Kfadipqh language

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 3079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Kfadipqh language

Post by Omzinesý »

Kfádipqh [kfɑ˥ð̞ipχ] (The last sound is uvular, which the board seems not to understand.)

I think, it's the time open a thread for this lang, which I have been developing in some messages in my scarp thread. I named it Kfádipqh.

This is a hard project, full of features that I don't really understand.
- Much suprasegmental morphology (not too much)
- A kitchen-sinky "verb"
- Blurring the distinction between nouns and verbs
Last edited by Omzinesý on 09 Jun 2021 21:35, edited 2 times in total.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 3079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kfadipqh language

Post by Omzinesý »

Syntax

The distinction between nouns and verbs is blurred and some words just appear as arguments and some as predicates in the syntax. Usually the words appearing as arguments are static, i.e., not marked for aspect, but it is not necessary. The usual word order is VS, but it is not distinctive.


The most frequent construction is the one in (1) where (1a) a specific referent (a/the specific boy) does something indefinite (running generally) or (1b) a specific referent (a/the runner) belongs to a generic group (boys). I'm just beginning with morphology, so ATM the specific marker is the accent peak on the penultimate syllable. There will probably be some aspect marking, as well.


(1a) 'The boy is running.'
pogo tsitéa
pogo tsitea-´
run(er) boy-SPEC

(1b) 'The one running is a boy.'
tsitea pógo
tsitea pogo-´
(be)boy run(er)-SPEC

Another construction is where a generic group/thing does something generic or belongs to a generic group. In that construction, the predicate (pogo) must agree the subject (tsitea). The agreement marker for generic subject is -plh.

(2) 'Boys (generally) run.'
pogo-plh tsitea
run(er)-GENERIC.SUBJ boy


Bivalent words
Most of bivalent words are seen as verbs in SAE but there are bivalent nounlike words like kokhu.

Bivalent words are always marked for voice. There are two voices (ATM): Direct -i/-u and Inverse -a/o.
kokhu '(be) parent'
kokho '(be) child'

(3)
Kókh-ú Mâria Gêsva.
(be)parent-DIR Mary Jesus
'Mary is Jesus's parent.'

(4)
Kókh-ó Gêsva Mâria.
(be)parent-INV Jesus Mary
'Jesus is Mary's child.'

(5)
Topseg-u kókhu kókho.
breastfeed-DIR parent.SPEC child,SPEC
'Mother is breastfeeding her child.'

In (5), I don't know how bivalents work in the argument position because they should mean 'This is his mother.' and 'This is her child.'

(6)
Kókhú topségu kókhu.
'The one breastfeeding [the child] is the child's mother.'


At least, at this stage, Direct and Inverse voices work very easily. Direct makes the (subject) word following the verb the actor, and Inverse makes the word following the word the undergoer.


-----------
BUT

All of the words this-far have been static (or imperfective like 'be running'). I think, it will be evident that perfective verbs are not so naturally used as nouns, but there is no grammatical constraint for that. I'm still not sure of aspects.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
WeepingElf
sinic
sinic
Posts: 237
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Kfadipqh language

Post by WeepingElf »

Omzinesý wrote: 09 Jun 2021 19:39 Kfádipqh [kfɑ˥ð̞ipχ] (The last sound is uvular, which the board seems not to understand.)
This is a well-known font problem: in some fonts, the characters x (velar) and χ (uvular) look the same - in others not. On my machine, it displays in a font where the two letters are distinct, and yes, you have used the right one. A workaround would be to use capital X for the uvular fricative instead.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 3079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kfadipqh language

Post by Omzinesý »

Ideas for morphological categories
Many of them are expressed supprasegmentally

Two mood slots
1) Realis/Irrealis, Positive/Negative
2) More specific moods (could, should, evidentials, "I think" etc., imperative)

No tense
Future is expressed by irrealis moods

As many as three Aspect(ish) slots (maybe distinct just theoretically)
1) (optional) Slot for resultative and volitional (a bit like control in some Native American langs): willingly, unwillingly, successfully, unsuccessfully
2) (derivational) Slot for change of state: inceptive/inchoative and cessative
3) Slot for duration: momentane, durative, iterative ...

Direct and Inverse voices in bivalent words. (Possibly, other voices like causative, applicative, anticausative...)
Cross-referencing of the subject and the object - 3<3 is zero-marked because all bivalent verbs have voice markers, anyways.

Probably, some discourse-pragmatic markers
- Argument focus, Rhetoric statement ...
- Could probably also have vocative meaning, when "nouny".
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Post Reply