 1:

Of course. Certainly.


Question 2:

Are you going for Plural, Dual, what?

/sasa/ IMHO feels AUGmentative so maybe something like "Ocean" or "Sea"

/sad/ maybe just a straight up dual "two rivers", "two lakes"

/sakab/, /kabsa/ feel like toponyms "Twin Lakes", "Twin Rivers" or something like that.

But this is just my opinion. You are free to give meaning as you deem it so.

User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7002
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Micamo » 13 Dec 2014 21:02

I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

Reduplication is a phonological mechanism where phonetic material is repeated, that can be used to express various things depending on the language, or different things in the same language depending on context. Plurality is a grammatical mechanism indicating that the intended referent consists of a group of related entities.

In some languages, reduplication is used to express plurality. My conlang Mithara is one such example:

kʷeʔem "basket", kʷekʷeʔem "baskets"

(It's actually more complicated than that, but this is good enough for our purposes.)

In other languages, reduplication and plurality are wholly separate. In English, plurality is expressed on regular nouns with the plural suffix -s~-es, but a small number of nouns have irregular plurals; For example mouse/mice and octopus/octopodes. Reduplication isn't used regularly in English in normal speech, and is mostly restricted to "baby talk" used to speak to animals and small children.

Some languages have a dual category, when the intended referent has two entities. The plural, in such languages, is reserved for when there are more than two entities being referenced. It's very common for a dual marker to be descended from the word for the number "two". It's also possible for a language to lose its plural marker and for a former dual to take its place as the new plural marker.
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7786
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Lambuzhao » 13 Dec 2014 23:37

Indeed.

And to go slightly left of noun-building, I use reduplication for certain verbs in my conlang Rozwi to indicate an Adjectival (originally Present Participle) verb form:

http://www.aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.ph ... on#p162411

Or for the Past Stem:
http://www.aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.ph ... on#p115112

In Rozwi, the reduplicant (the part which is doubled) is partial, and is suffixed to the end of the word.

User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7002
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Micamo » 14 Dec 2014 00:08

For a natlang example, Musqueam Salish uses reduplication to form progressive stems of some roots:

ni t̕íləm "He sang", ni t̕ít̕əl̕əm̓ "He is singing"

Note that Musqueam progressives are also used for habituals:

wəyáθ cən wək̓ʷék̓ʷəcnəxʷ ni ʔə tθéʔ
wə-yáθ cən wə-k̓ʷék̓ʷəc-nəxʷ ni ʔə tθéʔ
EST-always 1s EST-see.PROG-TR.NONCONTROLLED be.there OBL that
I always see him there.
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7786
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Lambuzhao » 18 Dec 2014 22:10

There are also Indo-European "reduplicated presents".

Vedic Sandskrit has a number.
I'm more familiar with Greek. So here are some examples. Note that the reduplicant carries a iota /i/, which is different from the more productive reduplicated Present Perfect.

βιβρώσκω “I consume” /bi.bro:.sko:/
δίδωμι “I give” /di/do:.mi/
κίχανω “I reach; I meet with” /ki.kha.no:/
ἵστημι “I make to stand” /hi.stɛ:.mi/
πίμπλημι “I fill” /pim.plɛ:.mi/
πίμπρημι “I am inflamed; I swell” /pim.prɛ:.mi/
πίπτω “I fall” /pip.to:/
τίθημι “I set” ti.thɛ:.mi/
τιτρώσκω “I wound” /ti.tro:.sko:/

...These are the usual suspects; there may be a couple more.
You can read more about the Vedic and PIE reduplicated presents here:

http://www.academia.edu/1059355/The_Mor ... o-European

among other places.

User avatar
atman
greek
greek
Posts: 466
Joined: 05 Dec 2012 17:04

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by atman » 19 Dec 2014 00:30

Lambuzhao wrote:There are also Indo-European "reduplicated presents".
And a few Indo-European reduplicated aorists, not to mention the regular reduplicated perfects...
Indeed in what can be reconstructed of Late PIE all perfects but one featured reduplication: woydh2e "I know" was the exception, but according to a recent well-received theory it was merely the last relic of a small conjugation class in earlier PIE, a class that had no reduplication but perfect endings (1SG -h2e, 2SG -th2e and so on) with "normal" present active meaning. This small class was lost in Late PIE but survived in Proto-Anatolian, where it evolved for example into the Hittite -hi conjugation (note the preserved laryngeal from -h2e). For enormously more on the topic see Jay Jasanoff's Hittite and the Indo-European verb, whose theory I attempted (and maybe failed [;)] ) to summarize in three lines.

But PIE had reduplication in nouns too, not just in verbs: the usual example is a PIE "neologism" from the root kʷel- "to turn". At the time PIE had a productive system of nominal derivation based on reduplication, like this: kʷekʷlos (with zero grade of the reduplicated root in the second syllable) meant basically the "turn-turn" thing, therefore the "thing that turns and turns" > the "wheel". The English reflex wheel is an unanalyzable one-morpheme word, it wasn't so in PIE.
Lambuzhao wrote:βιβρώσκω “I consume” /bi.bro:.sko:/
δίδωμι “I give” /di/do:.mi/
κίχανω “I reach; I meet with” /ki.kha.no:/
ἵστημι “I make to stand” /hi.stɛ:.mi/
πίμπλημι “I fill” /pim.plɛ:.mi/
πίμπρημι “I am inflamed; I swell” /pim.prɛ:.mi/
πίπτω “I fall” /pip.to:/
τίθημι “I set” ti.thɛ:.mi/
τιτρώσκω “I wound” /ti.tro:.sko:/
Spoiler:
Those that heve a reflex come out as bivròxco, zido, xtème, fifto, stème and stròxco in a certain Helleno- :con: lang we happen to know about [:)]
Lambuzhao wrote: You can read more about the Vedic and PIE reduplicated presents here:

http://www.academia.edu/1059355/The_Mor ... o-European.
Thanks!
Երկնէր երկին, երկնէր երկիր, երկնէր և ծովն ծիրանի.

User avatar
spikedee
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 23
Joined: 03 May 2014 15:01
Location: My own little world
Contact:

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by spikedee » 19 Dec 2014 02:25

Y'know, IE notwithstanding, whenever I've seen verb-stem reduplications in natlangs (and in conlangs too), they've always either expressed plural agreement, had some sort of imperfective aspectual meaning (general imperfective, progressive, continuous, habitual, iterative...), or were a pluractional that combined shades of the two. Now I'm wondering whether that's a coincidence. Anyone know of a non-IE natlang with reduplicated verbs that formed perfectives, perfects, or even just served some other purpose altogether, like an imperative or something?

Then again, even in PIE, the "perfect" was ostensibly originally a stative, making it imperfective too at one point. With that in mind, the reduplicated presents already mentioned actually make a little more sense. My guess is they originally had a meaning similar to "So, I've been verbing, and..." (or more literally, something like "So, I'm in this state of having been verbing, and..."). If our current understanding of PIE verbs is correct, then the tense-aspect system was mostly a derivational system that was just beginning to undergo grammaticalization. In that case, reduplicated perfects could just be derivations that lost their derived shade of meaning after PIE speakers stopped paying attention to a particular verb's derivation. Same goes for the reduplicated aorists too. Pretty much explains why that whole part of PIE's verb system seems to have been so, err, uniquely erratic.
native:  :eng: :esp:  |  fluent:  :fra:  |  competent:  :fin: :lfn:  |  passive/read:  :est: :grc: :hun: :ita: :lat: :por:

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7786
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Lambuzhao » 31 Dec 2014 19:21

Atman wrote: Those that heve a reflex come out as bivròxco, zido, xtème, fifto, stème and stròxco in a certain Helleno- :con: lang we happen to know about
Nice!
Particularly like [<3] zido - has a very late Hellenistic Greek zetafied /di/ cluster sweetness.

I imagine some way-off dialects of said :grc: :con: might even have * stème [->] tsième, and *stròxco
[->] tsriòhco

just imagining some....

:mrgreen:

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3513
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by elemtilas » 01 Jan 2015 00:21

spikedee wrote:Y'know, IE notwithstanding, whenever I've seen verb-stem reduplications in natlangs (and in conlangs too), they've always either expressed plural agreement, had some sort of imperfective aspectual meaning (general imperfective, progressive, continuous, habitual, iterative...), or were a pluractional that combined shades of the two. Now I'm wondering whether that's a coincidence. Anyone know of a non-IE natlang with reduplicated verbs that formed perfectives, perfects, or even just served some other purpose altogether, like an imperative or something?
Lots of natlangs have duplication of some sort. I know at least some Philippine languages use it for a progressive(-like) aspect thingy: magluluto ikaw? = You're cooking?

English, being the supremely ordinary language that it is also uses it for emphasis: do you love it love it, or do you just love it?; diminution: eentsy-weentsy, itty-bitty; we still have managed to keep one reduplicative preterite: hight; deprecation: love schlove, ain't no such thing as love!; progressive growth: getting colder and colder!; contrastive focus: is that a chocolate cheesecake, or a chocolate cake cake?; onomotopoesy: cheep-cheep!; and probably some others as well. (Re)duplication isn't just for verbal roots any more!

elemtilas

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6390
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by eldin raigmore » 01 Jan 2015 00:49

elemtilas wrote:English, being the supremely ordinary language that it is
[;)] I'm pretty sure elemtilas meant that ironically.

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7786
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Lambuzhao » 01 Jan 2015 01:10

elemtilas wrote: (Re)duplication isn't just for verbal roots any more!
elemtilas
Be a Reduplicator!

Drink Dr. Reduplicator - Yeah!!!


[xP]

User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Duplication/Plural

Post by Lao Kou » 01 Jan 2015 02:15

elemtilas wrote:(Re)duplication isn't just for verbal roots any more!
This isn't your father's Reduplication.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名

Post Reply