How exactly do Head-Initial Compounding work?
Posted: 01 Jan 2020 17:40
Hi guys.
I just want to start by saying that it has been like, seven or eight years since I used this forum so I have very little knowledge of how to use it correctly, but so here I go.
But I've been slowly returning to conlanging, and trying to not just create one that looks like my familiar Germanic ones, but I wanted to implement 2 features and while they initally seemed like no problem, they have now confunded me, and I'm failing at finding any easy-to-access source that explains how they work in natlangs, so here I am.
1. Head-Initial languages.
I get that adjectives comes after the noun. Sort off like they do in English pronouns (I want SOMEONE NICE). BUT, what about compound nouns? Because I assumed they worked they same as in English, that is, a SCHOOL BOY is a kind of boy, and not a kind of school. But the more I read about the subject where I could, it suggested that the opposite is true, that even compoun nouns are head-initial. So a SCHOOL BOY, would be a kind of school, probably one just for boys. I also read somewhere that in Italian (which is Head-initial, "capo familia" meaning "family head" / "head of family") a compound noun only ever consists of two parts, and I've heard other languages use constructions like "A school of boys" instead of compounding, or when compounding has many parts.
Does anyone know well how head-initial languages work with compound nouns, and maybe compounding in general? Because I like compounding and I don't know for sure how else you would create neologisms.
2. Passivity in ergative-absolute languges
So, because of how ergativity works and infering agents and patients, ergative languages often doesn't have a passive voice but instead an anti-passive one, ignoring the patient and spotlighting the agent. What I wonder is how these langauges deal with passivity? I've been thinking about it on my spare time and I can't get it to work. I can understand using a pronoun to use vagueness or ignorance about the agent in a sentence (SOMEONE killed Bob), but the passive is so usefull and there are so many adjectives (or adjective-like words) that hinge on an action peing performed UNTO someone, that I don't know how I, or the speakers I intend, would communicate without it. How would one say things like "We gotta help him, he's been both dumped and shot all in one night" without some way of using a passive. I also don't know exactly how I would implement a passive in a ergative-absolute language, if I chose to do so.
Does anyone have a good idea of how ergative-absolute languages deal with these things?
Thanks in advance for any help.
I just want to start by saying that it has been like, seven or eight years since I used this forum so I have very little knowledge of how to use it correctly, but so here I go.
But I've been slowly returning to conlanging, and trying to not just create one that looks like my familiar Germanic ones, but I wanted to implement 2 features and while they initally seemed like no problem, they have now confunded me, and I'm failing at finding any easy-to-access source that explains how they work in natlangs, so here I am.
1. Head-Initial languages.
I get that adjectives comes after the noun. Sort off like they do in English pronouns (I want SOMEONE NICE). BUT, what about compound nouns? Because I assumed they worked they same as in English, that is, a SCHOOL BOY is a kind of boy, and not a kind of school. But the more I read about the subject where I could, it suggested that the opposite is true, that even compoun nouns are head-initial. So a SCHOOL BOY, would be a kind of school, probably one just for boys. I also read somewhere that in Italian (which is Head-initial, "capo familia" meaning "family head" / "head of family") a compound noun only ever consists of two parts, and I've heard other languages use constructions like "A school of boys" instead of compounding, or when compounding has many parts.
Does anyone know well how head-initial languages work with compound nouns, and maybe compounding in general? Because I like compounding and I don't know for sure how else you would create neologisms.
2. Passivity in ergative-absolute languges
So, because of how ergativity works and infering agents and patients, ergative languages often doesn't have a passive voice but instead an anti-passive one, ignoring the patient and spotlighting the agent. What I wonder is how these langauges deal with passivity? I've been thinking about it on my spare time and I can't get it to work. I can understand using a pronoun to use vagueness or ignorance about the agent in a sentence (SOMEONE killed Bob), but the passive is so usefull and there are so many adjectives (or adjective-like words) that hinge on an action peing performed UNTO someone, that I don't know how I, or the speakers I intend, would communicate without it. How would one say things like "We gotta help him, he's been both dumped and shot all in one night" without some way of using a passive. I also don't know exactly how I would implement a passive in a ergative-absolute language, if I chose to do so.
Does anyone have a good idea of how ergative-absolute languages deal with these things?
Thanks in advance for any help.