KOLOri or riKOLO? - Deriving verbal infinitive endings

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
Post Reply
Domanisch
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 3
Joined: 10 Oct 2022 11:58

KOLOri or riKOLO? - Deriving verbal infinitive endings

Post by Domanisch »

Hi Master Conlangers!

I am currently working on my own little creation and have been running into an issue regarding verbs.

First, a short overview of my ideas regarding this conlang :

IDEA : General -> Detail The general info always comes first. Everything preceding it is to be regarded as elaborating the details. This means that the most important information is conveyed at the beginning of the sentence.

WORD ORDER : The idea is expressed predominantly in the word order. Humans usually talk about their actions. So I always put the action first. The word order is thus : V - S - O

ATTRIBUTES : Now there are general tendencies for VSO languages / head-initial languages. But it has to work a bit different here for it to fit my "General 1st, Details 2nd Idea", e.g. :
  • 1. Verb -> 2. Adverb
Example : (KOSAMI) ito
Literally : (HEAR) this
English : to listen closely
  • 1. Noun -> 2. Adjective
Example : POTA kolo
Literally : ROCK water
English : a liquid rock
  • 1. Possession -> 2. Possessor
Example : KOSAMI risa
Literally : EAR animal
English : the ear of the animal
  • 1. Noun -> 2. Postposition
Example : POTA opī
Literally : ROCK flat.topside
English : on top of the rock

So far, so easy. Next, one word has to be said about my case system.

CASE MARKING : I want my language to have a free word order as I evolve it in the future, with the default being VSO. Easiest way to do so is by creating a case system. Now, the case markers are derived from adpositions. And my adpositions (postpositions) come from nouns. As we have seen above, the postpositions come after the nouns that they modify, so the case markers will in time turn into suffixes.

Examples:
  • Nominative
Case marker : FO
Original meaning : brain
Postpositional meaning : "by"
Example : (ILO) risa FO.
Literally : (EAT) animal NOM.
English : The animal eats.
  • Accusative
Case marker : MĀ
Original meaning : pressure; force
Postpositional meaning : "upon"
Example : (ILO) risa FO ki MĀ.
Literally : (EAT) animal NOM him ACC.
English : The animal eats him.

Now, here's my ordeal : I love the infinitve endings in romance languages, especially the way they are used in Spanish :
hablar -> No te quiero hablar. (I don't want to speak to you.)
vivir -> Si a Miguel le gusta vivirlo, por qué no. (If Miguel wants to experience it, why not.)
comer -> Lo quiero comer. / Quiero comerlo. (I want to eat it.)

The latin infinitves (and by extent the Spanish ones) are some very old dative forms for the nominalised verbs. Now I could do the same and say that my verb endings work like the case markers. I would choose a postposition, say it's called RI in my language, and voilà: kosami (ear) becomes kosamiri (to hear).

VERB GROUPS : The problem is, I want to have several different verb classes as well, all of which differ in their endings :
  • Action verbs
Usage : They convey the idea that an action is performed.
Verb marker : RI
Literally : sun; day; action
Example : kolo = water; liquid -> kolori = to water sth.
  • Stative verbs
Usage : They reflect a state of being (to be / to stand / to feel).
Verb marker : OSO
Literally : equality; balance
Example : kolo = water; liquid -> kolōso = to be water / to be liquid / to have water-like qualities
  • Occurence verbs
Usage : They convey the idea that something happens or changes (to happen / to occur / to become).
Verb marker : LAPI
Literally : event
Example : kolo = water; liquid -> kololapi = to become water / to become liquid / to turn into a liquid
  • Construction verbs
Usage : The reflect the creation of something.
Verb marker : TA
Literally : creation; life
Example : kolo = water; liquid -> kolota = to make water / to produce a liquid

A "verb case" already seems weird to me. But I don't think that five different "verb cases" would work - especially since the role of the word (that of being a verb) does not change with these different endings. So I thought, OK, maybe let's just use a possession-possessor-construction and say that the verb markers are like general groups that categorize the word that follow them. But here's the issue : Remember the main idea for the language? General info first, details second. Following that idea, the word order dictates that the verb markers (standing in for a general group) PRECEDE the main word that modifies them :

Example : riKOLO
Literally : action WATER -> as in action of the water

Example : osoKOSAMI
Literally : equality EAR

Example : taPOTA
Literally : creation rock

This move makes sense but it's quite different to how the romance infinitve endings work and look, of course. And whilst I have no problem with prefixes for verbs, they will also cause problems when I evolve my system later on, due to the fact that words in my language can start with a vowel. This will murky the verb markers to a point that they might not be recognizable or differentiable from nouns. Let me show you :

Evolution of : ri (action) OPĪ (surface)
riOPĪ -> clear, because vowel-only-syllables can only come at the beginning of a word
ryopí -> still clear, same reason above
ropí -> unclear, because there could be a noun out there that's called "ROPÍ"

Evolution of : ri (action) ITO (this)
riITO
rĪTO
rito

Compare that to :
OPĪri
ITOri
POTAri
KOSAMIri
KOLOri

These suffixes look way more pleasing and clean and won't meddle with my vowels. They will always be recognizable as verbs due to the RI-ending.

So after a lot of text, my question for you is : Do you have any idea how to work around this so that my verb endings FOLLOW the stem whilst still working with the "General 1st, Details 2nd Idea" and allowing for those 4 verb classes?

Thanks a lot in advance for your comments and suggestions! [<3]
Cheers, Domi
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: KOLOri or riKOLO? - Deriving verbal infinitive endings

Post by Salmoneus »

Hi.
Domanisch wrote: 12 Oct 2022 00:21 IDEA : General -> Detail The general info always comes first. Everything preceding it is to be regarded as elaborating the details. This means that the most important information is conveyed at the beginning of the sentence.
So, my first question would be: is this meant to be a naturalistic language, or one that has to follow certain philosophical principles without having to look realistic?
If it's a naturalistic language: natural languages don't have such broad philosophical concepts as this. We also don't use this terminology to describe them, so I'd suggest moving instead toward a linguistic terminology for natural languages, even if this means giving up some of the purity of your concept. [concepts you might want to look into include topic and focus]

If it's a philosophical language then those problems aren't so pressing. However, philosophically ideas like "general" and "details" are extremely vague, and subjective - it's often debateable which things are generalities and which are details. Particularly because many sentences discuss multiple generalities, or multiple details. So I'd suggest pinning down, philosophically, exactly how you're defining those terms.
WORD ORDER : The idea is expressed predominantly in the word order. Humans usually talk about their actions. So I always put the action first. The word order is thus : V - S - O
There's obviously nothing wrong with VSO order. But I would note that it doesn't fit the plain-meaning interpretation of your earlier idea, as verbs aren't any more general, in general, than nouns. Your explanation instead uses the idea of "what people usually talk about", which of course has nothing to do with generality. Instead, it relates to the idea of topic and focus.

[tangent: "topic" is what people talk about in the sense of identifying the subject of conversation. "Focus" is what people talk about in the sense of the important information they're seeking to convey. In English, you can often get a sense of topic by using the construction "as for [topic], XYZ"; emphatic focus is often indicated by prosodic emphasis. So in a sentence like "as for John, it's the CHEESE he ate!", the topic is John (he's the topic of conversation), and the focus is cheese - that's the bit we're eager to tell the person. The topic is usually 'old information' - we're returning to something we know about - and the focus is usually 'new information', something the listener doesn't know yet. Verbs can be either topics or focuses, but more often they're neither.]
ATTRIBUTES
Now, here's my ordeal : I love the infinitve endings in romance languages, especially the way they are used in Spanish :
hablar -> No te quiero hablar. (I don't want to speak to you.)
vivir -> Si a Miguel le gusta vivirlo, por qué no. (If Miguel wants to experience it, why not.)
comer -> Lo quiero comer. / Quiero comerlo. (I want to eat it.)

The latin infinitves (and by extent the Spanish ones) are some very old dative forms for the nominalised verbs. Now I could do the same and say that my verb endings work like the case markers. I would choose a postposition, say it's called RI in my language, and voilà: kosami (ear) becomes kosamiri (to hear).
Sure. Although of course word order can change over time, and there's no reason the word order would have to be the same at the time that the infinitive was formed as it is 'now'. As indeed is the case with Romance languages, which tend to SVO, whereas Latin and Proto-Indo-European and everything in between (i.e. when the infinitive was formed) tended to SOV.
VERB GROUPS : The problem is, I want to have several different verb classes as well, all of which differ in their endings :
So, my first thing here would be that you're conflating "denominal verbaliser", "infinitiviser" and "verb class marker". That is: an affix that turns a noun (like 'water') into a verb (like 'become water'); an affix that turns a finite verb ("I become water") into an infinitive ("to become water"); and an affix that marks the verb class of a verb.

This is of course completely fine in a language, I just want to make clear that they're conceptually totally different and don't have to be the same if you don't want them to be.
A "verb case" already seems weird to me.
My question here would be: why are you calling them 'verb cases'? Infinitives can of course take cases, because in many ways they act like nouns, but your denominal verbalisers have nothing to do with case. "To become water" is not in a different case from "to produce water". As denominal verbalisers, they don't have to have any consequence for the classification of the verb at all; if you also want them to be verb class markers, then they will mark verb classes, not verb cases.
But I don't think that five different "verb cases" would work - especially since the role of the word (that of being a verb) does not change with these different endings.
Latin, as you know, has at least four verb classes. Germanic languages ancestrally are usually said to have had seven, though in reality, given all the subclasses, it's more like 15 or something.

And again, all you've really established these affixes as are denominal verbalisers, which needn't even create verb classes. Think how many denominalisers there are in English! We've got -ate, -ise, -ify, -icate, -en, be-, en-, and plain -. We don't say that this creates a bunch of 'verb cases', though, do we?
So I thought, OK, maybe let's just use a possession-possessor-construction and say that the verb markers are like general groups that categorize the word that follow them. But here's the issue : Remember the main idea for the language? General info first, details second. Following that idea, the word order dictates that the verb markers (standing in for a general group) PRECEDE the main word that modifies them :

Example : riKOLO
Literally : action WATER -> as in action of the water
Philosophically, 'action' is no more or less general than 'water'.

But more importantly, you've just moved your suffix to be a prefix. If you had a problem with having too many suffixes, you will now have the same problem with having too many prefixes, surely?
This move makes sense but it's quite different to how the romance infinitve endings work and look, of course.
While it's understandable and useful to have inspirations, you also have to be willing to break away from the inspiration to do your own thing at some point. Although it's not really different anyway because you've just moved the suffix to be a prefix.
And whilst I have no problem with prefixes for verbs, they will also cause problems when I evolve my system later on, due to the fact that words in my language can start with a vowel. This will murky the verb markers to a point that they might not be recognizable or differentiable from nouns. Let me show you :

Evolution of : ri (action) OPĪ (surface)
riOPĪ -> clear, because vowel-only-syllables can only come at the beginning of a word
ryopí -> still clear, same reason above
ropí -> unclear, because there could be a noun out there that's called "ROPÍ"
Going back to the beginning, there seems to be a clash here between two different and incompatible objectives. Natural languages have nothing to do with concepts like "differentiating parts of speech" and "avoiding any ambiguity". [the former can happen in some languages but is not a 'goal', just a coincidence]. Look at an English word like "set" - it's a noun, it's a verb, it's an adjective, and it has many different and unrelated meanings for all three parts of speech.

A philosophical language, on the other hand, could set out with those as objectives, for some reason. But a philosophical language doesn't need to worry about things like "evolving the language", because the language is just created to be 'perfect' as it is, without needing the fiction of generations of people speaking it. Any evolution would inevitably undermine its purposes.

So which type of language is this meant to be? What is your objective? If it's to create a language that looks like a real language, then ambiguity and homophony and polysemy are unavoidable, and indeed desirable, as all real languages have them. If it's to create a language that perfectly fulfills certain philosophical objectives of yours, such as minimising ambiguity, then 'evolution' of the language is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Either way, of course, we need to reiterate: you have only moved the suffix to be a prefix, nothing else has changed. So it makes no difference to how much ambiguity it causes. In this case, the ambiguity is because you have chosen a particular sound change: you have decreed that words of the form CVVCV are verbs and those of the form CVCV are nouns, and then added a VV>V rule, so yeah, obviously that means you can no longer tell nouns from verbs. Likewise, if you had suffixes but had a "final vowels are dropped" rule, and also a "nouns can end with a consonant" rule, then nouns could no longer be distinguished from verbs. The "problem" lies entirely in your arbitrary choice of sound change, not the position of the affix per se.

[and just on a tangent: let's be clear, nouns and verbs looking the same does not actually create ambiguity anyway, unless word order is free. In "I set the pot on the table", it's clear that "set" is a verb, and in "This set is missing a piece!" it's clear that "set" is a noun. Since you're talking about transitioning from a free-order language into one without a free order, there would be no problem with losing overt part of speech marking, since the new word order rules would make POS clear]

So after a lot of text, my question for you is : Do you have any idea how to work around this so that my verb endings FOLLOW the stem whilst still working with the "General 1st, Details 2nd Idea" and allowing for those 4 verb classes?

Thanks a lot in advance for your comments and suggestions! [<3]
Cheers, Domi
I'm afraid I do not understand your problems. Firstly because the 'general idea' doesn't really make sense to me (and wouldn't necessarily have to apply WITHIN words anyway, even if it applied BETWEEN words), but also because you didn't really give a explanation for abandoning the suffix idea, beyond "I don't think it would work", with no reasons given.


Nonetheless, I hope something I've said may be useful.
Domanisch
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 3
Joined: 10 Oct 2022 11:58

Re: KOLOri or riKOLO? - Deriving verbal infinitive endings

Post by Domanisch »

So first of all, a BIG thank you for this more than thorough reply. In fact, you bring up a bunch of very good points.

I suppose you are right on my confusion concerning the goal of this language. Perhaps I shouldn't worry so much about any phonological evolution at all if it does not have to be a naturalistic language.
There's obviously nothing wrong with VSO order. But I would note that it doesn't fit the plain-meaning interpretation of your earlier idea, as verbs aren't any more general, in general, than nouns. Your explanation instead uses the idea of "what people usually talk about", which of course has nothing to do with generality. Instead, it relates to the idea of topic and focus.
I guess you are right and this "general - detail" idea has more to do with topic and focus marking than with word order. I wanted to make this a 'language for architecture'. The "general - detail" idea emerged as a reflection of the architectural design process where you first lay out the big strokes of your design and then refine these with more and more details.
I guess in that sense I figured that "general" means more important than "detailed". And since people love to talk about actions (be it their own or someone else's) and verbs are literal 'action words', then verbs are more the most important part of speech and should be placed first in the sentence. But you are right, verbs are not more general than nouns or other parts of speech. I seem to have lost myself in that line of thought there.
Sure. Although of course word order can change over time, and there's no reason the word order would have to be the same at the time that the infinitive was formed as it is 'now'. As indeed is the case with Romance languages, which tend to SVO, whereas Latin and Proto-Indo-European and everything in between (i.e. when the infinitive was formed) tended to SOV.
Oh my, of course! If the language were to evolve naturalistically, then the word order can change, too. Something I hadn't considered. Thanks for bringing that up.
We've got -ate, -ise, -ify, -icate, -en, be-, en-, and plain -. We don't say that this creates a bunch of 'verb cases', though, do we?
Well, my question was how to derive verb infinitives. And those Latin infinitives came from some benelfactive dative case marking. That's why I said 'verb cases'. Sorry for the confusion.
I suppose that if I wanted to create something similar, I would have to take my verb CLASSES and put them into a, let's say, benelfactive dative CASE. Here the verb would take on the role of an object as was the case in Latin. And that way, I'd have derived functioning infintives.
But more importantly, you've just moved your suffix to be a prefix. If you had a problem with having too many suffixes, you will now have the same problem with having too many prefixes, surely?
Those verb classes have markers that are derived from nouns. These nouns (action; balance; event; creation) are general concepts that help put the verbs into these four classes. And since my "general - detail" principle applies, the general, classifying nouns should be placed in front of a word that further elaborates on them. So you'd get something like :

ri KOLO -> an action referring to water -> to water
ri KOSAMI -> an action referring to the ear -> to hear
ri POTA -> an action referring to a rock -> to stone or maybe to roll over
ri ITO -> an action referring to a point -> to point at

Reversing the word order would have placed the 'general concept' (in this case, that of an action) after the word that modifies the concept, which kind of breaks my system. I guess it's purely out of stylistic choices that I want it to be 'KOLO ri' instead of 'ri KOLO'. And the question was, how can I justify making the verb class markers a suffix.


I hope that cleared some of the confusion here. Thank you again, Salmoneus, for your super thorough reply. I very much appreciate it. [<3]
Post Reply