Random ideas: Morphosyntax

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

Sequor wrote: 25 Jan 2023 02:15 I came up with an alignment where
- a single subject argument is typically marked with case #1
- by default, if there's both a subject and object, the subject is marked with case #1, and the object with case #2
- if pragmatic focus falls on the subject, the subject is marked with case #3, and the object with case #1 (!)
- case #2 and case #3 normally do not co-occur

One way I interpret this is that #1 is a "topic" case (TOP), #2 is an accusative (ACC) and #3 is a nominative (NOM).

man-TOP came 'The man came.'
man-TOP knife-ACC grab 'The man grabbed a knife.'
knife-TOP man-NOM grab 'The man grabbed a knife.' (focus on "man": It was the man who grabbed a knife, the knife was grabbed by the man)

And again, "NOM" and "ACC" do not co-occur. When one is used, the other argument is taken up by "TOP" marking. (I suppose I could allow the subject of an intransitive verb to be marked "NOM" if focus falls on the subject noun phrase specifically. man-NOM came.)

I mentioned this idea elsewhere and someone told me Japanese is vaguely like this, as statistically the subject particle =ga and the object particle =o don't co-occur much, and both particles are associated with focus. Which surprised me, but mind you I don't know Japanese...

EDIT: someone elsewhere pointed out to me that this is more accurately split-ergative, where my "NOM" is ERG and my "TOP" is ABS.
IIRC, Mayan languages have an agent focus construction that might be similar, but I don't find it online right now. The other option would be to say that in focus constructions the verb only has one argument because for some reason the focussed noun is not an argument anymore. Might be that it is not in the case domain or that the verb has a silent passive marker, similar to what Sal said. You might want to look at the ideas of Dependent Case Theory, if you have the time. Their prediction is kind of that the case of the only argument of the intransitive verb is also the default case in other constructions.
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]
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4081
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

An idea about what are called "instrumental affixes" in Amerindian languages, 'with teeth', 'by foot' ...'

ku- 'by teeth'
ji- 'by speaking'
ran 'die'
koh 'a fish'

When attached to verbal stems, they work as in Amerindian languages.

ku-ran
by.teeth-die
'kill by biting, bite dead'

ji-ran
by.saying-die
'to cause dead by insulting'

When they are attached to nominal stems, they derive verbs productively.

ku-koh
'to eat fish'

ji-koh
'to speak about fish'
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

How would valency work in such a system? Would all deverbal verbs be transitive? Would all denominal verbs be intransitive?
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]
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4081
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

Creyeditor wrote: 11 Feb 2023 08:03 How would valency work in such a system? Would all deverbal verbs be transitive? Would all denominal verbs be intransitive?
I think many Amerindian languages allow intransitives like 'was wind-blown'. But if I keep the system understandable for my European brain, I think those deverbal verbs should have an agent, so unaccusative verbs are causativized but unergative verbs are not.

The denominal strategy is a kind of incorporation á la Greenlandic, and incorporation is typically a detransitivizing strategy. But I don't think there is any reason to make random objects ungrammatical if needed.


I thought about how productive the denominal strategy is and my example was 'to shoe-eat' which does not make sense because people don't eat shoes. But it could have an abstract meaning 'to cast pearls before swine' because shoes are expensive but not good food. So, it could mean something like 'to misuse' and it could well have an object.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4081
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

I learned that in Scandinavian languages the place of negative word can code which participant is the subject.

A V Neg B
'A doesn't V B'

A V B Neg
'A is not Ved by B'

There could also be a particle for the word order change in positive clauses.

A V B Possitive
'A is Ved by B'
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

That sounds intriguing. Could the affirmative particle maybe only be used when it is relevant for telling subject and object apart?
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]
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4081
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

Creyeditor wrote: 25 Feb 2023 20:44 That sounds intriguing. Could the affirmative particle maybe only be used when it is relevant for telling subject and object apart?
Yes, in those affirmative clauses.
It could though have uses in polar questions or something like that.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

I probably pitched this idea several times now, but here I go again.

What if all nouns in a conlang occur with an index and this index is linked to a role/case via an agreeing "particle" that is itself indexed to a verb. A more concrete example. Let's say the first noun get's an indexial suffix -a, the second noun gets -u. The verb has an indexial suffix -e and the particle -g- expresses the agent role whereas -p- expresses the patient. Then a simple transitive sentence could look something like this:

Boja womu mire age upe.
Boj-a wom-u mir-e a-g-e u-p-e
boy-I woman-II admire-III I-AGENT-III II-P-III
'The boy admires the woman.'

This would give you extremely free word order provided you have a high number of indexial suffixes. It might make sentences too clumsy though. Is something like this attested in any natlang? Would this language be considered head-marking or dependent-marking?


Does
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]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore »

Creyeditor wrote: 24 May 2023 08:48 What if all nouns in a conlang occur with an index and this index is linked to a role/case via an agreeing "particle" that is itself indexed to a verb. A more concrete example. Let's say the first noun get's an indexial suffix -a, the second noun gets -u. The verb has an indexial suffix -e and the particle -g- expresses the agent role whereas -p- expresses the patient. Then a simple transitive sentence could look something like this: u
Boja womu mire age upe.
Boj-a wom-u mir-e a-g-e u-p-e
boy-I woman-II admire-III I-AGENT-III II-P-III
'The boy admires the woman.'
This would give you extremely free word order provided you have a high number of indexial suffixes. It might make sentences too clumsy though. Is something like this attested in any natlang? Would this language be considered head-marking or dependent-marking?
It would be considered double-marking or triple-marking. It definitely marks the head (the verb) in clauses and marks the dependents (the participant nouns) in clauses. I think it probably also marks a free-floating marker.

Does it mark both the head and the dependent in genitive phrases? Or, the head and a free-floating marker, or the dependent and a free-floating marker?
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

I think it could also be triple marking in possessive contexts.

Sona womu dan-e age usa.
Son-a wom-u dan-e a-g-e u-s-a
son-I woman-II admire-III I-AGENT-III II-POSS-I
'The woman's son dances.'
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]
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1067
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

A weird idea I had that's most likely ANADEW; I think of it as 'ergative clause alignment.'
The premise is, you can think of clause types in a similar way to syntactic arguments. There's three main types of arguments; intransitive subject, transitive subject, and transitive object. Analogically, there's three main types of clause; head clause in a monoclausal construction, head clause in a biclausal construction, and subordinate clause in a biclauclausal construction. Most (maybe all) languages are "accusative" in that they lump both types of head clause together, and treat subordinate clauses differently. My idea is that a language could treat standalone head clauses in the same way as subordinate clauses (e.g. by nominalising them), leaving the head clause of a biclausal construction as the marked form. This could mean that (unnominalised) verbs only appear in head clauses where a subclause exists as well, hence:

Bejet yek huz.
bəɟə
know
-t
NOM
ɲək
1SG.POSS
hɨʒ
3SG.OBL

"I know it."

Yubeje ekot tak qobja.
ɲɨ-
1SG
bəɟə
know
əko
be
-t
NOM
tak
2SG.POSS
ʔobɟa
here

"I know that you are here."

Imperatives would be the exception (again, like they are in ergative langs):

Toko qobja!
to-
2SG
əko
be
ʔobɟa
here

"Get here!"

And because normal clauses have nominalised verbs, a noun can be substituted freely in that position:

Ozesyi yek keyjet.
oʒəsɲi
usage
ɲək
1SG.POSS
kəɲɟət
3SG.INSTR

"I am using it" / "My use of it"

And only head clauses of biclausal constructions could take tense marking:

Yubosbeje ekot tak qobja.
ɲɨ-
1SG
bos-
PAST
bəɟə
know
əko
be
-t
NOM
tak
2SG.POSS
ʔobɟa
here

"I knew you were there."

Alternatively, the verbalised form could be the marked form, in which case there would be no underlying verbs in the language.

Yubejemu eko tak qobja.
ɲɨ-
1SG
bəɟə
knowing
-mɨ
VERB
əko
being
tak
2SG.POSS
ʔobɟa
here

"I know that you are here."

On reflection it doesn't seem to be particularly naturalistic but I still like the idea.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4081
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 28 May 2023 04:42 A weird idea I had that's most likely ANADEW; I think of it as 'ergative clause alignment.'
The premise is, you can think of clause types in a similar way to syntactic arguments. There's three main types of arguments; intransitive subject, transitive subject, and transitive object. Analogically, there's three main types of clause; head clause in a monoclausal construction, head clause in a biclausal construction, and subordinate clause in a biclauclausal construction. Most (maybe all) languages are "accusative" in that they lump both types of head clause together, and treat subordinate clauses differently. My idea is that a language could treat standalone head clauses in the same way as subordinate clauses (e.g. by nominalising them), leaving the head clause of a biclausal construction as the marked form. This could mean that (unnominalised) verbs only appear in head clauses where a subclause exists as well, hence:

Bejet yek huz.
bəɟə
know
-t
NOM
ɲək
1SG.POSS
hɨʒ
3SG.OBL

"I know it."

Yubeje ekot tak qobja.
ɲɨ-
1SG
bəɟə
know
əko
be
-t
NOM
tak
2SG.POSS
ʔobɟa
here

"I know that you are here."

Imperatives would be the exception (again, like they are in ergative langs):

Toko qobja!
to-
2SG
əko
be
ʔobɟa
here

"Get here!"

And because normal clauses have nominalised verbs, a noun can be substituted freely in that position:

Ozesyi yek keyjet.
oʒəsɲi
usage
ɲək
1SG.POSS
kəɲɟət
3SG.INSTR

"I am using it" / "My use of it"

And only head clauses of biclausal constructions could take tense marking:

Yubosbeje ekot tak qobja.
ɲɨ-
1SG
bos-
PAST
bəɟə
know
əko
be
-t
NOM
tak
2SG.POSS
ʔobɟa
here

"I knew you were there."

Alternatively, the verbalised form could be the marked form, in which case there would be no underlying verbs in the language.

Yubejemu eko tak qobja.
ɲɨ-
1SG
bəɟə
knowing
-mɨ
VERB
əko
being
tak
2SG.POSS
ʔobɟa
here

"I know that you are here."

On reflection it doesn't seem to be particularly naturalistic but I still like the idea.
It does not sound ANADEW to me.
An interesting idea

I think the system would be analyzed differently. Maybe what you call subordinate clauses would be called main clauses and the other way around. Subordination is a syntactic, not semantic thing. On the other hand lack of tense marking is a feature of nonfiniteness.

How would relative clauses and adverbial clauses be handled?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1067
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Omzinesý wrote: 28 May 2023 10:38 It does not sound ANADEW to me.
An interesting idea

I think the system would be analyzed differently. Maybe what you call subordinate clauses would be called main clauses and the other way around. Subordination is a syntactic, not semantic thing. On the other hand lack of tense marking is a feature of nonfiniteness.
I suspect it could be analysed as follows:

"nominalisation" reanalysed as "background clause marker"
(or "verbalisation" as "foreground clause marker")
"possessive forms" => "agentive, coincidental with genitive, not used in head clauses"

Hence

Yubejemu eko tak qobja.
Nominalisation analysis:
ɲɨ-
1SG
bəɟə
knowing
-mɨ
VERB
əko
being
tak
2SG.POSS
ʔobɟa
here

Agentive analysis:
ɲɨ-
1SG
bəɟə
know
-mɨ
FOREGR
əko
be.BACKGR
tak
2SG.ERG
ʔobɟa
here

"I know that you are here."
How would relative clauses and adverbial clauses be handled?
I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps relative clauses could be treated as subclauses:

Beje oqluyta yaku lekomu qobja.
bəɟə
knowing
oʔlɨɲ
man
-ta
POSS
ɲakɨ
1SG.PASS.AGT
l-
3SG
əko
being
-mɨ
VERB
ʔobɟa
here

"The man I know is here." ("The man's being known of by me is here")

And adverbial clauses could just be treated as head clauses in separate phrases:

Koluze eko yek qobja, beje yek huz.
kolɨʒə
while
əko
being
ɲək
1SG.POSS
ʔobɟa
here
,
bəɟə
knowing
ɲək
1SG.POSS
hɨʒ
3SG.OBL

"While sitting here, I know it."
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

I think that is an interesting idea. Three things: Complementizers=clitics that prosodically lean in an unexpected position, switch-reference (and related stuff) and Indonesian nominalized "adverbials" eith possessive markers.

Let us start with the last thing. In Indonesian, certain things that are expressed by matrix clauses (i.e. head clauses if subordinate clauses) are expressed by something that looks like a construction involving a 3rd person possessive marker on a noun and a full clause. Like so:

Kata-nya, mereka baru makan.
word-3.POSS, they just ate
'Allegedley, they just ate' or 'Their word is that they just ate' or 'They say, they just ate.'

Rupa-nya, mereka baru makan.
similarity-3.POSS, they just ate
'Apparently, they just ate' or 'Their look is that they just ate' or 'They look like, they just ate.' or 'It seems that they just ate'.

This is somewhat lexicalized in that the possessor marker does not agree with first or second person pronouns. It has been analyzed as a zero-copula construction by some, but it does not need. You could say that the possessor marker marks matrix clauses in these cases that are very restricted in their morphosyntactic options. Note that Indonesian also has other embedded clauses that show different restrictions and marking. So, you would have to call the possessor marked ones 'super-matrix' or something because they embedd normal matrix clauses.

Now the first thing, left leaning-complementizers. Let's just call them c=clitics. In many languages, complementizers are particle-like words (short, functional, no inflection) that mark embedded clauses. In some languages, however, they are - prosodically at least- part of the matrix clause. Note how in German you can have a natural pause between the complementizer and the rest of the embedded clause, as in the following sentence. The pause is marked by •••

Ich glaube, dass ••• das ein großes Problem sein wird.
I believe that ••• it a big problem be will
'I believe that this will be a big problem.'

This can be though of as the complementizer joining the prosodic phrase to its left. In some languages, the complenentizer not only joins the prosodic phrase to its left but also the prosodic word to its left. These are the c=clitics I have been talking about. They become prosodically indistinguishable from affixes in that case and could be described as marking the matrix clause. If you have an otherwise SOV language with embedded clauses following the verb, this could very well be interpreted as a suffix marking the matrix clause.

The other thing, I wanted to mention are the asymmetries between marking on main clauses and dependent clauses. Crosslinguistically, there is a tendency for main clause verbs to mark more (what WALS calls deranked) or the same amount of (what WALS calls balanced) morphological categories when compared to verbs in dependent clauses. There are however, some categories that can only be marked in dependent clauses (or at least clauses that cooccur with another clause). One category is Switch-Reference, i.e. indicating if the subject of the clause is the same or different from another clause. The other is a kind of relative tense marking that roughly translates to 'before' and 'after' in English. This relates the time frame of the clause to another clause. In both cases, another clause needs to be present to allow this. (I can provide examples later if you would like to see them) This means you could have a naturalistic conlang with more marking on dependent clause verbs than on main class verbs. Combine it with the c=clitic and you get something very close to your basic idea, IIUC.
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]
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1067
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Creyeditor wrote: 28 May 2023 16:13 Let us start with the last thing. In Indonesian, certain things that are expressed by matrix clauses (i.e. head clauses if subordinate clauses) are expressed by something that looks like a construction involving a 3rd person possessive marker on a noun and a full clause.
[...]
This is somewhat lexicalized in that the possessor marker does not agree with first or second person pronouns. It has been analyzed as a zero-copula construction by some, but it does not need. You could say that the possessor marker marks matrix clauses in these cases that are very restricted in their morphosyntactic options. Note that Indonesian also has other embedded clauses that show different restrictions and marking. So, you would have to call the possessor marked ones 'super-matrix' or something because they embedd normal matrix clauses.
Interesting...
Now the first thing, left leaning-complementizers. Let's just call them c=clitics. In many languages, complementizers are particle-like words (short, functional, no inflection) that mark embedded clauses. In some languages, however, they are - prosodically at least- part of the matrix clause. Note how in German you can have a natural pause between the complementizer and the rest of the embedded clause, as in the following sentence. The pause is marked by •••
[...]
This can be though of as the complementizer joining the prosodic phrase to its left. In some languages, the complenentizer not only joins the prosodic phrase to its left but also the prosodic word to its left. These are the c=clitics I have been talking about. They become prosodically indistinguishable from affixes in that case and could be described as marking the matrix clause. If you have an otherwise SOV language with embedded clauses following the verb, this could very well be interpreted as a suffix marking the matrix clause.
I like this. I think I'll use this method, or possibly combine this with the previous one.
The other thing, I wanted to mention are the asymmetries between marking on main clauses and dependent clauses. Crosslinguistically, there is a tendency for main clause verbs to mark more (what WALS calls deranked) or the same amount of (what WALS calls balanced) morphological categories when compared to verbs in dependent clauses. There are however, some categories that can only be marked in dependent clauses (or at least clauses that cooccur with another clause). One category is Switch-Reference, i.e. indicating if the subject of the clause is the same or different from another clause. The other is a kind of relative tense marking that roughly translates to 'before' and 'after' in English. This relates the time frame of the clause to another clause. In both cases, another clause needs to be present to allow this. (I can provide examples later if you would like to see them) This means you could have a naturalistic conlang with more marking on dependent clause verbs than on main class verbs. Combine it with the c=clitic and you get something very close to your basic idea, IIUC.
I'm a fan of switch-reference anyway, and the tense stuff seems pretty logical too. I'll have to play around with diachronics to see how I can generate my system naturally. Thanks for all the detailed info!
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4081
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

A language whose intransitive construction is simple and transitive construction periphrastic.

Kennedy die
Gunman make Kennedy die.

Pasta get_cooked
I make pasta get_cooked

Some semantically nontransitive verbs also appear in the transitive construction.

I be_in_love
You make I be_in_love.MIDDL 'You make me love yourself'

The main verb could always agree the accusative argument and the auxiliary verb the ergative argument.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

Obligatory transitivity marking and light verbs? Yummy [:)]
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]
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1225
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Arayaz »

One of my old conlangs had a weird system where the word order was SVOP, with the P being one of a large array of particles marking various transitive sentences of an intransitive verb...it might work something like sa nōki "I speak" > sa nōki la su "I insult you," sa nōki la īni "I tell you," etc. I don't remember much. I recorded that language on Youtube (youtube.com/@Worldquill, iirc), but it was very bad. Very, very bad. I might try the idea again sometime, though.
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

Sounds like it was inspired by German separable particle verbs.
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]
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1225
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Arayaz »

Creyeditor wrote: 16 Jun 2023 07:51 Sounds like it was inspired by German separable particle verbs.
It actually was a product of natural evolution: the pre-protolang had no transitive verbs, only intransitive verbs. So "I speak" might've been *sa noŋkei , and "You are harmed" would be *la sou. Then combining these, you would get *sa noŋkei, la sou ─ "I speak and you are harmed," or "I insult you."

If there were overt conjunction, you might get a transitivity marker on the main verb, too.
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
Post Reply