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 »

What about a language that only has polar switches (inspired by a talk that showed that some languages use the same morpheme for causatives and anticausatives).

So you have an intransitive verb qe 'sleep'. You want to make it transitive? No problem, just add -r and you get qer 'put to sleep'. Now, if you have a transitive verb tzu 'admire' and want to make it intransitive, you also add -r and you get tzur 'be admired'.

For number on nouns, you could do the same. Some nouns are inherently plural like wis 'ants'. If you want to make it singular, you add te and you get wiste. I was thinking that you could add te again and get a paucal interpretation wistete 'several individual ants'. Similarly, if you have a singular noun like padi 'queen', you get padite 'queens'.

I was thinking of other categories that could use these polar switches for. Inherently possessed vs. absolute nouns, and animateness came to mind for nouns. For verbs, I was thinking of Aktionsart and related stuff like telicity. Maybe you have more ideas?
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
Sequor
sinic
sinic
Posts: 438
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Sequor »

Creyeditor wrote: 18 Dec 2022 17:46 What about a language that only has polar switches (inspired by a talk that showed that some languages use the same morpheme for causatives and anticausatives).

So you have an intransitive verb qe 'sleep'. You want to make it transitive? No problem, just add -r and you get qer 'put to sleep'. Now, if you have a transitive verb tzu 'admire' and want to make it intransitive, you also add -r and you get tzur 'be admired'.

For number on nouns, you could do the same. Some nouns are inherently plural like wis 'ants'. If you want to make it singular, you add te and you get wiste. I was thinking that you could add te again and get a paucal interpretation wistete 'several individual ants'. Similarly, if you have a singular noun like padi 'queen', you get padite 'queens'.
I love this kind of thing, and have thought up similar things, although in my case I was inspired by Esperanto's inherently intransitive vs. transitive verb bases (from which other words are then derived), and more relevantly the ability of the vestigial Classical Chinese -s to derive noun from verbs and viceversa, and intransitives from transitives and viceversa.

noun <-> verb
中 *truŋ 'centre' > 中 *truŋ-s 'to hit the centre (of sth)' (Baxter-Sagart reconstr.)
刺 *tsʰek 'to pierce, stab' > 朿/刺 *tsʰek-s 'sharp point, thorn' (Baxter-Sagart reconstr.)

transitive <-> intransitive
轉 *tonʔ 'to turn sth, make sth turn' > 轉 *tons 'to turn' (intrans.) (Zhengzhang Shangfang reconstr.)
覺 *kˤruk 'to feel, perceive sth' > 覺 *kˤruk-s 'to wake up' (Baxter-Sagart reconstr.)
(EDIT: hmm, I can't think of an intransitive -> transitive example right now, but I think they also exist)


And so, in one conlang of mine I declared roots to be nounal or adjectival or verbal as a base, to which I'd apply a prefix like s-/z- or n-/m- producing different outcomes depending on the class of the base word.

dʒik 'full'
> z-dʒik 'to fill sth' (causative)
> n-dʒik 'to get filled, become full' (intransitive of becoming; may instead be a considerative 'to be considered full, thought of as full')

but

lats 'sword'
> s-lats 'to shove a sword [into sb], kill sb with a sword' (donative, literally ""give"" a sword to sb)
> n-lats 'to serve [a lord] as a knight' (literally, "to become a sword [for a lord]") (intransitive of becoming; may instead be a considerative or "to act as a [noun], pretend to be")

and

par 'to run' (also a noun, 'a run')
> s-par 'to chase sb away, make sb run away' (causative here, with other bases it may be simply transitive)
> m-par 'to begin to run' (inchoative; with transitive verbs, n-/m- may form a reflexive or reciprocal instead)


In yet another conlang, I did the kind of polar switches you're asking about...

bari 'to run' > bari-s 'a run'
melo 'rain' > melo-s 'to rain'

Verb becomes noun, noun becomes verb.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
Knox Adjacent
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 172
Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Knox Adjacent »

For number it is standard-issue Tanoan.
Collectively this doesn't seem like a what-if.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

Transitive verbs are accompanied by a voice particle (direct, inverse, and maybe other voices too). It appears between the arguments.

Main 'cat'
Guff 'dog'
Sicc 'chase'
Smuuf 'sleep'


Guff yi main sicc.
'The dog chased the cat.'

Guff ma main sicc.
'The dog was chased by the cat.'

Guff smuuf.
'The dog slept.'

In these simple sentences, the particle looks like a case marker of the ergative or the accusative of a tripartite alignment, but an argument can be dropped and the particle is still there.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Sequor
sinic
sinic
Posts: 438
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Sequor »

Omzinesý wrote: 02 Jan 2023 16:58 Transitive verbs are accompanied by a voice particle (direct, inverse, and maybe other voices too). It appears between the arguments.

Main 'cat'
Guff 'dog'
Sicc 'chase'
Smuuf 'sleep'


Guff yi main sicc.
'The dog chased the cat.'

Guff ma main sicc.
'The dog was chased by the cat.'

Guff smuuf.
'The dog slept.'

In these simple sentences, the particle looks like a case marker of the ergative or the accusative of a tripartite alignment, but an argument can be dropped and the particle is still there.
Ah, that is great, and it sure reminds me of the Mandarin proclitic 被 bèi 'by', which marks the agent of a verb that is functioning in a rather passive way, and can have its noun phrase object dropped:

狗被貓追求了
gǒu bèi māo zhuīqiú-le
dog by cat chase-PFV
'The dog was chased by the cat.'

狗被追求了
gǒu bèi zhuīqiú-le
dog by chase-PFV
'The dog was chased.'



Inspired by definiteness marking in Maori and Arabic, today for a conlang I came up with this article system:

- Unmarked. Many verb-object common phrases, involving a semantically-light verb like "have/do/give/get" plus an unmodified noun and so common they have a certain idiomatic feeling to them, have the object unmarked (have hunger = 'be hungry', get praise = 'be praised'). Similarly, many very lexicalized phrases of a noun modified by a prepositional phrase containing an unmodified noun drop the article in the modifier (INDEF brush of teeth = 'a toothbrush', DEF my big finger of foot = 'my big toe').

- Indefinite. Used particularly with nouns just introduced to the discourse (this is INDEF beautiful poem, I will.write to.you INDEF beautiful poem) whether countable or uncountable, but also with generic nouns used with gnomic verbs when expressing generalizations or general truths (INDEF men are mortal). Also used with abstract nouns generally (INDEF love is INDEF source of INDEF much pain).

- Definite. Used particularly with common nouns that have already been introduced to the discourse, and that can be marked with the indefinite article. An abstract noun can be marked with DEF if a very specific instance is referred to, typically modified in some way (DEF love between you and me).

- Proper. Used before proper names of people, animals, places (e.g. names of cities, rivers, mountains), all of which can't usually be marked with indefinite marking. This is also used with some nouns that are culturally considered "unique" in some way (PROP Sun, PROP earth = 'the Earth; the ground (as opposed to air or the sea)', PROP ocean, PROP city in reference to the capital city, PROP palace in reference to the main palace of the capital city).
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

Yes, definiteness marking can make interesting things.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

A reflexive case is an old idea discussed on the board earlier.

But what if a language has two core cases, one used for transitive/bivalent verbs and obe used for intransitive/monovalent verbs.
When a transitive/bivalent verb appears with an intransitive case, the clause is interpreted reflexive.

X-INTR sleep.
'X is sleeping.'

X-TR kill Y-TR
'X kills Y.'

X-TR kill
'X kills something.'

X-INTR kill
'X kills himself.'
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
criminalmammal
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Oct 2022 05:59

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by criminalmammal »

Omzinesý wrote: 04 Jan 2023 21:22 A reflexive case is an old idea discussed on the board earlier.

But what if a language has two core cases, one used for transitive/bivalent verbs and obe used for intransitive/monovalent verbs.
When a transitive/bivalent verb appears with an intransitive case, the clause is interpreted reflexive.

X-INTR sleep.
'X is sleeping.'

X-TR kill Y-TR
'X kills Y.'

X-TR kill
'X kills something.'

X-INTR kill
'X kills himself.'
And potentially X-TR sleep could have a causative meaning, "X puts something to sleep"? Neat idea either way!
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3883
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Khemehekis »

criminalmammal wrote: 05 Jan 2023 09:59 And potentially X-TR sleep could have a causative meaning, "X puts something to sleep"? Neat idea either way!
Neat to see you finally posting, criminalmammal! I wondered about your screenname.

You may introduce yourself at Introduction thread and fill out the survey at You.


And here's a neat idea I have in Javarti: a dimension of nouns called eidism. Nouns in Javarti inflect for eidism with the infixes -oyd- and -ub-. Koyba means a boat, while koyboyda means a picture of a boat, and koybuba means a model of a boat or toy boat.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 86,336 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

criminalmammal wrote: 05 Jan 2023 09:59
Omzinesý wrote: 04 Jan 2023 21:22 A reflexive case is an old idea discussed on the board earlier.

But what if a language has two core cases, one used for transitive/bivalent verbs and obe used for intransitive/monovalent verbs.
When a transitive/bivalent verb appears with an intransitive case, the clause is interpreted reflexive.

X-INTR sleep.
'X is sleeping.'

X-TR kill Y-TR
'X kills Y.'

X-TR kill
'X kills something.'

X-INTR kill
'X kills himself.'
And potentially X-TR sleep could have a causative meaning, "X puts something to sleep"? Neat idea either way!
Isn't the other part just a transitive alignment in Wikipedia terms?
Also if X-TR Y-INTR sleep means X puts Y to sleep, then Y-INTR sleep X-TR could be an applicative meaning Y sleeps in X.
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: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

Creyeditor wrote: 06 Jan 2023 00:00 Isn't the other part just a transitive alignment in Wikipedia terms?
Yes, the idea was the reflexive part. It works equally well in a tripartite alignment.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
criminalmammal
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Oct 2022 05:59

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by criminalmammal »

Khemehekis wrote: 05 Jan 2023 12:56
criminalmammal wrote: 05 Jan 2023 09:59 And potentially X-TR sleep could have a causative meaning, "X puts something to sleep"? Neat idea either way!
Neat to see you finally posting, criminalmammal! I wondered about your screenname.

You may introduce yourself at Introduction thread and fill out the survey at You.
I'm pleasantly surprised to have been noticed, thank you! I'll do just that : >
Khemehekis wrote: 05 Jan 2023 12:56 And here's a neat idea I have in Javarti: a dimension of nouns called eidism. Nouns in Javarti inflect for eidism with the infixes -oyd- and -ub-. Koyba means a boat, while koyboyda means a picture of a boat, and koybuba means a model of a boat or toy boat.
What a cool little piece of derivational morphology! Is -oyd- just "two-dimensional representation" and -ub- "three-dimensional representation", or is there nuance beyond that?
Creyeditor wrote: 06 Jan 2023 00:00
criminalmammal wrote: 05 Jan 2023 09:59 And potentially X-TR sleep could have a causative meaning, "X puts something to sleep"? Neat idea either way!
Isn't the other part just a transitive alignment in Wikipedia terms?
Also if X-TR Y-INTR sleep means X puts Y to sleep, then Y-INTR sleep X-TR could be an applicative meaning Y sleeps in X.
I hadn't thought of having the cases on the two arguments be mismatched; I feel like that opens up the possibility of an agency distinction, with (assuming the subject still precedes the verb with the object following) eg X-TR sleep Y-TR meaning "X puts Y to sleep (lovingly tucking Y in)" and X-TR sleep Y-INTR meaning "X puts Y to sleep (against Y's will, knocking them out maybe)". The applicative meaning would make a lot of sense too, though!
Solarius
roman
roman
Posts: 1173
Joined: 30 Aug 2010 01:23

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Solarius »

This is more of a random idea: morphophonology, but I thought it was fun.

My conlang Sarmese (very much WIP) has an interrogative mood marked on verbs. The Interrogative is marked with a circumfix o-..-(ks)ai, where (ks) surfaces only if the verb stem ends in a vowel.

bemai --> obemaira
ask-INF --> INT-ask-INT-2/3p.PL
"to ask" --> "Y'all ask/they ask?"

fe --> ofeksaink
sit-INF --> INT-sit-INT-1p.SG
"to sit" --> "I sit?"

(the -ai in the first infinitive form is the infinitive suffix which deletes after /e/ and deletes preceding vowels in other vowel-final verbs; it's unrelated diachronically or synchronically to the interrogative).

However, for words beginning in /l/ in the interrogative, /l/ is replaced with /ʤ/.

laġai --> ojaġuksai
drink-INF --> INT-drink-2/3p.SG
"to drink" --> "You/He/Shey/It/They drink?"

Historically, this is a result of fortition from an earlier form of the circumfix which geminated the initial consonant; i.e. Proto-Buldanic *fi "sit" *uffiksī "He/She/It/They sit?"

However, this is productive enough to be extended to recent loanwords.

laikai --> ojaikaink
like-INF --> INT-like-INT-1p.SG
"to like (a social media post)" --> "I liked?"
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

German and Italian use 'she' for formal second person.

Ger. Ich mag sie. 'I like her.' ~ 'I like you (formal).'

So, I stated thinking about a lang that has two pronouns, say, itu and ere for 2nd and 3rd persons, but they both mean both. They could be verb forms but pronouns are easier for explanating the idea.

When used as a 2nd person pronoun, ere is the 'tu' pronoun. It is used when you have a short social distance to your adressee.
When used as a 3rd person pronoun for an animate referent, ere means that you have some empathy to/identifying with the person. It, for example, codes the protagonist of a narrative. (We once discussed here if proximative/obviative could be marked just in pronouns.)
When used as a 3rd person pronoun for an inanimate referent, ere has a sidemeaning that the speaker owns the thing.

When used as a 2nd person pronoun, itu is the 'vous' pronoun. It codes that the interlocutors have a social distance.
When used as a 3rd person pronoun for an animate referent, itu codes that you don't have empathy to/identifying with the person. You maybe somewhat disagree with them.
When used as a 3rd person pronoun for an inanimate referent, itu codes objects you don't have a special relation with.

In Finnish the distinction between hän and se was a bit like that in the 3dr person before "language men" started codifying things without understanding them.
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 like a system where you have two persons in pronouns, a first person and a non-first person, but then you also have a politeness distinction, so 1 vs N1.IMPOL vs. N1.POL. I wonder if you could also have a politeness distinction in the first person then.
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: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

Creyeditor wrote: 14 Jan 2023 17:20 That sounds like a system where you have two persons in pronouns, a first person and a non-first person, but then you also have a politeness distinction, so 1 vs N1.IMPOL vs. N1.POL. I wonder if you could also have a politeness distinction in the first person then.
Yes, you can describe the system that way. I think the distinction is though social distance rather than politeness primarily.
I don't think it's worth being (im)polite to yourself.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3883
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Khemehekis »

criminalmammal wrote: 06 Jan 2023 11:46
Khemehekis wrote: 05 Jan 2023 12:56 You may introduce yourself at Introduction thread and fill out the survey at You.
I'm pleasantly surprised to have been noticed, thank you! I'll do just that : >
You're welcome! And I see you still haven't filled out the survey at You, which will be pruned in a few days if no one fills it out soon.
Khemehekis wrote: 05 Jan 2023 12:56 And here's a neat idea I have in Javarti: a dimension of nouns called eidism. Nouns in Javarti inflect for eidism with the infixes -oyd- and -ub-. Koyba means a boat, while koyboyda means a picture of a boat, and koybuba means a model of a boat or toy boat.
What a cool little piece of derivational morphology! Is -oyd- just "two-dimensional representation" and -ub- "three-dimensional representation", or is there nuance beyond that?
Glad you like it! And I'd say its inflectional morphology, a dimension like number or case, since it can be done with any concrete noun.

-Oyd- = "two-dimensional representation" and -ub- = "three-dimensional representation" is a good summary I hadn't thought of, although it's not always that simple. A three-dimensional picture of a ship in a pop-up book would be called a koyboyda rather than a koybuba.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 86,336 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

An alignment where the following combinations of the three core roles are allowed

1) Absolutive alone
2) Dative alone
3) Absolutive and Ergative
4) Dative and Ergative
5) Absolutive, Dative, and Ergative

I'm though not sure what is the difference between 1) and 2) , and between 3) and 4).
4) could contain verbs like 'to hear' that are not very transitive. 2) could have verbs like 'to be audible'.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Sequor
sinic
sinic
Posts: 438
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Sequor »

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.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Salmoneus »

FWIW, if this is a 'fluid' alignment (the choice of nom/acc or erg/abs is pragmatic) my conlang Rawàng Ata is, as it were, the 'split' equivalent (the choice is largely lexical). I do indeed assume it evolved from a focus system historically, although the exact diachronics are (probably permanently by now) undecided.


EDIT: I used to think of the absolutive/nominative/direct-case argument as the 'subject', the secondary argument as the 'object', and the whole thing as "split-O", in parallel to "split-S" - because the non-direct case is given different case marking depending mostly on the transitivity of the verb. [many of my erg-abs verbs are stative or experiential, reducing the agentivity of the 'agent' and the patienthood of the 'patient']. Calling the unmarked argument the subject is also more attractive in Rawàng Ata because this argument is also privileged interclausally (although less so than the topic, when the two differ). I'm no longer sure that's the best way to see it, though, and generally avoid saying 'subject' altogether now.

The other obvious parallel btw is to Austronesian alignment. Like AA, your system has a single unmarked argument for all verbs, with the role of the argument not marked on the argument (in mine, it's zero-marked on the verb through lexical specification, whereas in yours I guess it's marked by implication on the non-direct argument, and/or by word order or other indications]. I guess if Austronesian-speakers had invented modern linguistics, they might even analyse your system as an Austronesian language where the 'voice' marker on the verb is simply zero...
Post Reply