A short lang - again

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

Some ideas derive from Quechua.




The language is agglutinative and suffixing.

The categories expressed morphologically are:

NOUNS


Cases

Syntactic cases
zero Nominative/Absolutive
-t(a) Accusative
-qaq Ergative

Cases usually appearing as modifiers
-yu Assosiative
-h Equative
-l Similative
-chan Comparative
Edit: -so Partitive
Location cases (can also appear as modifiers)
-pi Genitive-Locative
-ya Ablative
-pae Dative
-pay Vialis

Other cases
-laen Benefactive
-c'i Instrumental


Number

zero Singular (usually unmarked)
-ca Singulative (only of nouns that are usually seen as mass)
-tut Plural (always optional)


Topic/evidentiality clitics
-ag/-g [a:/:] Direct
-bin Inferred
-ged Reported
-cae Fact


Focus/evidentiality clitics
-n/-nu Direct
-mu Inferred
-mud Reported
-muh Fact


VERBS

Aspects (habitual/nonhabitual is my favourite aspect system ATM.)

Habitual
Nonhabitual
(some nouns have marked Habitual and unmarked Nonhabitual, others have it vice versa)
(It is also possible to derive Cessative and Inchoative, but they can be combined with Habitual marker.)

Tense
Nonpast (unmarked)
Past

Person agreement

Mood

Indicative (unmarked)
Imperative (portmanteau with 2nd person markers)
Subjunctive
Negative
Prohibitive (Negative + imperative ?)

Mode (optional)
Desiderative
Necessative
Potential
Last edited by Omzinesý on 30 Jun 2020 16:43, edited 12 times in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

p' t' s'~t͡s' k' q'
pʰ tʰ sʰ~t͡sʰ kʰ qʰ
p t s~t͡s k q ʔ
h
β ð z ɣ ʁ (usually intervocalic)
m n
r l
j w

<p' t' c' k' q'>
<ph th ch kh qh>
<p t c k q '>
<h>
<b d g x>
<m n>
<r l>
<j w>

i u <i u>
e o <e o>
ɛ ɔ <ae ao>
ä <a>

Phonotactics
(C)(C)V(C)
But
- only allowed onset consonant clusters are {plosive, sibilant, nasal} + {liquid, semivowel(?)}
- only allowed codas are {p̚ t̚ k̚ q ʔ̚ h n l} (h being a reflex of /s/}. {n l} only appear as codas word-finally.
- When any other consonant gets to the coda position, it disappears lengthening the vowel. It is however written. That also applies to {n l} when they are not word-final codas.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

If the NP is marked as Topic, its case is Nominative, Accusative (or some other case).
If the NP is not marker as Topic, its case is Absolutive, Ergative (or some other case).

Typically, the transitive subject is marked as Topic and appears in zero-marked Nominative and the transitive object is not marked as Topic and appears in zero-marked absolutive. Economical!


I'm not sure if focus markers work similarly.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

There are no adjectives. Characteristics are expressed by nominalized verbs or nouns in Equeative case or Similative case.

Equeative means 'who is N'
while
Similative means 'who is like N'


t'ini 'child'

t'inih Coq'o 'the young Coq'o / Coq'o who is a child'
t'inil Coq'o 'the childish Coq'o / Coq' who is like a child'


medla [me:la] 'a cute one'

medla t'ini 'a cute child'


Equative is also used to express what apposition expresses in SAE languages.

Amerikapi presidentix Trump 'Trump the president of US'
Amerikapi presidentlo Trump 'Trump who is/behaves like a president of US' (which he doesn't do)


Comparative Case -chan has both Equative and Similative meanings: 'a more N one' and 'a more N-like one'

t'inichan t'ini 'a younger child/a more childish child'
presidentchan president 'a more president-like president'

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

Syntax

(Nearly) Every clause has either a Topic marker or a Focus marker. They (usually) appear as enclitics in the first word of the clause. They also express evidentiality.

The word order is strict: verb-last and Topic/Focus first.
The copula can sometimes be dropped.

Coq'o-g t'ini [ba].
Coq'o-∅-g t'ini-∅ b-∅-a
C-ABS-TOP child-ABS COP-NPAST-SG3NPROX
'Coq'o is a child.'

T'ini-n Coq'o ba.
t'ini-∅-n Coq'o-∅ b-∅-a
child-ABS-FOC Coq'o-ABS COP-NPAST-SG3NPROX
'Coq'o is [just] a child (he cannot earn money)'


T'ini-g welopi ba.
t'ini-∅-g welo-pi b-∅-a
child-ABS-TOP house-LOC COP-NPAST-SG3NPROX
'The child is in the house.'

Welopi-g t'ini ba.
wolo-pi-g t'ini-∅ b-∅-a
house-LOC-TOP chid-ABS COP-NPAST-SG3NPROX
'There is a child in the house.'

Welopi-n t'ini ba.
wolo-pi-n t'ini-∅ b-∅-a
house-LOC-FOC chid-ABS COP-NPAST-SG3NPROX
'It's in the house where the child is.'


A topic can, and often is, dropped.

Welopi ba.
welo-pi b-∅-a
house-LOC COP-NPAST-SG3NPROX
'She/he is in the house.'

T'ini ba.
t'ini-∅ b-∅-a
chid-ABS COP-NPAST-SG3NPROX
'A child is [there] (i.e. in the house).'

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5569
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: A short lang - again

Post by eldin raigmore »

I like it!

Verb-final languages that have morphosyntax highly influenced by pragmatic salience,
would probably put the topic first,
and put the focus in Wackernagel position,
right next to the verb.
I think.

At least according to
M.H. Klaiman. Grammatical Voice. In the series Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991. Pp. xx + 324. US$64.95 (hardcover).
John Hewson (a1)

Assuming I worked out the implications right.

Not all languages with such a voice system can both mark the topic and also mark the focus.
But if I recall correctly those that can do both and must always do one, actually must always do both.
Having the topic first and the focus last (as far as the participant noun-phrases go), would make it easy to always mark both.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

eldin raigmore wrote:
24 Jun 2020 07:37
I like it!

Verb-final languages that have morphosyntax highly influenced by pragmatic salience,
would probably put the topic first,
and put the focus in Wackernagel position,
right next to the verb.
I think.

At least according to
M.H. Klaiman. Grammatical Voice. In the series Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991. Pp. xx + 324. US$64.95 (hardcover).
John Hewson (a1)

Assuming I worked out the implications right.

Not all languages with such a voice system can both mark the topic and also mark the focus.
But if I recall correctly those that can do both and must always do one, actually must always do both.
Having the topic first and the focus last (as far as the participant noun-phrases go), would make it easy to always mark both.
Thank you for your comment. :)

I don't know if what you say is contradictory with this lang. I find it quite "natural".
I haven't read the book so I cannot say. I must try to find it. It's possible that they define topic and especially focus a bit differently. I just got inspired to write this grammar without defining semantics.

What I usually mean with topic and focus is how Lambrecht uses them. So there are

1) predicate-focus clauses: There is a topic and something is predicated about it. (This is when this lang uses Topic marker.)
2) argument-focus clauses: The action is "known" but the identity of a participant is added to it. (This is when this lang uses Focus marker.)
3) sentence-focus clauses (I'm not sure how this lang handles them. Maybe, a Topic or Focus marker is put in the end of the clause, or maybe, neither is used.)

So if focus is used to mean a participant that is not the topic in 1), it is not marked with neither marker in this lang. Then Wackernagel position - a new term to me - is used.
I think both markers actually can coappear in this lang, but then one of them is actually a nominalizer. I haven't thought about this idea too much.

I don't know much of Generative theory, but what is Focus-marked in this lang would probably be handled as focus movement to a left detached phrase. Some kind of "contrastive focus ".

If one wants to think this lang's syntax as phrase structures, there is an NP (topic or focus) and a VP. If the NP has Topic marker, it is "known" and the VP is "unknown", while if the NP has Focus marker, it is "unknown" and the VP is "known".



I don't know what Hewson counts as "marked". Is marked by word order enough?

In Quechua which is the innovation of this lang, "focus-marked" NP does not have to appear in the first position, though it usually does, and both markers can coappear. I somewhat simplified its system.

I should also read Li and Thompson's book on subject-prominent and topic-prominent languages, though my prejudice is that the typology is not the most accurate one.

Voice is not a very important category in this lang. Maybe there are some applicatives and causatives. This is a "case language" anyways.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

Verbs

Incorporation is where I usually fail my langs. I'm not paying attention to it. It may appear but morphologically it is just positioning the object noun in the unmarked form before the verb.
All grammatical morphemes are suffixes.

The pattern
0[stem] 1[inchohative/cessative/voice] 2[aspect/negation] 3[mode] 4[tense/mood] 5[person agreement/imperative]

How the morphemes are actually joined is still undone.
"Long vowels" are morphologically especially tricky because sometimes they behave like a vowel and sometime like a vowel + consonant.



1[inchohative/cessative/voice]
Not handled now

2[aspect/negation]
There are two aspects: Habitual and Nonhabitual
But aspect is neutralized when negative.

Some verbs have unmarked Positive Habitual, others have unmarked Positive Nonhabitual. No verb thus have all the four values marked but all the values have a non-zero marker.

Positive Habitual -an (or -∅)
Positive Nonhabitual -uz (or -∅)
Negative -aenp' [ɛ:p']

(Would it be interesting if some verbs had the negative value unmarked. They could mean things like 'lack' or 'avoid'.)


3[mode]
The category of mode is optional. Alternatively, one can analyse that there is an unmarked "Neutral Mode".

There are three modes:
Potential -ucu
Necessative -uk'
Desiderative -eln(e)

It should be noted if the verb has Indicative Mood, the action is seen realis, i.e one does V because he can/must/want to do it. If there is Subjunctive Mood, only the condition (ability/need/will) is expressed, without stating anything on if the action really takes place).


4[tense/mood]

The slot has three values: Indicative Nonpast, Indicative Past, and Subjunctive (no tense defined).

Indicative Nonpast -∅
Indicative Past -(ao)l
Subjunctive -ed

With Imperative marker in the slot 5, either Indicative or Subjunctive can be used. Subjunctive is considered more polite.


5[person agreement/imperative]

There is only one paradigm for both intransitive and transitive verbs. It thus does not differentiate, if there is a sg3 object or no object at all.

The lang differentiates if 3rd person Topic is Proximate or Nonproximate. Nonproximate topics are usually inferred from the langauge-internal discourse, i.e. they are (somehow) mentioned earlier, while Proximate topics are usually inferred from from the language-external context, i.e. they are present in the place discussion takes place or are the speech partners family members or other ways identifiable. Proximate form is also used as a humbling form addressing your interlocutor. Proximate 3rd person is marked by -e instead of -a.

Code: Select all

Subject on the vertical line, Object on the horizontal line 

		1		2		3		REFLEXIVE 	
1		-		-u-t		-u/-we		
2		-u-h(i)		-		-a-h(i)/-e-h(i)		
3		-w-a/-w-e	-a-t/-et	-a/-e				
IMPERSONAL	-u-l		-al-t		-a-l/-e-l

Plural is expressed by Plural maker -dut 
2nd person Imperative has no /i/ while Indicative does. 

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

I will add Partitive case.

- Head of numbers and other quantifyers
- Abstract noun as a modifyer 'man of honour'
- material something is made of.
- Nonspecific argument in negative clauses 'any N'
- Maybe used of mass nouns more generally

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2827
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: A short lang - again

Post by Omzinesý »

Nominalizations

Nominalizations are formed by just adding the nominal suffixes to the end of the clause. Because clauses always end in a verb, the nominal endings are also added to the verb.

[t͡soq'o tʰozi t͡sɔpa: ɛ:zɛ:p'at̚]

[Zoq'o thosi zaopa]-g aegsaenp'at.
Zoq'o thosi zaop-a-g aegs-aenp'-a-t
Z potato eat-SG3NPROX-TOP please-NEG-3NPROX-SG1
'I don't like that Tsoq'o is eating potatoes.'

Some "adjectives" are actually nominalized stative verbs.

hads-a 'is beautiful'
hads-a-so t'ini 'a beautiful child' (a child of being beautiful)

Arguments inside nominalized clauses cannot have Topic or Focus markers.

Post Reply