Introducing irregularity

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
Post Reply
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 672
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Introducing irregularity

Post by Davush »

Hello,

To create a proto-lang, I am starting with a (mostly) regular sketched out language, in that there is not much in the way of morphophonolgical interactions.
I was wondering what are some ways to create more complex systems? I realise some languages are quite regular (Turkish, Japanese), but even then it is not simply 'add suffix X' for everything.

Any ideas/examples/comments would be useful! I am especially interested to hear about how natlangs have become more/less regular (or complex in their morphology) . Thanks!
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Introducing irregularity

Post by Omzinesý »

Not an easy question.

ti -> si change in Finnish generated quite much irregularity.

*läkt- 'leave'
*läkt-e-n 'I leave'
*läkt-e-e 'He leaves'
*läkt-i-n 'I left'
*läkt-i 'He left'

1. ti -> si affects the past forms.
Läksin 'I left'
Läksi 'He left'

Clusters of two plosives are lenited kt -> ht
2. The present forms are affected
*lähten 'I leave'
lähtee 'he leaves'

Plosives are lenited when they start a closed syllable. So called consonant gradation.
3. Consonant gradation affects sg1 present, but not the ks cluster of past forms.
lähden 'I leave'

So now we have three stems:
Lähd-e-n
Läht-e-e
Läks-i-n
Läks-i

New analogical past forms are created and are in free variation with the old ones.
lähd-i-n
Läht-i
That actually creates one stem more.


So, basically irregularity is gained by accumulating sound changes.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Introducing irregularity

Post by sangi39 »

I'd generally agree with Omzinesý on that. One of the easiest ways to introduce morphological irregularity certainly is sound change, and even analogy (as discussed over in the L&N Q&A thread, some Spanish verbs irregularly insert a /g/ in various areas of their paradigms through analogy with certain verbs which now, through anology, no longer have /g/ in that position).

This is especially true when you get one or both of a merger or a split occurring. Taking a Finnish-like example, to build on Omzinesý's points, where there are the following "proto"-nouns *lakti, *kakte, *maksi and *vakse which take the suffix -n in the accusative singular and null suffix in the nominative.

To begin with, final *e shifts to /i/, yielding:

lakti : laktin
kakti : kakten
maksi : maksin
vaksi : vaksen



Then t becomes s before i:

laksi : laksin
kaksi : kakten
maksi : maksin
vaksi : vaksen



Next k becomes h before a plosive:

laksi : laksin
kaksi : kahten
maksi : maksin
vaksi : vaksen



So you have four verbs which all have the form -ksi in the nominative singular, but which have three different forms in the accusative without any way of predicting which form a given noun ending in -ksi might take.
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.
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2257
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Introducing irregularity

Post by clawgrip »

Speaking of Japanese, one of the major sources of irregularity in Japanese is contractions that are non-universal sound changes. /k/ was deleted before /i/ in some verb and adjective forms and nowhere else, creating irregularity:

Classical Japanese: omoki, omoku / kaku, kakite
Modern Japanese: omoi, omoku / kaku, kaite

Another thing that happened was there was some sort of suffix in Old Japanese that was present on independent nouns but not when they were compounded, and this remains in the modern language in a number of compounds, for example:

火 hi - 炎 ho
木 ki - 木の実 konomi
目 me - 瞼 mabuta
上 ue - 上着 uwagi
白 shiro - 白髪 shiraga

This can be even more obscured by other contractions/changes e.g.:
神 kami + 戸 he → 神戸 Kamube → Kaube → Kōbe (the city).
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 672
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: Introducing irregularity

Post by Davush »

sangi39 wrote:I'd generally agree with Omzinesý on that. One of the easiest ways to introduce morphological irregularity certainly is sound change, and even analogy (as discussed over in the L&N Q&A thread, some Spanish verbs irregularly insert a /g/ in various areas of their paradigms through analogy with certain verbs which now, through anology, no longer have /g/ in that position).

This is especially true when you get one or both of a merger or a split occurring. Taking a Finnish-like example, to build on Omzinesý's points, where there are the following "proto"-nouns *lakti, *kakte, *maksi and *vakse which take the suffix -n in the accusative singular and null suffix in the nominative.
On the topic of analogy—when does analogy start to be used? When sound change destroys existing paradigms too much? How much irregularity can a language handle before it starts to invoke analogy? Or is it just one of those 'up to you' choices?
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Introducing irregularity

Post by sangi39 »

Davush wrote:
sangi39 wrote:I'd generally agree with Omzinesý on that. One of the easiest ways to introduce morphological irregularity certainly is sound change, and even analogy (as discussed over in the L&N Q&A thread, some Spanish verbs irregularly insert a /g/ in various areas of their paradigms through analogy with certain verbs which now, through anology, no longer have /g/ in that position).

This is especially true when you get one or both of a merger or a split occurring. Taking a Finnish-like example, to build on Omzinesý's points, where there are the following "proto"-nouns *lakti, *kakte, *maksi and *vakse which take the suffix -n in the accusative singular and null suffix in the nominative.
On the topic of analogy—when does analogy start to be used? When sound change destroys existing paradigms too much? How much irregularity can a language handle before it starts to invoke analogy? Or is it just one of those 'up to you' choices?
It seems to be sort of "up to you", I think. Some languages maintain previous levels of irregularity while others level it by means of analogy. Analogy basically seems to take hold when speakers spot a pattern and apply it to a word that previously did not fit that pattern. What exactly that pattern is can be fairly hard to predict.

It's also worth pointing out that analogy can sometimes increase the number of words which don't follow more widespread patterns, e.g. dove in some dialects of English instead of dived by means of analogy with drove (dive has been a weak verb as far back as Old English). So sometimes analogy can work to increase the number of exceptions to a rule rather than heading solely towards a single pattern (in this case, rather than shifted drove to drived to fall in line with the majority of other verbs, the similar sounding root dive took a past tense form which is much less common).
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.
Post Reply