Decééyinéeqi

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1070
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Decééyinéeqi

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Decééyinéeqi
Decééyinéeqi ([de1.t͡ɕeˑ55.d͡ʑi1.nẽˑ53.ŋĩ1) is a new conlang I've been working on for a whole one days now. Decééyinéeqi is spoken by a bunch of guys living in an agricultural culture with cities but not much else. (What about Čəsač? Yes, I definitely should be working on that instead, but at least this is something.) Decééyinéeqi has some morphophonology, but not tooo much cause I'm lazy. Mostly for this langu I'm concentrating on some suprasegmentals and maybe some grammar or something later.

Phonology
This shall be the phonology post. Decééyinéeqi has a phonemic inventory of 12 consonants and two or three or four vowels. Notable features include the complete lack of labial consonants and real fricatives; as well as the janky vowel system.


Consonants
/t d tɕ dʑ k ɡ/ <t d c y k g>
/r j ɣ/ <r j h>
/n ɲ ŋ/ <n ñ q>

The lack of labials or labialised consonants comes from an old shift which took place in three stages
1. /p b v m/ → /kʷ gʷ ɣʷ ŋʷ/
2. /k ɡ ɰ ŋ/ → /kʲ ɡʲ ɰʲ ŋʲ/ → /tɕ dʑ j ɲ/
3. /kʷ ɡʷ ɣʷ ŋʷ/ → /k ɡ ɣ ŋ/

Yes, I used <j y> for /j dʑ/ not the other way round, and <q> for /ŋ/.


Vowels
Analysis 1: /i e o/ <i e a>
Analysis 2: /i e1 e2 o/ <i e e a>
Analysis 3: /e o/ <e~i a~e>

These analyses are based on how you analyse palatal harmony; this is explained in the vowel harmonies section. I'll talk about these in spoilers because words.
Spoiler:
- The first analysis, /i e o/, is the simplest, as these are the surface forms, ignoring allophonic occurrence of [a] (which is indisputibly non-phonemic, as it exists in free variation with the sequence [ɣa] and alternates with palatalised [ɣi] due to pal. harmony). Pal. [e] < /o/ and nonpal. [e] < /e/ are acoustically indistinguishable and are considered the same sound by native speakers. With this system, /e/ can occur in both pal. and nonpal. words, /i/ only in pal. words and /o/ only in nonpal. words.
- However, based on the fact that [ɣe] has two realisations, one in pal. words and the other in nonpal. words, this can be analysed to be a system (#2) of /i e1 e2 o/, where only /i e1/ occur in pal. and only /e2 o/ in nonpal. words. /ɣe2/ becomes [a] and /ɣe1/ doesn’t; otherwise /e1/ and /e2/ are the same phonetically.
- On the other hand, you can analyse Decééyinéeqi as having a two-vowel system (analysis #3) of just /e o/, where /e/ is realised as [a~e~i] and /o/ as [o~e]. The variants [​i e] occur allophonically in the presence of a palatal and [e o] elsewhere (and /ɣe/ becomes [a] while /ɣo/ doesn’t even when it’s [ɣe]). This is the analysis I’ll be using cause it works more like the nasal harmony and makes more sense in terms of harmony; but the orthography uses the first one because it’s closer to the surface form.

Vowel harmonies
Decééyinéeqi uses two types of phoneme harmony; palatal harmony, affecting vowels but based on consonants, and nasal harmony, affecting both vowels and consonants.

Palatal harmony
Palatal harmony is a system in which [e o] correspond to [​i e] when things happen; ie /e/ gets raised and /o/ fronted. If a word has one or more palatals (i.e. /tɕ dʑ j ɲ/) in it, all underlying /e o/ in the word become [​​i e], including those in affixes. Even if an affix has a palatal in it, all the vowels in the world are "palatalised".

/ɣóːròdʑè/ > [ɣeː55.re1.dʑi1] hééreyi
/ɣóːròdʑè/ + –/ŋè/ > [ɣeː55.re1.dʑiː53.ŋĩ1] hééreyíiqi
/ɡóɡènè/ > [ɡo5.ve1.nẽ1] gágene
/ɡóɡènè/ + –/jôː/ > [ɡe5.vi1.nĩ1.ɲẽ53] géginiñée

You can always tell whether an [e] is underlyingly /e/ or /o/; it’s /e/ if there’s no palatals in the word and /o/ if there are.

Nasal harmony
There’s also some nasal harmony; any vowel directly following a nasal is nasalised ([​i e o] > [ĩ ẽ õ]), and any /r j ɣ/ to the right of a nasal in a word become [n ɲ ŋ], even if there are some phonemes or syllables in between them. Any vowels which then come after a phonetic nasal ([n ɲ ŋ] < /r j ɣ/) still nasalise. This is indicated in the orthography by writing all [n ɲ ŋ] as <n ñ q>, but the nasal vowels are not written.

/ŋòdérôːróː/ > [ŋõ1.de5.nõ53.nõ55] qadénáanáá

This also affects affixes:

/ŋòdérôːróː/ + –/jôː/ > [ŋẽ1.di5.nẽ53.nẽ55.ɲẽ53] qedínéenééñée

It’s impossible to tell in monomorphemic words whether [n ɲ ŋ] in syllables following a nasal syllable are underlyingly /r j ɣ/ or /n ɲ ŋ/. This doesn’t really matter cause the orthography would write them as nasals either way, but in // I’ll pretend that they’re all nasals too.


Other Allophony
Spoiler:
The sequence /ɣe/ becomes [ɣa] or, especially word-initially, [a]; however, this doesn’t happen when the [e] is a palatalised variant of underlying /o/, or when the /ɣe/ is palatalised to [ɣi]. This makes [a] very rare in the language; this allophony is not indicated in the orthography.

/ɣédôːnóː/ > [a5.do53.nõ55] hédáanáá
/ɣédôːnóː/ + -/jôː/ > [ɣi5.de53.nẽ55.ɲẽ53] hídéenééñée

Word-initial [ŋ] (which only comes from underlying /ŋ/ as /ɣ/ > [ŋ] can only happen outside of initial syllables) is often dropped; this is inconsistent and not indicated in the orthography.

/ŋôːɡè/ > [õ53.ve1] qáage

Intervocalic /ɡ/ becomes [v]. This is probably a vestige of its old labialness (deriving from older *b).

/rèɡôː/ > [re1.vo53] regóo

Tones
Decééyinéeqi has four tones, which are:

/eː55 e453 e1/ <éé é ée e>
(abbrev. HH H HM L)

These could be treated in a bunch of different ways but the important thing is that /eː55/ and /eː53/ are about twice as long as /e4/ and /e1/ and so they're written like that. Phonemically I write them as /éː é êː è/ and phonetically as /e55 e4 e53 e1/, or not depending on how I'm feeling.

There’s not much tone sandhi (yet), but notably a sequence of three L tones makes the middle one HM and written as such.

/dóːròɲè/ + –/ŋè/ > [deː55.re1.ɲĩː53.ŋĩ1] dééreñíiqi
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1070
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Numbers
Decééyinéeqi has two counting systems; a base-10 system used by women and a base-6 system used by men. This derives from two ancient counting practices; men would count using their four limbs, head and penis, while women would count with their ten fingers. Interestingly, none of the individual numbers in each system are cognates, but the formations of higher numbers are identical. Men also use the women's system for numbers higher than 35 because their own counting system is terrible.

Women's system
The base numbers one to ten in the women's system are:
yíi, áá, recíí, ceri, réna, qáa, adééná, ecíi, yée, níñíi
[dʑi⁵³ o⁵⁵ re¹tɕi⁵⁵ tɕe¹ri¹ re⁵nõ¹ ŋõ⁵³ o¹de⁵⁵nõ⁴ e¹tɕi⁵³ dʑe⁵³ nĩ⁴ɲi⁵³]

Numbers 11 to 19 are formed by suffixing the units number to ñíi, a reduced form of níñíi "ten":

ñíiyíi, ñíiée, ñíinecíí, ñíiceni, ñíiníne, ñíiqée, ñíiedííné, ñíiecíi, ñíiyée
[ɲĩ⁵³dʑĩ⁵³ ɲĩ⁵³ẽ⁵³ ɲĩ⁵³nẽ¹tɕi⁵⁵ ɲĩ⁵³tɕe¹nĩ¹ ɲĩ⁵³nĩ⁴nẽ¹ ɲĩ⁵³ŋẽ⁵³ ɲĩ⁵³ẽ¹di⁵⁵nẽ⁴ ɲĩ⁵³ẽ¹tɕi⁵³ ɲĩ⁵³dʑe⁵³]

(Is it a coincidence that, like Čəsač, all the teens begin with ñ-? Yes but also no. Both derive from a reduced form of Proto-X *nɛ́ŋke; however, Čəsač kept the first half (**nɛ́ŋke >> PB *di̯e- >> ñe) and Decééyinéeqi the second half (**nɛ́ŋke >> níñíi >> ñíi). Proto-X is neither the ancestor of Čəsač or Decééyinéeqi; both proto-Bechsukchwan borrowed all its numerals from Proto-X and Decééyinéeqi only the women's system)
Multiples of ten are the other way round; the numbers 2 to 9 followed by ñíi:

ééñíi, recííñíi, ceriñíi, ríneñíi, qéeñíi, edíínéñíi, ecíiñíi, yéeñíi
[e⁵⁵ɲĩ⁵³ re¹tɕi⁵⁵ɲĩ⁵³ tɕe¹ri¹ɲĩ⁵³ ri⁵nẽ¹ɲĩ⁵³ ŋẽ⁵³ɲĩ⁵³ e¹di⁵⁵nẽ⁴ɲĩ⁵³ e¹tɕi⁵³ɲĩ⁵³ dʑe⁵³ɲĩ⁵³]

Additional units are then added by suffixing the unit number:

ééñíiyíi, recííñíiéé, ceriñíinecíí, ríneñíiceni, qéeñíiníne, edíínéñíiqée, ecíiñíiedííné, yéeñíiecíi
[e⁵⁵ɲĩ⁵³dʑi⁵³ re¹tɕi⁵⁵ɲĩ⁵³e⁵⁵ tɕe¹ri¹ɲĩ⁵³nẽ¹tɕi⁵⁵ ri⁵nẽ¹ɲĩ⁵³tɕe¹nĩ¹ ŋẽ⁵³ɲĩ⁵³nĩ⁴nẽ¹ e¹di⁵⁵nẽ⁴ɲĩ⁵³ŋẽ⁵³ e¹tɕi⁵³ɲĩ⁵³ẽ¹di⁵⁵nẽ⁴ dʑe⁵³ɲĩ⁵³ẽ¹tɕi⁵³]
21, 32, 43, 54, 65, 76, 87, 98


Men's system
In the men's system, the numbers one to six are:
rehe, híiñé, diye, ádée, ké, céeqéé
[re¹ɣa¹ ɣi⁵³ɲẽ⁴ di¹dʑe¹ o⁴de⁵³ ke⁴ tɕe⁵³ŋẽ⁵⁵]

7 to 11 are formed with qáá–, reduced from céeqéé:
qááneqe, qééqíiñé, qéédiye, qááádée, qááké
[ŋõ⁵⁵nẽ¹ŋẽ¹ ŋẽ⁵⁵ŋĩ⁵³ɲẽ⁴ ŋẽ⁵⁵di¹dʑe¹ ŋõ⁵⁵õ⁴de⁵³ ŋõ⁵⁵ke⁴]

Multiples of 6 use -qáá.
híiñéqéé, diyeqéé, ádéeqáá, kéqáá
[ɣi⁵³ɲẽ⁴ŋẽ⁵⁵ di¹dʑe¹ŋẽ⁵⁵ o⁴de⁵³ŋõ⁵⁵ ke⁴ŋõ⁵⁵]
12, 18, 24, 30

Likewise numbers in between are:

híiñéqééneqe, diyeqééqíiñé, édíiqéédiye, kéqááádée
[ɣi⁵³ɲẽ⁴ŋẽ⁵⁵nẽ¹ŋẽ¹ŋĩ⁵³ɲẽ⁴ e⁴di⁵³ŋẽ⁵⁵di¹dʑe¹ ke⁴ŋõ⁵⁵õ⁴de⁵³]
13, 20, 27, 34

Higher numbers
Men's numbers only go up to 35 (kéqááké); for higher numbers, the women's system is used although this is rare. Women's numbers only go up to 99 (yéeñíiyée); for higher numbers, a much more recently innovated system is used:

100: íñine [i⁴ɲĩ¹nẽ¹] borrowed from Čəsač enen
200: áa íñine [o⁵⁵ i⁴ɲĩ¹nẽ¹]; literally "two hundreds" and morphologically two words; even men use the female áa rather than male híiñé, as higher numbers are always associated with the female system
300: recíí íñine [re¹tɕi⁵⁵ i⁴ɲĩ¹nẽ¹] formed likewise
400: ceri íñine [tɕe¹ri¹ i⁴ɲĩ¹nẽ¹] etc.
6000: qéeñíi íñine [ŋẽ⁵³ɲĩ⁵³ i⁴ɲĩ¹nẽ¹]
77433: adééná íñine íñine edíínéñíiceni íñine recííñíinecíí [o¹de⁵⁵nõ⁴ i⁴ɲĩ¹nẽ¹ i⁴ɲĩ¹nẽ¹ e¹di⁵⁵nẽ⁴ɲĩ⁵³tɕe¹nĩ¹ i⁴ɲĩ¹nẽ¹ re¹tɕi⁵⁵ɲĩ⁵³nẽ¹tɕi⁵⁵] "seven hundred hundreds, seventy-four hundreds, thirty-three"

This works up to 999,999 (yéeñíiyée íñine íñine yéeñíiyée íñine yéeñíiyée; "ninety-nine hundred hundreds, ninety-nine hundreds, ninety-nine"). Number higher than this are pretty much never used.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4331
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by DesEsseintes »

Men also use the women's system for numbers higher than 35 because their own counting system is terrible.
This made my day. [xD]
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1070
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Nouns
Decééyinéeqi is a “split-tripartite” language (more on this later on). It has three distinct cases; accusative for direct objects, ergative for the subject of a transitive verb and intransitive for the subject of an intransitive verb. The intransitive is unmarked, while the accusative and ergative are shown with suffixes:

Accusative: /dʑe¹/ -yi
Ergative: /ɣo⁵³/ -hóo, -hée, -qóo, -qée

Note that the accusative palatalises the whole word:

kéékéeqókonéé + -yi > kííkíiqékenííyi [ki⁵⁵ki⁵³ŋẽ⁴ke¹nĩ⁵⁵dʑi¹]
néekónó + -yi > níikénéyi [nĩ⁵³ke⁴nẽ⁴dʑi¹]

If the accusative is suffixed to a root ends with two low-tone syllables, the second of the three becomes a falling tone.

hééyiñi + -yi > hééyiñíiyi [ɣe⁵⁵dʑi¹ɲĩ⁵³dʑi¹]
nícede + -yi > nícedéeyi [nĩ⁴tɕe¹de⁵³dʑi¹]

The ergative suffix surfaces as [ŋo⁵³] when the root has a nasal in it

kóóqóne + -hóo > kóóqóneqóo [ka⁵⁵ŋã⁴nẽ¹ŋõ⁵³]
éeqóo + -hóo > éeqóoqóo [e⁵³ŋõ⁵³ŋõ⁵³]

It also has a palatalised realisation [ɣe⁵³], or nasalised [ŋẽ⁵³], when the root has a palatal.

díiyíigíhíi + -hóo > díiyíigíhíihée [di⁵³dʑi⁵³vi⁴ɣi⁵³ɣe⁵³]
híkehíñéé + -hóo > híkehíñééqée [hi⁴ke¹ŋĩ⁴ɲẽ⁵⁵ŋẽ⁵³]


Split-tripartiteness

Edit: Having looked at the paper Creyeditor linked in the Q&A thread, I think a better analysis of Decééyinéeqi would be as a split-ergative system (or even a plain nominative-accusative system with some exceptions) with the following rules:
  • What I call the "ergative" and "intransitive" are actually both realisations of the nominative; marked and unmarked respectively
  • The nominative is obligatorially marked in transitive sentences and sometimes in intransitive sentences
  • All transitive sentences take a nominative-accusative form
  • Animate intransitive sentences take a nominative-accusative form (with optionally unmarked nominative)
  • Inanimate intransitive sentences may take an ergative-absolutive form, in that the subject is grouped with direct objects and placed in the accusative

Intransitive sentences can also take an ergative subject, or an accusative subject. For example:

ñéecéyíí togééqoké
ñéecéyíí-Ø togééqo-ké
dog-INTRANS walk-3SG.AN
“The dog walks”

ñéecéyííqée togééqoké
ñéecéyíí-hóo togééqo-ké
dog-ERG walk-3SG.AN
“This here dog walks”

togééqoké ñéecéyííyi
togééqo-ké ñéecéyíí-yi
walk-3SG.AN dog-ACC
?“This pathetic excuse for a dog walks"

All of them broadly translatable as “the dog walks”, but each variant carries some connotations. The ergative is generally used when emphasising the subject or when the subject hasn’t been introduced into the conversation yet. The accusative is used more often with inanimate subjects; if the subject is actually animate (and is marked as such on the verb), then using the accusative can be interpreted as a pejorative, especially with human referents. However, if the verb has an inanimate suffix, then the pejorative meaning is lost and it's assumed that the subject genuinely is inanimate; for example "togééqoqo ñéecéyííyi" (with -qo 3SG.INAN) might be talking about a toy dog.

Number
Decééyinééqi uses two numbers, singular and plural. Singular is unmarked and plural takes the suffix -to~-te, which follows the case suffixes.

kóóqóne + -to > kóóqóneto
hééyiñi + -yi + -to > héétiñíiyite

If the root, or root + accusative suffix, ends in two vowels with low tone, the second one becomes a falling tone:

éyítíti + -yi + -to > éyítítiyíite [e⁴dʑi⁴ti⁴ti¹dʑi⁵³te¹]
nícede + -to > nícedéete [nĩ⁴tɕe¹de⁵³te¹]
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1070
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Verbs

Decééyinéeqi verbs incorporate quite a lot of information and can get pretty long; but they're not really polysynthetic and there's no noun incorporation. They mark the number and gender of both subject and object, in a completely accusative way (with none of the traces of ergativity seen in nouns). They also mark evidentiality, tense, aspect, and mood with a series of affixes. The template for a verb is:

Code: Select all

evidentiality–tense–aspect–ROOT–negation–question–subject–object-mood
Evidentiality
Evidentiality prefixes are optional. There are four evidential prefixes:
  • visual: héece-
  • experiential: kehóo-
  • inferential: géédéé-
  • reportative: kíiñe-
Most of these are self-explanatory; visual is anything the speaker has seen for themself, experiential is something they have done themselves or with the person that they're talking about, inferential means that the speaker has inferred it from what they've seen and reportative is anything second-hand.
Spoiler:
Héeceíikinííkí
héece-éeke-née-ké
VISUAL-PAST-come-3SG.AN.SUBJ
"I saw him/her come"

Kehóóéeketótehoqéké
kehóo-éeke-tóteho-qé-ké
EXPER-PAST-travel-NEG-3PL.AN.SUBJ
"I know (s)he didn't travel (I was doing something else with him that means for sure (s)he didn't)"

Gíídííéqíqínééqíkíñégi
géédéé-Ø-óqé-hénóó-qé-ké-jégi
INFER-PRES-HABIT-kill-NEG-3SG.AN.SUBJ-3PL.ANIM.OBJ
"I assume (s)he doesn't kill people (because of everything else I know about him)"

Kíiñeníqiíyííékí
kíiñe-réhe-íyíí-ó-ké
REPORT-FUT-CONT-shout-3SG.AN.SUBJ
"They say he will shout a lot"
Tense
There are four tenses; present, near past, distant past and future. Present is unmarked.
  • Past: éeke-
  • Distant past: iñe-
  • Future: réhe-
Distant past is generally used for anything that happened historically, but both past tenses can be used up until the immediate past; distant past may simply imply a semantic or even physical separation of the events.
Spoiler:
Cíídíkikítéé
Ø-cíídíki-ké-tóó
PRES-destroy-3SG.AN.SUBJ-1SG.OBJ
"(S)he's destroying me"

Íikicíídíkikítéé
éeke-cíídíki-ké-tóó
PAST-destroy-3SG.AN.SUBJ-1SG.OBJ
"(S)he destroyed me"

Iñecíídíkikítéé
iñe-cíídíki-ké-tóó
DIST.PAST-destroy-3SG.AN.SUBJ-1SG.OBJ
"(S)he destroyed me a long time ago"

Ríhicíídíkikítéé
réhe-cíídíki-ké-tóó
FUT-destroy-3SG.AN.SUBJ-1SG.OBJ
"(S)he will destroy me"
Aspect
  • Continuous: íyíí-
  • Habitual: óqé-
  • Punctual: heyée-
Continuous refers to an event that happens for an extended period of time, contrasting with events in the punctual aspect which happen for a short amount of time. Habitual refers to an event that occurs many distinct times. Habitual can be combined with the others; habitual + punctual referring to an event that happens for a short duration several times and habitual + continuous for an event that happens for a longer duration several times.
Spoiler:
Íikiíyííhínéégíqíikí
éeke-íyíí-hénóó-géhée-ké
PAST-CONT-kill-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ
"You were killing him/her"

Iñeéqítétiqedéé
iñe-óqé-tóteho-dóó
DIST.PAST-HABIT-travel-1SG.SUBJ
"I used to travel"

Íikiheyéeqíídééítéé
éeke-heyée-qéédóóé-Ø-tóó
PAST-PUNCT-hit--3SG.INAN.SUBJ-1SG.OBJ
"It hit me"

Éqíqeyééqééqéííni
óqé-heyéé-hóóhóééne-Ø
HABIT-PUNCT-move.around-3SG.INAN.SUBJ
"It's been twitching around"

Éqííyííqééqéííni
óqé-íyíí-hóóhóééne-Ø
HABIT-CONT-move.around-3SG.INAN.SUBJ
"It's been moving around"
Negation
  • -
Spoiler:
Óhóo nokóqóqédóó
óhóo nokóqó-qé-dóó
nothing have-NEG-1SG.SUBJ
"I have nothing"
Question marker
  • Yes/no question: -
  • Interrogative: -re
-ci is used to ask a question about whether the sentence is true, while -re is used to question one argument and is used with relative pronouns. Neither is used with evidentials.
Spoiler:
Ríhiéqíheyéeéqícíkíqíi?
réhe-óqé-heyée-ó-qé-cí-ké-hée?
FUT-HABIT-CONT-shout-NEG-Q-3SG.AN.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ
"Will (s)he not be screaming at it?"

Kekíiyi órekéhée?
koke-yi ó-re-ké-hée?
REL-ACC shout-Q.INTERR-3SG.AN.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ
"What is (s)he shouting at?"

Kokehóo órekétóó?
koke-hóo ó-re-ké-tóó?
REL-ERG shout-Q.INTERR-3SG.AN.SUBJ-1SG.OBJ
"Who is shouting at me?"
Subject marking
As mentioned before, S (subject of an intransitive sentence) and A (subject of a transitive sentence) are treated identically in terms of incorporation. The suffixes are as follows:

Code: Select all

       SING     PLUR
1EXC  -dóó     -ñédi
1INC           -ónée
2     -géhée   -hidí
3AN   -ké      -rógó
3INAN -Ø~-qo   -ré
Object marking

Code: Select all

       SING  PLUR
1EXC  -tóó  -yéti
1INC        -óqé
2     -hé   -qéétóó
3AN   -ké   -jégi
3INAN -hée  -o
REFL     -dóo
Mood
  • Conditional: -niyée
  • Resultative: ñéece
  • Optative: -kééyi
  • Irrealis: -óódé
Conditional and resultative are both used in conditional sentences; conditional is used for the hypothetical condition and resultative for the outcome.
Spoiler:
Íikeqíídééígíqíitééniyée qíídééídééqíñéece
éeke-qéédóóé-géhée-tóó-niyée qéédóóé-dóó-hé-ñéece
PAST-hit-2SG.SUBJ-1SG.OBJ-COND hit-1SG.SUBJ-2SG.OBJ-RESULT
"If you had hit me, I would've hit you back."
Big verb

This verb is pretty big:

Gíídíííikiéqíqeyéeqééqéííniqígíqíiqíítéééédí
[ɡiː˥.diː˥.iː˥˧.ki˩.e˦.ŋĩ˦.ŋẽ˩.d͡ʑeː˥˧.ŋẽː˥.ŋẽ˦.iː˥.nĩ˩.ŋĩ˦.vi˦.ŋĩː˥˧.ŋĩː˥.teː˥.eː˥.di˦]
géédéé-éeke-óqé-heyée-hóóhóééne-qé-géhée-qéétóó-óódé
INFER-PAST-HABIT-PUNCT-move.around-NEG-2SG.SUBJ-2PL.OBJ.-OPT
"I assume that you were all wanting to moving all of the rest of you around in many short motions"
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by Omzinesý »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 25 Jun 2021 11:06

Nasal harmony
There’s also some nasal harmony; any vowel directly following a nasal is nasalised ([​i e o] > [ĩ ẽ õ]), and any /r j ɣ/ to the right of a nasal in a word become [n ɲ ŋ], even if there are some phonemes or syllables in between them. Any vowels which then come after a phonetic nasal ([n ɲ ŋ] < /r j ɣ/) still nasalise. This is indicated in the orthography by writing all [n ɲ ŋ] as <n ñ q>, but the nasal vowels are not written.

/ŋòdérôːróː/ > [ŋõ1.de5.nõ53.nõ55] qadénáanáá

This also affects affixes:

/ŋòdérôːróː/ + –/jôː/ > [ŋẽ1.di5.nẽ53.nẽ55.ɲẽ53] qedínéenééñée

It’s impossible to tell in monomorphemic words whether [n ɲ ŋ] in syllables following a nasal syllable are underlyingly /r j ɣ/ or /n ɲ ŋ/. This doesn’t really matter cause the orthography would write them as nasals either way, but in // I’ll pretend that they’re all nasals too.
So you basically say that all /r j ɣ/s and vowels right to a nasal are nasalized?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by Omzinesý »

Which of the morphological categories in the verb have a morpheme realizing as zero, present apparently?

Can/must some categories be unspecified in ,say, dependent clauses?

What does AN mean in your glosses?
I guess it's not action nominalization.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1070
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Omzinesý wrote: 10 Jul 2021 14:06
VaptuantaDoi wrote: 25 Jun 2021 11:06

Nasal harmony
There’s also some nasal harmony; any vowel directly following a nasal is nasalised ([​i e o] > [ĩ ẽ õ]), and any /r j ɣ/ to the right of a nasal in a word become [n ɲ ŋ], even if there are some phonemes or syllables in between them. Any vowels which then come after a phonetic nasal ([n ɲ ŋ] < /r j ɣ/) still nasalise. This is indicated in the orthography by writing all [n ɲ ŋ] as <n ñ q>, but the nasal vowels are not written.

/ŋòdérôːróː/ > [ŋõ1.de5.nõ53.nõ55] qadénáanáá

This also affects affixes:

/ŋòdérôːróː/ + –/jôː/ > [ŋẽ1.di5.nẽ53.nẽ55.ɲẽ53] qedínéenééñée

It’s impossible to tell in monomorphemic words whether [n ɲ ŋ] in syllables following a nasal syllable are underlyingly /r j ɣ/ or /n ɲ ŋ/. This doesn’t really matter cause the orthography would write them as nasals either way, but in // I’ll pretend that they’re all nasals too.
So you basically say that all /r j ɣ/s and vowels right to a nasal are nasalized?
More specifically, there are two stages at work. First, any /r j ɣ/ which occur in a word to the right of a nasal – with any amount of other phonemes between them – become /n ɲ ŋ/; and secondly, vowels are allophonically nasalised when directly following a phonetic nasal consonant. The first stage is a type of consonant harmony, while the second is an allophonic process. For example, /ŋóóka/ + /ró/ becomes /ŋóókonó/; the /r/ becomes /n/ because there is a nasal earlier in the word. Allophonically, this becomes [ŋõː˥ko˩nõ˦]; note that the second of the three /o/'s is not nasalised.
Omzinesý wrote: 10 Jul 2021 14:10 Which of the morphological categories in the verb have a morpheme realizing as zero, present apparently?

Can/must some categories be unspecified in ,say, dependent clauses?

What does AN mean in your glosses?
I guess it's not action nominalization.
The two zero-realised morphemes are the present tense "prefix" and one of the forms of the third person inanimate subject "suffix". You could also consider the present tense to just be the unmarked interpretation; in my examples I only gloss it when I'm specifically addressing it, otherwise I just don't gloss it. The third person animate suffix has two forms; -qo and zero, either of which can be chosen by the speaker; I have yet to decide the pragmatics of this.
All categories except for the argument marking are optional; subject must be marked in intransitive clauses and both subject and object in transitive clauses. Any tense, aspect or evidentiality category which is specified in a main clause is also assumed to hold true in a dependent clause, without having to be explicitly marked; if anything is different, it's marked. This also holds true for clauses linked by conjunctions. For example:

Héeceíikihídeñíkíígíqíikí kíyííde digihééyi nokóqógéqée
héece-éeke-hídeñíkíí-géhée-ké kíyííde dege-hóó-yi nokóqó-géhée-Ø
VISUAL-PAST-speak-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ because mouth-AUG-ACC have-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ
"You spoke to him (I saw it), because you had a big mouth (I saw it)"

Because the first clause is marked for visual evidentiality and past tense, the second clause is assumed to have also been seen by the speaker and to have occurred in the past. On the other hand, with marked evidentiality, you could have:

Héeceíikihídeñíkíígíqíikí kíyííde digihééyi kíiñenekéqégíqíi
héece-éeke-hídeñíkíí-géhée-ké kíyííde dege-hóó-yi kíiñe-nokóqó-géhée-Ø
VISUAL-PAST-speak-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ because mouth-AUG-ACC REPORT-have-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ
"You spoke to him (I saw it), because you had a big mouth (so they say)"

There'll probably be some more complex pragmatics surrounding this but I'll address that when (if) I tackle syntax seriously.

AN means animate and INAN means inanimate; the two genders marked on verbs and pronouns in the third person.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by Omzinesý »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 10 Jul 2021 15:22
Omzinesý wrote: 10 Jul 2021 14:06
VaptuantaDoi wrote: 25 Jun 2021 11:06 [...]
So you basically say that all /r j ɣ/s and vowels right to a nasal are nasalized?
More specifically, there are two stages at work. First, any /r j ɣ/ which occur in a word to the right of a nasal – with any amount of other phonemes between them – become /n ɲ ŋ/; and secondly, vowels are allophonically nasalised when directly following a phonetic nasal consonant. The first stage is a type of consonant harmony, while the second is an allophonic process. For example, /ŋóóka/ + /ró/ becomes /ŋóókonó/; the /r/ becomes /n/ because there is a nasal earlier in the word. Allophonically, this becomes [ŋõː˥ko˩nõ˦]; note that the second of the three /o/'s is not nasalised.
Sounds natural, and complex enough to be interesting.
VaptuantaDoi wrote: 10 Jul 2021 15:22
Omzinesý wrote: 10 Jul 2021 14:10 Which of the morphological categories in the verb have a morpheme realizing as zero, present apparently?

Can/must some categories be unspecified in ,say, dependent clauses?

What does AN mean in your glosses?
I guess it's not action nominalization.
The two zero-realised morphemes are the present tense "prefix" and one of the forms of the third person inanimate subject "suffix". You could also consider the present tense to just be the unmarked interpretation; in my examples I only gloss it when I'm specifically addressing it, otherwise I just don't gloss it. The third person animate suffix has two forms; -qo and zero, either of which can be chosen by the speaker; I have yet to decide the pragmatics of this.
All categories except for the argument marking are optional; subject must be marked in intransitive clauses and both subject and object in transitive clauses. Any tense, aspect or evidentiality category which is specified in a main clause is also assumed to hold true in a dependent clause, without having to be explicitly marked; if anything is different, it's marked. This also holds true for clauses linked by conjunctions. For example:

Héeceíikihídeñíkíígíqíikí kíyííde digihééyi nokóqógéqée
héece-éeke-hídeñíkíí-géhée-ké kíyííde dege-hóó-yi nokóqó-géhée-Ø
VISUAL-PAST-speak-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ because mouth-AUG-ACC have-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ
"You spoke to him (I saw it), because you had a big mouth (I saw it)"

Because the first clause is marked for visual evidentiality and past tense, the second clause is assumed to have also been seen by the speaker and to have occurred in the past. On the other hand, with marked evidentiality, you could have:

Héeceíikihídeñíkíígíqíikí kíyííde digihééyi kíiñenekéqégíqíi
héece-éeke-hídeñíkíí-géhée-ké kíyííde dege-hóó-yi kíiñe-nokóqó-géhée-Ø
VISUAL-PAST-speak-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ because mouth-AUG-ACC REPORT-have-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ
"You spoke to him (I saw it), because you had a big mouth (so they say)"

There'll probably be some more complex pragmatics surrounding this but I'll address that when (if) I tackle syntax seriously.
Again, sounds natural, and complex enough to be interesting.
I must keep in mind how handy "optional" categories are.
Waiting for more complex pragmatics. Sadly, most conlangs (at least mine) don't proceed so far that developing pragmatists would be meaningful.
VaptuantaDoi wrote: 10 Jul 2021 15:22 AN means animate and INAN means inanimate; the two genders marked on verbs and pronouns in the third person.
I see. Should have understood at the first place.

Thank you!
Last edited by Omzinesý on 10 Jul 2021 22:27, edited 2 times in total.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3885
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by Khemehekis »

Omzinesý wrote: 10 Jul 2021 20:41 Waiting for more complex pragmatics, sadly, most conlangs (at least mine) that developing pragmatists would be meaningful.
I didn't understand this sentence.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by Omzinesý »

Khemehekis wrote: 10 Jul 2021 21:36
Omzinesý wrote: 10 Jul 2021 20:41 Waiting for more complex pragmatics, sadly, most conlangs (at least mine) that developing pragmatists would be meaningful.
I didn't understand this sentence.
Corrected.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3885
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by Khemehekis »

Omzinesý wrote: 10 Jul 2021 22:27
Khemehekis wrote: 10 Jul 2021 21:36
Omzinesý wrote: 10 Jul 2021 20:41 Waiting for more complex pragmatics, sadly, most conlangs (at least mine) that developing pragmatists would be meaningful.
I didn't understand this sentence.
Corrected.
Thanks, I see what you mean now. (Although I believe you meant ". . . that developing pragmatics would be meaningful", not ". . . that developing pragmatists would be meaningful".)

My Kankonian grammar has a whole eighteen paragraphs on pragmatics -- check it out (go to the section near the bottom titled Conversation).

https://khemehekis.angelfire.com/basic.htm
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by eldin raigmore »

How do prosody and pragmatics interact? (If they do.)
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1070
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Relative clauses
Decééyinéeqi handles relative clauses pretty strangely. There aren't any relative clauses; instead, serial verb compounds (SVCs) are used, which often requires a rearrangement of arguments using an antipassive derivation. However, verbal morphology ignores how the subject has been put into accusative, so it's all very confusing [:P] . Note that throughout this post I use Dixon's terminology of S, A and O for intransitive subject, transitive subject and object respectively.

The antipassive
The antipassive is a voice that reduces the valency of a verb; making it intransitive and able to take a direct object. In Decééyinéeqi, this is a derivational prefix go- which can be attached to most verbs, either transitive or intransitive. As it is considered derivational rather than morphological, it is considered part of the root in the template I mentioned previously. When attached to transitive verbs, it moves the subject to the accusative and the direct object to the indirect object. With intransitive verbs, it simply moves the subject to the accusative. This is one of the aspects of Decééyinéeqi which is decidedly ergative; an antipassivised clause is one where A is in the "accusative" (i.e. equated with O).

Usage
The antipassive is used when the subject (S or A) must be moved into the accusative (O) position; more on this below. It can be attached to all transitive verbs, and all intransitive verbs apart from weather verbs (e.g. rain, snow, be cold) and verbs of state (be tall, be green, sleep), which always take an accusative S anyway. It is always required with transitive verbs to put the subject into the accusative; with intransitive verbs, it is only necessary when the subject is animate. As mentioned previously, the subject may be placed in the ergative, accusative or intransitive case with intransitive verbs. With an inanimate S, the accusative can be used with limited semantic impact, which renders the antipassive unnecessary. The verb, however, still agrees with the O (antipassivised S/A) in the subject slot; as with all intransitive sentences, verb person-number-gender morphology equates S with A.

Serial Verb Constructions
SVCs are constructions with two or more conjugated verbs in a row. This can be used in Decééyinéeqi to get around having to use a relative clause. The second verb is generally only conjugated for arguments, not for TAME. SVCs require that the element being discussed must be in the same case for both verbs. This is where the antipassive derivation is used: if the second verb is a verb of state which requires an accusative S, or an intransitive verb where the speaker has chosen to put the subject in the accusative, then the first verb must put said element in the accusative.
Spoiler:
Tééhéyi íikihiyíigeqíídééíkí néekóoqóké je tóodo
tóóhó-yi éeke-heyée-go-qéédóóé-ké néekóoqó-ké je tóodo
person-ACC PAST-PUNCT-ANTIPASS-hit-3SG.AN.SUBJ be.tall-3SG.AN.SUBJ to 1SG
"The person who is tall hit me" (≈The tall person hit me)
Alternatively, if the element being discussed is in the accusative with the first verb, then the second verb can be antipassivised. In this case, the O is generally placed after the two verbs.
Spoiler:
Íikiíyííyenéegíqíikí éekegohénóóké neqíiyitéedéníkéé
éeke-íyíí-yenée-géhée-ké éeke-go-hénóó-ké noqée-yi=tóodónékóó
PAST-CONT-talk-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ PAST-ANTIPASS-kill-3SG.AN.SUBJ father-ACC=1SG.POSS
"You were just talking to the man who killed my father." (literally "you were just talking to him, some killing was done (by) him to my father")
Another situation can occur where the element is the A of a transitive verb and the second verb is intransitive; which requires that both verbs be antipassivised; in this case the word order is still free, but the element being discussed is generally after the two verbs again. More rarely, the second verb takes an ergative S (which would otherwise be used only for emphasis); then the element generally precedes the two verbs.
Spoiler:
Éekegoóóké je rotóógeqéqenékóó réheóqégoneké dinéyitéedéníkéé
éeke-go-óó-ké je rotóó=geqéqenékóó réhe-óqé-go-re-ké denó-yi=tóodónékóó
PAST-ANTIPASS-acquire-3SG.AN.SUBJ to house=2SG.POSS FUT-HABIT-ANTIPASS-eat-3SG.AN.SUBJ uncle-ACC=1SG.POSS
"My uncle who bought your house will eat."

Or:

Denóqóotóodónékóó éekeóókéhée retééyigiqíqiníkéé réheóqéneké
denó-hóo=tóodónékóó éeke-óó-ké-hée rotóó-yi=geqéqenékóó réhe-óqé-re-ké
uncle-ERG=1SG.POSS PAST-acquire-3SG.AN.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ house-ACC=2SG.POSS FUT-HABIT-eat-3SG.AN.SUBJ
"My uncle (who bought your house) is the one who will be eating"
If both elements are already in the O slot then no antipassive is required:
Spoiler:
Godóóké óqégéedóóké
go-dóó-ké óqé-gée-dóó-ké
see-1SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ HABIT-hate-1SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ
"I see the one I hate" (lit "I see, hate him").

Éekeregéhéehée óqéódóóqée hítíicéyi
éeke-re-géhée-hée óqé-ó-dóó-hée hítíicé-yi
PAST-eat-2SG.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ HABIT-shout-1SG.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ bowl-ACC
"You ate what I call 'a bowl'".
This allows for all combinations of S, A and O in both verbs; however, combinations of indirect object and subject (S or A) (e.g. "the man to whom I owe $100 dollars is standing over there" or "I'm walking to the shop that has apples") can't be accomodated. These kind of sentences require periphrasis:
Spoiler:
Togééqodóóqée dedinéyi jíiní kehóonokóqókéo héehóo yeyíite
togééqo-dóó-hée dodenó-yi jíiní kehóo-nokóqó-ké-o hée-hóo ye-yi-to
walk.to-1SG.SUBJ-3SG.INAN.OBJ location-ACC, and EXPER-have-3SG.INAN.SUBJ-3PL.INAN.OBJ 3SG.INAN-ERG fruit-ACC-PL
"I'm walking to the place, and that (place) I know from experience has fruit." (≈I'm walking to the place which has fruit)
However, SVCs are also used with secondary verbs such as kédo "be able to"; these secondary verbs take an ergative subject but are effectively intransitive. These only require the subject to match between the two verbs; the secondary verb always comes before the primary one.
Spoiler:
Tóodohóo kédodóó godóógéhée
tóodo-hóo kédo-dóó go-dóó-géhée
1SG-ERG be.able.to-1SG.SUBJ see-1SG.SUBJ-2SG.OBJ
"I can see you"
When these are made into "relativising" SVCs, the secondary verb must match the first verb, while all the stuff before about the element which is being relativised being in the same slot in the second verb as the first is still true.
Spoiler:
Kédodóó godóóké óqégéedóóké
kédo-dóó go-dóó-ké óqé-gée-dóó-ké
be.able.to-1SG.SUBJ see-1SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ HABIT-hate-1SG.SUBJ-3SG.AN.OBJ
"I can see the one I hate"
This may require the secondary verb to be antipassivised so that it matches slots with the primary verb.
Spoiler:
Tééhéyi gokédokéóódé íikihiyíigeqíídééíkí néekóoqóké je tóodo
tóóhó-yi go-kédo-ké-óódé éeke-heyée-go-qéédóóé-ké néekóoqó-ké je tóodo
person-ACC ANTIPASS-be.able.to-3SG.AN.SUBJ-IRREAL PAST-PUNCT-ANTIPASS-hit-3SG.AN.SUBJ be.tall-3SG.AN.SUBJ to 1SG
"The person who is tall could hit me"


Does this make any sense? It barely makes any sense to me. I've also probably forgotten a bunch of situations where things would happen. And some of my examples may be contradictory. Well, near enough is good enough!


eldin raigmore wrote: 11 Jul 2021 04:42 How do prosody and pragmatics interact? (If they do.)
Tone carries quite a lot of information, so I don't think pitch would be very productive; however, volume-based stress may play a role in emphasising or clarifying morphemes within words; I really haven't figured any of this out yet.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by Omzinesý »

Noiraka is proceeding to a similar direction with serial verbs, though without playing with voices. Drift or Systemzwang!
Last night I thought about restrictiveness.

Restrictive: 'Our cat is dead. The man that killed it was sad afterwards.
Non-restrictive: 'Our cat is dead. It was killed by a man, who was sad afterwards.

In the restrictive clause, the man is definite because of the relative clause though it is introduced first time. Which strategy Decééyinéeqi prefers? Does restrictiveness affect the form of relative clauses?
Noiraka prefers the nonrestrictive strategy. I think forbidden restrictive relative clauses that introduce fully new referents actually makes the number of SAE-style relative clauses very small.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3885
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Decééyinéeqi

Post by Khemehekis »

Omzinesý wrote: 11 Jul 2021 09:39 Noiraka is proceeding to a similar direction with serial verbs, though without playing with voices. Drift or Systemzwang!
TIL that Systemzwang meant something other than this guy.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Post Reply