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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

Pabappa wrote:
25 Jul 2020 16:08
surprised you added "doubt it" to the list, as i would call that a counterexample.

some other possible counterexamples show up in the past tense .... "loved it!" ... "got it!" ... "crushed it!" .... but only the doubt verb carries inherent 1st person in the present tense.
It wasn't a list of 'examples', it was a 'survey'. Although I admit I forgot about 'doubt' when I did my conclusion.

So, I'm OK with, in a colloquial sense, saying that 'love it', 'want it', 'hate it' and 'doubt it' can all carry an implicit first person singular pronoun, as can 'promise' without an object.

Although it's then worth pointing out that if we look at the most syntactically, as well as morphologically, unmarked forms, by taking out the object pronoun altogether, we do gain 'promise', but we lose 'doubt' and 'love'. We keep 'hate!' and 'want!' (for 'I hate it' and 'I want it'), but only in an even more colloquial register.

So this effect only works with certain verbs, in somewhat unpredictable ways (why does it work with 'doubt it' and 'promise!' but not 'doubt!' and 'promise it'?; why is 'like it!' just about possible but 'dislike it!' isn't? Even though, say, "do not like!" is arguably possible?), and in most cases only in very colloquial registers, with possible variation with dialect. And overwhelmingly found in interjections and responses, rather than full sentences, and typically associated with the expression of strong feelings.

In other words, these are a handful of parallel idiomatic expressions, and in no way the 'default' sense of the verb form.

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3015
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov »

Is it possible for a language to have no overt gender marking on the nominal declension, but to have it on verbal agreement?
Also, can an ergative lang be split on noun/verb? That is, the nouns are marked as ERG and ABS, but the verbal agreement is always the S or A argument?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5595
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore »

Shemtov wrote:
27 Jul 2020 23:55
Is it possible for a language to have no overt gender marking on the nominal declension, but to have it on verbal agreement?
Also, can an ergative lang be split on noun/verb? That is, the nouns are marked as ERG and ABS, but the verbal agreement is always the S or A argument?
Yes; and yes.
For the former you should see Comrie on Gender.**
For the latter see Martin Haspelmath’s work.*

In case I’ve misremembered who wrote what, I hope I’ll figure it out in time!

Here:
https://wals.info/combinations/100A_98A#2/26.8/149.4
12 languages are given whose nouns are aligned erg-abs but whose verbs agree in person with the S or A.
Accusative / Ergative - absolutive
Una
Suena
Pitjantjatjara
Bawm
Wardaman
Zoque (Copainalá)
Dani (Lower Grand Valley)
Coos (Hanis)
Hunzib
Gooniyandi
Tukang Besi
Greenlandic (West)


*The authors of those features are a Bernard Comrie and Anna Siewierska. Not Haspelmath.

.....

** The Gender guy might be Greville Corbett instead of Comrie. But I can’t find it.

Maybe https://wals.info/combinations/44A_102A#2/18.0/149.1 will help?

User avatar
lsd
greek
greek
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Mar 2011 21:11
Contact:

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

Post by lsd »

Shemtov wrote:
27 Jul 2020 23:55
Is it possible for a language to (...)
in a conlang thread, the answer is yes if you can handle it (whatever the known natural languages do...(and especially if they don't...))

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2678
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 »

eldin raigmore wrote:
28 Jul 2020 07:33
** The Gender guy might be Greville Corbett instead of Comrie. But I can’t find it.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Ge ... y1va7QcuEC
Shemtov wrote:
27 Jul 2020 23:55
Is it possible for a language to have no overt gender marking on the nominal declension, but to have it on verbal agreement?
I agree with eldin on this. IIRC, Corbett noted languages tend to assign gender using varying degrees of two strategies: formal gender assignment (based on the noun's word shape) and semantic gender assignment (based on the noun's meaning). A language leaning strongly toward semantic assignment would have few, if any, gender indicators in the forms of its nouns.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5595
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore »

What the Dormouse said:
and, the defining feature of gender is that it’s concordial noun-class,
marked by other words agreeing with the noun’s gender.
It by definition doesn’t have to be marked on the noun itself.

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 875
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine »

Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2743
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 »

Ælfwine wrote:
29 Jul 2020 10:42
Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.
"Wife" and "husband" in English both go back to Old English, but "husband" is often said to come from Old Norse before that. "Father" in Finnish, iso, is inherited, while "mother", äiti, is a borrowing from Germanic, vs. native emä (which apparently now refers to the mothers of animals). I can't think of any other examples off of the top of my head (unless you want to include things like "pork" and "beef" vs. "pig" and "cow" in English as well). I'd imagine they're relatively rare, but they don't seem to be unattested.
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
roman
roman
Posts: 875
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine »

sangi39 wrote:
29 Jul 2020 14:08
Ælfwine wrote:
29 Jul 2020 10:42
Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.
"Wife" and "husband" in English both go back to Old English, but "husband" is often said to come from Old Norse before that. "Father" in Finnish, iso, is inherited, while "mother", äiti, is a borrowing from Germanic, vs. native emä (which apparently now refers to the mothers of animals). I can't think of any other examples off of the top of my head (unless you want to include things like "pork" and "beef" vs. "pig" and "cow" in English as well). I'd imagine they're relatively rare, but they don't seem to be unattested.
Awesome, good to know that it is attested. Thanks Sangi.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2743
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 »

Ælfwine wrote:
29 Jul 2020 20:04
sangi39 wrote:
29 Jul 2020 14:08
Ælfwine wrote:
29 Jul 2020 10:42
Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.
"Wife" and "husband" in English both go back to Old English, but "husband" is often said to come from Old Norse before that. "Father" in Finnish, iso, is inherited, while "mother", äiti, is a borrowing from Germanic, vs. native emä (which apparently now refers to the mothers of animals). I can't think of any other examples off of the top of my head (unless you want to include things like "pork" and "beef" vs. "pig" and "cow" in English as well). I'd imagine they're relatively rare, but they don't seem to be unattested.
Awesome, good to know that it is attested. Thanks Sangi.
The only thing is that I don't know why they were borrowed in that manner (or rather, under what circumstances that sort of borrowing happened, except for the meat vs. animal thing in English). For example, was there a period in the history of Finnish in which women were, in large enough numbers, Germanic-speaking women, or was it borrowed into Finnish for some other reason? (although, I suppose, to what extent that even matters after 2000 years is debatable)
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.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2835
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý »

sangi39 wrote:
29 Jul 2020 21:02
Ælfwine wrote:
29 Jul 2020 20:04
sangi39 wrote:
29 Jul 2020 14:08
Ælfwine wrote:
29 Jul 2020 10:42
Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.
"Wife" and "husband" in English both go back to Old English, but "husband" is often said to come from Old Norse before that. "Father" in Finnish, iso, is inherited, while "mother", äiti, is a borrowing from Germanic, vs. native emä (which apparently now refers to the mothers of animals). I can't think of any other examples off of the top of my head (unless you want to include things like "pork" and "beef" vs. "pig" and "cow" in English as well). I'd imagine they're relatively rare, but they don't seem to be unattested.
Awesome, good to know that it is attested. Thanks Sangi.
The only thing is that I don't know why they were borrowed in that manner (or rather, under what circumstances that sort of borrowing happened, except for the meat vs. animal thing in English). For example, was there a period in the history of Finnish in which women were, in large enough numbers, Germanic-speaking women, or was it borrowed into Finnish for some other reason? (although, I suppose, to what extent that even matters after 2000 years is debatable)
Actually most words referring to female relatives are borrowed

Äiti 'mother' Germanic, isä ' father' Uralic
Sisar (sisko being some diminutive) 'sister' Baltic, veli 'brother' Uralic
Tytär 'daughter' from some IE lang, poika 'son' Uralic
täti 'aunt' borrowed from somewhere, setä, eno 'uncle' uralic

Anoppi and appi 'mother and father in law' are both Uralic.
I don't know what is the origin of the words referring to other in-law relatives. Finnish has many of them though they are rarely used: nato, käly, miniä, kyty, lanko, vävy.

Iso 'father' is used in Kalevala. The usual word is isä. Iso means 'big'.

Actually, there is some genetic research that y-chromosome line of most Finns comes from the east and the mitochondria line comes from the west. But I think it's never been connected to family words.

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3015
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov »

Yiddish is also a good example. (especially the Southeast dialect group, which I am most familiar with, and which I will be using) The normal word for "mother" is /mɪtr̩/, of Germanic stock, but "father" is /tatə/, from an unknown Slavic language. /futr̩/ is also a synonym, but in the SE dialect group, it is rare. See also, the word for " in-law" /mɪxitn̩/ (m) /mɪxitnɛstɛ/ (f), from :isr: (Though the F form has a Slavic gender suffix), while the word for the specifics are from Germanic (/ʃver/ "Father-in-law" /ʃvɪgr̩/ "Mother-in-law"). Meanwhile, the words for "son" and "daughter" are both Germanic, while the words for "Grandfather" and "Grandmother" are both Slavic.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

In the specific case of 'asymmetrical' borrowing of kin terms and the like, I'd suggest three motivations:

a) as pointed out, male and female lines often come from different communities; mothers, in particular, can easily introduce loanwords from their mother-tongues related to mothers, aunts, grandmothers and so forth.

b) different linguistic communities can have different social structures. If a language tends to group female kin together in relatively few terms, for example, it may be relatively receptive to borrowing more technical kin vocabulary from a neighbour when the social structure changes.

c) probably the biggest thing is politeness and formality. Loanwords often have a higher register, and hence their use can signify respect or formality. As an example in English of loaning of kin terms, see (highly Anglicised pronunciations of) 'mater' and 'pater' among upper-class English prior to a few generations ago, and the more widespread borrowing of Romance 'pa'. Although in the mater/pater case it's both genders (although my impression is that 'mater' was much more common), it's not unusual for women, particularly female kin, to be referred to more respectfully, both as part of a general ethos of chivalry, and as a strategy to avoid pissing violent men off by talking the wrong way about their mothers and sisters...

User avatar
jimydog000
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 166
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 04:14
Location: Australian Country

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

Post by jimydog000 »

I thought I would be able to find a language that doesn't mark past-tense, having past-tense as the default, but marks non-past.
But I couldn't find any, or any discussion about it. Does it happen though?

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

jimydog000 wrote:
30 Jul 2020 11:46
I thought I would be able to find a language that doesn't mark past-tense, having past-tense as the default, but marks non-past.
But I couldn't find any, or any discussion about it. Does it happen though?
I assume so, but can't cite you. Have you tried the Raritatenkabinett?

User avatar
littlesalmon
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 21:34
Location: ...
Contact:

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

Post by littlesalmon »

There's a phrase consisting of two or more words in the object language and a basic root in the metalanguage, and they have the same meaning. For example, I can imagine a singular word that means "rocking chair"; alternatively, in itota itiko "itota itiko" means "language". How do I gloss this?
216 always explains everything. ilaki onito itota ti ji ji ti akina itota ma. 216 всегда всё объясняет.

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2678
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 »

littlesalmon wrote:
31 Jul 2020 18:29
There's a phrase consisting of two or more words in the object language and a basic root in the metalanguage, and they have the same meaning. For example, I can imagine a singular word that means "rocking chair"; alternatively, in itota itiko "itota itiko" means "language". How do I gloss this?
Assuming each of the object-language words has individual meaning, I would gloss that. So if I were glossing "rocking chair" in Spanish, I'd write:

rocking chair
rock-ing chair
mecer-PTCP.PRS silla

mecedora

If the words don't have individual meaning, the closest thing I can find in the Leipzig Glossing Rules is Rule 8, on bipartite elements, where they say to either repeat the gloss, or gloss the first element in the metalanguage and the second element as a "special label", perhaps its grammatical category. These are their examples using the bipartite Lakhota stem na-xʔu̧ 'hear':
(24) Lakhota

na-wíčha-wa-xʔu̧
hear-3PL.UND-1SG.ACT-hear
'I hear them' (UND = undergoer, ACT = actor)

(25) Lakhota

na-wíčha-wa-xʔu̧
hear-3PL.UND-1SG.ACT- STEM
'I hear them'
EDIT: switching my "rocking chair" example to Spanish since it has a one-word translation

User avatar
Ser
sinic
sinic
Posts: 265
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

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

Post by Ser »

In that situation, you typically provide a separate gloss of each word, effectively showing the literal expression in the object language.

For example, "Latin" (the language) in Latin as a noun phrase must sometimes be expressed as two words:
linguae latīnae oblīvīscor
tongue.SG.GEN Latin.FEM.SG.GEN forget.PRES.INDIC.1SG
'I'm forgetting Latin'


Or, more simply, you could write:
tongue.GEN Latin.FEM.SG.GEN forget.1SG

If it involves synonyms (e.g. "cease and desist, will and testament"), then you simply repeat the metalanguage gloss as appropriate:
id dissertō et tractō
it.ACC explain.1SG and explain.1SG
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.

User avatar
littlesalmon
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 21:34
Location: ...
Contact:

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

Post by littlesalmon »

I meant that the words don't have individual meaning. And I've seen this in the Leipzig glossing rules, but I don't know if it quite works. Maybe if combined with the space-and-hyphen for morphologically bound, but phonetically separate morphemes, like that:

itot-a -itik-o
language-NM-language-ADJM

Though now I realized that in the thing that I wanted to gloss in the first place the words do have individual meaning:

itot-a itik-o
concept-NM language-ADJM

Anyway, thank you.
Edit: Literal translation works, actually, and I realized it yourself just as you (Ser) were writing this, but, anyway, thank you.
216 always explains everything. ilaki onito itota ti ji ji ti akina itota ma. 216 всегда всё объясняет.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3928
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor »

jimydog000 wrote:
30 Jul 2020 11:46
I thought I would be able to find a language that doesn't mark past-tense, having past-tense as the default, but marks non-past.
But I couldn't find any, or any discussion about it. Does it happen though?
I think this is common actually, especially the past-tense as default part. This often happens in languages that do not have inflectional tense marking. I read a paper on Balinese and the unmarked forms where translated as past tense, whereas TAM particles could change this to present progressive or perfect translations. I am pretty sure there are more such languages, but I am only judging from translations so far. I guess someone must have done research on it. Lisa Matthewson's research group might be a good place to start.

littlesalmon wrote:
31 Jul 2020 19:51
I meant that the words don't have individual meaning. And I've seen this in the Leipzig glossing rules, but I don't know if it quite works. Maybe if combined with the space-and-hyphen for morphologically bound, but phonetically separate morphemes, like that:

itot-a -itik-o
language-NM-language-ADJM

Though now I realized that in the thing that I wanted to gloss in the first place the words do have individual meaning:

itot-a itik-o
concept-NM language-ADJM

Anyway, thank you.
Edit: Literal translation works, actually, and I realized it yourself just as you (Ser) were writing this, but, anyway, thank you.
Do you mean when two words in the target language can only be translated as one word in the metalanguage? This is actually a gap in the Leipzig Glossing Rules. My professor suggested the hash mark on the target language line to join the two words, like some people do in phonology.
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