I like that 🤩vo1dwalk3r wrote: ↑08 Feb 2018 16:59 So I've been trying to work out the details of genitive phrases and the like in Ȧbhannı. I've ended up with two cases, possessive and partitive, which serve various functions (including those suggested by their names). A little quirk of these cases is that the possessive is head marking (i.e. arm-POSS me) but the partitive is dependent marking (some people-PTV). This is a result of the fact that, in Old Ȧbhannı, adpositions of motion were postpositions while the others were prepositions, so you get some [people from] > some people-PTV but arm [of me] > arm-of me. In modern Ȧbhannı, all adpositions have become prepositions (or case markers) except in some circumposition-esque constructions, such as in house from, 'from inside the house.'
I was actually going to post about the usage distinction between the cases, which I've got mostly worked out, but I think I'll actually need a bit more thinking for that.
Random ideas: Morphosyntax
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6356
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
I had an idea while struggling to come up with something interesting for my conlang's numerals. Certain nouns have secondary meanings. Such as Tupu "Eagle". This word can be used as a numeral if you suffix ka onto it. So Tupuka means "Four". So Tupuka tupu would mean "The four eagles".
Gândölansch (Gondolan) • Feongkrwe (Feongrkean) • Tamhanddön (Tamanthon) • Θανηλοξαμαψⱶ (Thanelotic) • Yônjcerth (Yaponese) • Ba̧supan (Basupan) • Mùthoķán (Mothaucian)
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5121
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
Isn't that similar to the bodypart counting systems, where body part terms double as numerals. Would you systematically use animal species?Parlox wrote: ↑11 Feb 2018 03:34 I had an idea while struggling to come up with something interesting for my conlang's numerals. Certain nouns have secondary meanings. Such as Tupu "Eagle". This word can be used as a numeral if you suffix ka onto it. So Tupuka means "Four". So Tupuka tupu would mean "The four eagles".
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
For your fist question, yes i guess so. For your second, larger and more culturally important animals be the lower numbers, while less significant animals will be higher(20+) numbers.Creyeditor wrote: ↑11 Feb 2018 10:28Isn't that similar to the bodypart counting systems, where body part terms double as numerals. Would you systematically use animal species?Parlox wrote: ↑11 Feb 2018 03:34 I had an idea while struggling to come up with something interesting for my conlang's numerals. Certain nouns have secondary meanings. Such as Tupu "Eagle". This word can be used as a numeral if you suffix ka onto it. So Tupuka means "Four". So Tupuka tupu would mean "The four eagles".
I'm thinking of taking this system a bit further in my other conlang, Puwali. Where most grammatical information is encoded into nouns by using other nouns.
Gândölansch (Gondolan) • Feongkrwe (Feongrkean) • Tamhanddön (Tamanthon) • Θανηλοξαμαψⱶ (Thanelotic) • Yônjcerth (Yaponese) • Ba̧supan (Basupan) • Mùthoķán (Mothaucian)
-
- hieroglyphic
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016 15:45
- Location: le kibro gugde
- Contact:
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
That reminds me of relational nouns in some natlangs.
And an idea I had a while back and someone else even further back where you could pair two nouns to say that one is the other and make sort of cases that way. E.g."Speaker-agent speak" = "I speak".
That was before (I think anyway) I heard of AllNoun, the other guy's idea.
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
So i've been working on my 3Cons language and had an idea for nouns and pronouns. Nouns are inherently plural, and are marked for the singular. But pronouns are inherently singular and marked for the plural.
Here is another idea i had for an alignment where S = R (which i'll call 1), A = T (which i'll call 2), and P = D (which i'll call 3). Some sentences below,
He-1 is running.
She-2 was wounded by the bear-3.
He-3 gave the woman-2 a book-1.
Here is another idea i had for an alignment where S = R (which i'll call 1), A = T (which i'll call 2), and P = D (which i'll call 3). Some sentences below,
He-1 is running.
She-2 was wounded by the bear-3.
He-3 gave the woman-2 a book-1.
Gândölansch (Gondolan) • Feongkrwe (Feongrkean) • Tamhanddön (Tamanthon) • Θανηλοξαμαψⱶ (Thanelotic) • Yônjcerth (Yaponese) • Ba̧supan (Basupan) • Mùthoķán (Mothaucian)
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5121
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
I like that alignment a lot
If you only look at the intransitive and transitive sentences only it looks tripartite. If you look at transitive and ditransitive sentences it looks like some crazy dative alignment version. But the combination is what makes it really interesting, and I also think a tad more naturalistic. I like the idea of having a dative for intransitive subjects. More tame versions of your alignment would still look interesting to me (which kind of stresses how much con-appeal your idea has).
Version 1:
This would be one where the S=R stays, because it is cool, but the A=T and P=D are changed back to the more usual association. This really stresses how nice the S=R idea is.
S = R (dative, but you might as well call this one nominative or absolutive)
A = D (ergative)
P = T (accusative)
He-DAT is running.
The bear-ERG wounded her-ACC.
He-ERG gave the woman-DAT a book-ACC.
Version 2:
This version leaves the crazy cross-association of A=T and P=D intact, but divides the subject of intransitive sentences and the recipient and reassigns them to the two more general cases. Of course there could be two subversions of this and I will give both.
a) This one is so crazy. From looking at intranstive-transtive alignment, it looks ergative and from looking at the transitive-ditransitive alignment it looks like a boring double object construction. But then again the combination is really crazy.
A=T=R (oblique maybe?)
P=D=S (absolutive maybe)
He-ABS is running.
The bear-OBL wounded her-ABS.
He-ABS gave the woman-OBL a book-OBL.
b) This one is crazy again, because in ditransitive sentences donor and recipient are marked the same. Looks like accusative judging from intransitive and transitive sentences, but is just really crazy in transitive-ditransitive alignemt.
A=T=S (nominative maybe)
P=D=R (secundative maybe?)
He-NOM is running.
The bear-NOM wounded her-SEC.
He-SEC gave the woman-NOM a book-SEC.
So, all in all, this idea really inspired me.
If you only look at the intransitive and transitive sentences only it looks tripartite. If you look at transitive and ditransitive sentences it looks like some crazy dative alignment version. But the combination is what makes it really interesting, and I also think a tad more naturalistic. I like the idea of having a dative for intransitive subjects. More tame versions of your alignment would still look interesting to me (which kind of stresses how much con-appeal your idea has).
Version 1:
This would be one where the S=R stays, because it is cool, but the A=T and P=D are changed back to the more usual association. This really stresses how nice the S=R idea is.
S = R (dative, but you might as well call this one nominative or absolutive)
A = D (ergative)
P = T (accusative)
He-DAT is running.
The bear-ERG wounded her-ACC.
He-ERG gave the woman-DAT a book-ACC.
Version 2:
This version leaves the crazy cross-association of A=T and P=D intact, but divides the subject of intransitive sentences and the recipient and reassigns them to the two more general cases. Of course there could be two subversions of this and I will give both.
a) This one is so crazy. From looking at intranstive-transtive alignment, it looks ergative and from looking at the transitive-ditransitive alignment it looks like a boring double object construction. But then again the combination is really crazy.
A=T=R (oblique maybe?)
P=D=S (absolutive maybe)
He-ABS is running.
The bear-OBL wounded her-ABS.
He-ABS gave the woman-OBL a book-OBL.
b) This one is crazy again, because in ditransitive sentences donor and recipient are marked the same. Looks like accusative judging from intransitive and transitive sentences, but is just really crazy in transitive-ditransitive alignemt.
A=T=S (nominative maybe)
P=D=R (secundative maybe?)
He-NOM is running.
The bear-NOM wounded her-SEC.
He-SEC gave the woman-NOM a book-SEC.
So, all in all, this idea really inspired me.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
I'm glad my idea inspired you! I love to play around with alignment, and that was one of my more interesting outcomes.
Gândölansch (Gondolan) • Feongkrwe (Feongrkean) • Tamhanddön (Tamanthon) • Θανηλοξαμαψⱶ (Thanelotic) • Yônjcerth (Yaponese) • Ba̧supan (Basupan) • Mùthoķán (Mothaucian)
-
- hieroglyphic
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016 15:45
- Location: le kibro gugde
- Contact:
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
Secundative alignment with object of verb to eat in the thematic case (my name for the case of the thing being transferred in a ditransitive sentence).
Because it is being transferred.
Because it is being transferred.
-
- hieroglyphic
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016 15:45
- Location: le kibro gugde
- Contact:
Conflating verbs and event nouns by combining agentive with genitive and patientive with dative
If "I" = "my" and "speak" = "event of speaking" then "I speak" = "my event of speaking" etc
'=' in this case means 'has the same word as'
So for instance: "I dislike they argue" would be "I dislike their arguing"
To make word order more flexible using cases you would have to use case stacking.
(When I get to a computer with a keyboard I can type up more)
'=' in this case means 'has the same word as'
So for instance: "I dislike they argue" would be "I dislike their arguing"
To make word order more flexible using cases you would have to use case stacking.
(When I get to a computer with a keyboard I can type up more)
Last edited by Hyolobrika on 26 Feb 2018 11:31, edited 1 time in total.
-
- hieroglyphic
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016 15:45
- Location: le kibro gugde
- Contact:
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
Two states of the noun: active and passive. If agent is included under passive then it'll be like this: active means that it is changing, passive means that it is not. I want to include the agent under the active state though so it's not exactly that. Adpositions are used instead of cases. So adpositions of static position like 'in', 'on' etc would take the passive state, some would work a bit like German two-way prepositions, 'into' and 'onto' would still be passive because the object isn't really changing, the agent and patient adpositions would take the active state, verbs of liking, disliking etc would have all arguments passive, verbs of thinking would take the same adpositions as verbs of liking and disliking but with what would be the subject in English in the active state etc.
Examples:
'bo' = postposition identifying a thinker or attitude holder etc
'about' identifies an object of a mental event such as perception, thought etc
1sg.ACTIVE bo 3isg.PASSIVE about think-FUT-3
I will think about it.
1sg.PASSIVE bo ice.cream.PASSIVE about love-FUT-3
I love ice cream.
EDIT: made more understandable, sorry
EDIT: examples
Last edited by Hyolobrika on 26 Feb 2018 23:25, edited 4 times in total.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5121
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
Could you provide some more examples for your ideas? I have a hard time following your explanations
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
-
- hieroglyphic
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016 15:45
- Location: le kibro gugde
- Contact:
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
Is it better now that I've made some edits?Creyeditor wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018 12:07 Could you provide some more examples for your ideas? I have a hard time following your explanations
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5121
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
Oh I meant adding example sentences, a bit like Parlox did above. Sorry, I for not being clear.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
-
- hieroglyphic
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016 15:45
- Location: le kibro gugde
- Contact:
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
You were clear don't worry. I just thought that that might also help.Creyeditor wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018 22:02 Oh I meant adding example sentences, a bit like Parlox did above. Sorry, I for not being clear.
Do you still want me to post example sentences?
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5121
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
It would help me a lot.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
-
- hieroglyphic
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016 15:45
- Location: le kibro gugde
- Contact:
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
What does '3cons' mean?Parlox wrote: ↑19 Feb 2018 02:33 So i've been working on my 3Cons language and had an idea for nouns and pronouns. Nouns are inherently plural, and are marked for the singular. But pronouns are inherently singular and marked for the plural.
Here is another idea i had for an alignment where S = R (which i'll call 1), A = T (which i'll call 2), and P = D (which i'll call 3). Some sentences below,
He-1 is running.
She-2 was wounded by the bear-3.
He-3 gave the woman-2 a book-1.
What does 'R', 'T' and 'D' mean?
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
3Cons is short for Triconsonantal root languages. D is the donor of a detransitive clause, T is the theme of a detransitive clause, and R is the recipient of a detransitive clause.
Gândölansch (Gondolan) • Feongkrwe (Feongrkean) • Tamhanddön (Tamanthon) • Θανηλοξαμαψⱶ (Thanelotic) • Yônjcerth (Yaponese) • Ba̧supan (Basupan) • Mùthoķán (Mothaucian)
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
You mean "ditransitive"; detransitive is something else entirely (it's when a verb that was originally transitive has had its transitivity reduced).
Also the "subject" of a ditransitive verb is still referred to as the subject/agent, there's no separate "donor" category for ditransitive subjects.
Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
Mostly true, but "donor" or "D" is in fact commonly used when linguists want to contrast the behavior of the subject of a ditransitive clause against the behavior of subjects of intransitive or monotransitive clauses, for the same reason that the subject of a monotransitive clause is usually called "agent" or "A" in discussions of ergativity: It starts with a letter different from the "S" for the subject of an intransitive clause, so it's easier to draw diagrams illustrating types of morphosyntactic alignment.Frislander wrote: ↑27 Feb 2018 08:15You mean "ditransitive"; detransitive is something else entirely (it's when a verb that was originally transitive has had its transitivity reduced).
Also the "subject" of a ditransitive verb is still referred to as the subject/agent, there's no separate "donor" category for ditransitive subjects.
Intransitive clause: S = subject
Monotransitive clause: A = agent, P = patient
Ditransitive clause: D = donor, T = theme, R = recipient
(Of course, the behavior of the subjects of ditransitive clauses (i.e. donors) is not discussed all that often, and where it is discussed the D argument usually doesn't behave in a significantly different way compared to the A argument of a monotransitive clause...)
Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ