Random ideas: Morphosyntax

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
k1234567890y
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2300
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by k1234567890y »

An isolating language where there are no adpositions, and there are no inflectional affixes and productive derivational affixes either, all meanings of adpositions are conveyed by the use of verbs and nouns(and the language has serial verb construction), and most conjunctions are from content words(i.e. conjunctional "when" is from the word meaning "time" or the phrase "be at the time") too, and compounding and complete reduplication are used for derivations.

Besides there are no singular-plural distinction even in personal pronouns, there are no way distinguishing the subject from the direct object except for the word order, and there are no definite articles, and the basic word order is SOV and strongly left-branching.

For possessive phrases, the language uses juxtaposition of the uninflected possessor and possessed nominals, with the 3rd pronoun being inserted between the possessor and the possessed.
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5642
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore »

Creyeditor wrote: 02 Aug 2019 23:29 I really like the idea of combining these. This is very construction grammar like conlanging, I feel. I think assuming n to be the same for all three categories (preposition, postposition, suffix) is not strictly neccessary, right? I can't do the math, but even with small numbers I think this gives an interesting language. I will try to give this idea some substance.
Imagine you take latin prepositions 'ad' and 'de' + German case suffixes -em and -en + German postpositions 'halber' and 'entlang'. Assuming that all of these are compatible, we should get 27 (=(2+1)*(2+1)*(2+1)) possible combinations, IINM.
The whole thing would be simplest if any case-ending (including “no case-ending”) and any postposition (including “no postposition”) and any preposition (including “no preposition”) can all go together.
Then if you have C Case-endings and O pOstpositions and R pRepositions, you can indicate up to
(1+R)(1+C)(1+O) different case-like semantic or syntactic or thematic case-roles or theta-roles.
If C=O=R=5 that’s 216, more than Tsez has cases.
If C=R=O=3 it’s 64, more than Heinz has varieties of pickles.

To vaguely approximate what I am/was looking for, I have the following desiderata.
Spoiler:
At most one case-ending should require that some postposition also be used; all other case-endings should be grammatical even if there’s no postposition.
At most one case-ending should be compatible with every postposition; most case-endings should be incompatible with either one or two postpositions.

At most one case-ending should require that some preposition also be used; all other case-endings should be grammatical even if there’s no preposition.
At most one case-ending should be compatible with every preposition; most case-endings should be incompatible with either one or two prepositions.

....

At most one postposition should require that a non-zero case-ending also be used; all other postpositions should be grammatically useable even with the bare, mere, absolute noun (“zero-marked” or “nominative” case).
At most one postposition should be grammatically useable with every case-ending; most postpositions should be grammatically incompatible with one or two case-endings.

At most one postposition should require that some preposition also be used; all other postpositions should be grammatically useable even without any preposition.
At most one postposition should be grammatically useable with every preposition; most postpositions should be incompatible grammatically with one or two prepositions.

....


At most one preposition should require that some “nonzero” case-ending also be used. Every other preposition should be grammatically useable with the bare, mere, absolute, unmarked or zero-marked, “nominative” noun or pronoun.
At most one preposition should be grammatically useable with every case-ending. Most prepositions should be incompatible (grammatically) with one or two case-endings.

At most one preposition should require that some postposition or other must also be used. Any other preposition should be grammatically useable without any postposition.
At most one preposition should be grammatically compatible with every postposition. Most prepositions should be grammatically incompatible with one or two postpositions.
====================

I like it better if:
Spoiler:
For every, or almost every, or at least most, pairs of a case-ending and a postposition that are compatible with each other, there’s more than one preposition for which the trio of Prep-Case-Postp is compatible and grammatical.
For every, or almost every, or at least most, pairs of a case-ending and a preposition that are compatible with each other, there’s more than one postposition for which the trio of Prep-Case-Postp is compatible and grammatical.
For every, or almost every, or at least most, pairs of a postposition and a preposition that are compatible with each other, there’s more than one case-ending for which the trio of Prep-Case-Postp is compatible and grammatical.
Spoiler:
There are at least as many case-endings incompatible with just one postposition, as there are incompatible with two or more.
There are at least as many case-endings incompatible with just one preposition, as there are incompatible with two or more.
There are at least as many postpositions incompatible with just one case-ending, as there are incompatible with two or more.
There are at least as many postpositions incompatible with just one preposition, as there are incompatible with two or more.
There are at least as many prepositions incompatible with just one case-ending, as there are incompatible with two or more.
There are at least as many prepositions incompatible with just one postposition, as there are incompatible with two or more.
Spoiler:
There are no, or very few —— perhaps at most two? —— trios of a preposition and a case-ending and a postposition, that each two of them are grammatically useable with each other, but the entire trio is not grammatically useable all together.
And I prefer that each useable, grammatical combination, be semantically or syntactically or pragmatically different, from each of the others.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5642
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore »

Creyeditor wrote: 16 Apr 2018 17:39 .... and nobody would have gotten confused [:)]
You underestimate me, sir! [;)]
Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 264
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 08:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Porphyrogenitos »

k1234567890y wrote: 05 Aug 2019 07:34 An isolating language where there are no adpositions, and there are no inflectional affixes and productive derivational affixes either, all meanings of adpositions are conveyed by the use of verbs and nouns(and the language has serial verb construction), and most conjunctions are from content words(i.e. conjunctional "when" is from the word meaning "time" or the phrase "be at the time") too, and compounding and complete reduplication are used for derivations.

Besides there are no singular-plural distinction even in personal pronouns, there are no way distinguishing the subject from the direct object except for the word order, and there are no definite articles, and the basic word order is SOV and strongly left-branching.

For possessive phrases, the language uses juxtaposition of the uninflected possessor and possessed nominals, with the 3rd pronoun being inserted between the possessor and the possessed.
I really like this. I've thought about doing an "extreme isolating" language before with minimal word-class distinctions but at the time I didn't know about the possibility of eliminating adpositions. It goes a ways beyond a creole, since even those tend to have a couple or a handful of adpositions and other particles. More like Old Chinese.

I wonder what verb you could use for "and". I mean, you could just use apposition. Nothing. Or maybe a verb meaning something like 'join' or 'be.alongside'.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5642
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore »

I wonder what verb you could use for "and". I mean, you could just use apposition. Nothing. Or maybe a verb meaning something like 'join' or 'be.alongside'.
There is a natlang with a verb meaning “to be two”.
It is used both instead of the conjunction “and” and instead of the comitative preposition “with”.

I can’t remember which natlang but I have the impression it is not a northern temperate zone language.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4206
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by DesEsseintes »

Porphyrogenitos wrote: 10 Oct 2020 07:30I wonder what verb you could use for "and". I mean, you could just use apposition. Nothing. Or maybe a verb meaning something like 'join' or 'be.alongside'.
to follow
to join
to be alike/the same as
to accompany
User avatar
k1234567890y
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2300
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by k1234567890y »

Porphyrogenitos wrote: 10 Oct 2020 07:30
k1234567890y wrote: 05 Aug 2019 07:34 An isolating language where there are no adpositions, and there are no inflectional affixes and productive derivational affixes either, all meanings of adpositions are conveyed by the use of verbs and nouns(and the language has serial verb construction), and most conjunctions are from content words(i.e. conjunctional "when" is from the word meaning "time" or the phrase "be at the time") too, and compounding and complete reduplication are used for derivations.

Besides there are no singular-plural distinction even in personal pronouns, there are no way distinguishing the subject from the direct object except for the word order, and there are no definite articles, and the basic word order is SOV and strongly left-branching.

For possessive phrases, the language uses juxtaposition of the uninflected possessor and possessed nominals, with the 3rd pronoun being inserted between the possessor and the possessed.
I really like this. I've thought about doing an "extreme isolating" language before with minimal word-class distinctions but at the time I didn't know about the possibility of eliminating adpositions. It goes a ways beyond a creole, since even those tend to have a couple or a handful of adpositions and other particles. More like Old Chinese.

I wonder what verb you could use for "and". I mean, you could just use apposition. Nothing. Or maybe a verb meaning something like 'join' or 'be.alongside'.
thank you and yeah
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
User avatar
Sequor
sinic
sinic
Posts: 283
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Sequor »

Porphyrogenitos wrote: 10 Oct 2020 07:30I really like this. I've thought about doing an "extreme isolating" language before with minimal word-class distinctions but at the time I didn't know about the possibility of eliminating adpositions. It goes a ways beyond a creole, since even those tend to have a couple or a handful of adpositions and other particles. More like Old Chinese.

I wonder what verb you could use for "and". I mean, you could just use apposition. Nothing. Or maybe a verb meaning something like 'join' or 'be.alongside'.
Classical Chinese itself uses a verb meaning 'to give' (與, Mandarin yǔ, Cantonese yu5), besides also using plain apposition / nothing. And the Standard Mandarin words for 'and' come from words that used to be verbs meaning 'to be in harmony with sb/sth' (和 hé), 'to follow sth' (跟 gēn), and 'to reach sth' (及 jí). Cantonese uses a word that used to be a verb meaning 'to be with sb/sth, accompany' (同 tung4, some southern forms of Mandarin in China also use this).
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
Post Reply