Agglutination/Proto Language

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
Post Reply
GizmoLangs24
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Feb 2019 02:52

Agglutination/Proto Language

Post by GizmoLangs24 »

Guten Abend!

I have a question regarding agglutination in synthetic and polysynthetic languages, and another regarding parts of speech in a proto-lang.

My current system of agglutination involves starting with a subject pronoun or object, and the gluing on words and affixes. For instance:

Kofemensenanuki.
Ko-fem-en-sena-nu-ki
(I)(woman)(definite art.)(to see)(past tense)(perfective)
I saw the woman.

Is this how agglutination is usually done, or am I doing something wrong (or different)?

And now for my second question.

Is it recommended to create my proto-lang with no true adjectives or adverbs? I was thinking that it would be possible to have two branches where those words evolved from nouns and verbs respectively, but I am not sure if that is too large a change?

Overall, quite inexperienced with this topic, suggestions?

Danke schön!

-Gizmo-
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Agglutination/Proto Language

Post by sangi39 »

I hope I can answer this as best I can [:)]
GizmoLangs24 wrote: 16 Mar 2019 03:31 My current system of agglutination involves starting with a subject pronoun or object, and the gluing on words and affixes. For instance:

Kofemensenanuki.
Ko-fem-en-sena-nu-ki
(I)(woman)(definite art.)(to see)(past tense)(perfective)
I saw the woman.

Is this how agglutination is usually done, or am I doing something wrong (or different)?
That seems to be okay, although it tends to be, in this instance, for example, that the stem to which affixes are added would be the verb, which then takes affixes indicating the person and/or number of the subject, sometimes the object (which seems to be what you want), tense, aspect, etc. The noun incorporation seems to be all right.

One thing that might be worth looking into is how noun incorporation is used in various languages. If I remember correctly, there is a tendency for noun incorporation to indicate that the object is indefinite, while a stand-alone noun as the object is definite, e.g. "ko-fem-sena-nu-ki" might meant "I saw a woman", while "ko-sena-nu-ki fem-en" might mean "I saw the woman" (I didn't include the definite article affix in the former because, from what I can tell, incorporated nouns don't decline in the same way as stand-alone nouns. I'm not actually sure if they can be marked for number, but that's a lack of examples on my part, so someone else might be able cover that).

You could, as well, for example, still have stand-alone pronouns as well, which either always have to appear regardless, or only appear for emphasis, e.g. "ko-fem-sena-nu-ki" (I saw a woman) vs. something like "eku ko-fem-sena-nu-ki" (I, and nobody else, definitely me, saw a woman).


GizmoLangs24 wrote: 16 Mar 2019 03:31 And now for my second question.

Is it recommended to create my proto-lang with no true adjectives or adverbs? I was thinking that it would be possible to have two branches where those words evolved from nouns and verbs respectively, but I am not sure if that is too large a change?
The proto-language would likely still have a way of describing nouns, e.g. it would still have to be able to express something like "a red rose" or "a tall man", so even without a distinct class of adjectives, there will still be something adjective-like.

One way you could get around this might be for the proto-language to have adjectives as a separate class, and then also have ways of deriving new adjectives either from nouns or from verbs (in the same way that English does, e.g. "serpent > serpentine vs. give > given). In one of the daughter languages, the method of deriving new adjectives from nouns might take over, while the method of deriving new adjectives from verbs might take over. This would result, initially, in three "layers" for adjectives:

Language A: non-derived roots (coming from adjectives in the proto-language), "fossilised" deverbal adjectives (derived from verbs in the proto-language, but that method of derivation is no longer used), and productive denominisation of adjectives (where new adjectives are derived from nouns)

Language B: non-derived roots (coming from adjectives in the proto-language), "fossilised" denominal adjectives (derived from nouns in the proto-language, but that method of derivation is no longer used), and productive deverbalisation of adjectives (where new adjectives are derived from verbs)

Eventually, all of the older layers of adjectives might get replaced by newer ones, leaving only denominal adjectives in Language A and only deverbal adjectives in Language B.

Now, that last point obviously means that you don't need to come up with any adjectives at all in the proto-language unless you want some of them to survive into the daughter languages.
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.
GizmoLangs24
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Feb 2019 02:52

Re: Agglutination/Proto Language

Post by GizmoLangs24 »

Gee, seems like it is always you answering all my questions. [O.O]

On the topic of your answer, I have a few questions.
sangi39 wrote: 17 Mar 2019 01:21 Language A: non-derived roots (coming from adjectives in the proto-language), "fossilised" deverbal adjectives (derived from verbs in the proto-language, but that method of derivation is no longer used), and productive denominisation of adjectives (where new adjectives are derived from nouns)

Language B: non-derived roots (coming from adjectives in the proto-language), "fossilised" denominal adjectives (derived from nouns in the proto-language, but that method of derivation is no longer used), and productive deverbalisation of adjectives (where new adjectives are derived from verbs)
1. What does non-derived roots refer to? It sounds like you are saying that the roots of the daughter language aren't derived from the actual proto language. Perhaps I need to wikipedia more...

2. Are you saying that adjectives "used" to be derived from nouns, and stay afterwards, but derivation from verbs took over, and caused most adjectives to come from verbs afterwards?

This is a lot of info I did not prepare for, but I appreciate the answer!

Thanks!
-gizmo-
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Agglutination/Proto Language

Post by sangi39 »

GizmoLangs24 wrote: 17 Mar 2019 03:23 Gee, seems like it is always you answering all my questions. [O.O]

On the topic of your answer, I have a few questions.
sangi39 wrote: 17 Mar 2019 01:21 Language A: non-derived roots (coming from adjectives in the proto-language), "fossilised" deverbal adjectives (derived from verbs in the proto-language, but that method of derivation is no longer used), and productive denominisation of adjectives (where new adjectives are derived from nouns)

Language B: non-derived roots (coming from adjectives in the proto-language), "fossilised" denominal adjectives (derived from nouns in the proto-language, but that method of derivation is no longer used), and productive deverbalisation of adjectives (where new adjectives are derived from verbs)
1. What does non-derived roots refer to? It sounds like you are saying that the roots of the daughter language aren't derived from the actual proto language. Perhaps I need to wikipedia more...

2. Are you saying that adjectives "used" to be derived from nouns, and stay afterwards, but derivation from verbs took over, and caused most adjectives to come from verbs afterwards?

This is a lot of info I did not prepare for, but I appreciate the answer!

Thanks!
-gizmo-
1: Oh, sorry, by "non-derived roots", I meant something that has no obvious derivation, a single morpheme within the language. Like "red" in English, as opposed to something like "unhappy".

2: In this case I was thinking roughly the following:

a) the proto-language has root (single morpheme) adjectives, and
b) the proto-language could also derive new adjectives from both nouns and verbs.
c) between the proto-language and Language A, new adjectives eventually came to be derived exclusively from nouns, and
d) between the proto-language and Language B, new adjectives eventually came to be derived exclusively from verbs.
e) Language A might still have some of the root and deverbal adjectives from the proto-language, and
f) Language B might still have some of the root and denominal adjectives from the proto-language
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.
GizmoLangs24
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Feb 2019 02:52

Re: Agglutination/Proto Language

Post by GizmoLangs24 »

This clarification helped a lot. It was very confusing initially, so thanks for clearing that up!

Can't thank you enough for your help! [xD]

Have a nice day!
-Gizmo-
Post Reply