Arpien

[eldin raigmore]

I don’t have everything mentioned in this post https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10#p10 yet for my Arpien conlang.
I did work up it’s 100-rule context-free generative grammar; I think I’ve posted it either elsewhere on the CBB or on other conlanging sites many CBBeans have seen it on.
That includes its 102 word-classes or lexical categories. 22 of them are open and 80 of them are closed.
I have its phoneme inventory, but I’ve never published it and I’ll need to look it up to post it on this thread, sometime later.
I do not have much of its vocabulary or lexicon yet.

This post is just to talk about its adverbs.
It has five different word-classes or parts-of-speech that should* be called “adverbs”.
(*That is, modifiers which don’t modify nouns nor NPs.)
Only one of them — the ad-clausal or ad-sentential adverbs class — is an open class.
The other four are closed classes.
One class modifies ad-clausal adverbs. I might call them ad-adverbial adverbs.
One class modifies one-argument verbs. I might call them the ad-verbal adverbs.
One class modifies complementizers. I might call them ad-complementizer adverbs.
One class modifies adjectives. I might call them ad-adjectival adverbs.

….

I wanted to write that down before I forgot it.

[Creyeditor]

It's great that you started a thread on Arpien
Do you want to post example sentences at some point? Do you have enough vocabulary?
If not, maybe you could post all the rules involving adverbs?

Also, I think I came up with an ad-complementizer adverb use. In the phrase 'if and only if', the word 'if' is modified by 'only'. Does that count?

[eldin raigmore]

It's great that you started a thread on Arpien

It’s great that you responded to it!

Do you want to post example sentences at some point?

Yes!

Do you have enough vocabulary?

No.

If not, maybe you could post all the rules involving adverbs?

Yes, I can. I will do so in a bit.

The five production rules for phrases of which “adverbs” are the head are:
A —> A + C A are clauses, C are ad-clausal and ad-sentential adverbs.
C —> C + 33 C are ad-clausal and/or ad-sentential adverbs, 33 are ad-adverbial adverbs.
D —> D + 38 D are monovalent, one-noun verbs, 38 are ad-verbal adverbs.
E —> E + 43 E are complementizers, 43 are … ad-complementizer adverbs? I guess?
F —> F + 48 F are adjectives, 48 are ad-adjectival adverbs

There are also four other production rules involving class C, ad-clausal and/or ad-sentential adverbs.

Two production rules produce a class C phrase from an input phrase of some other open lexical class.
C —> A + G clausal conjunctions, including subordinators and FANBOYS.
C —> B + H one kind of postposition or case-marker; resulting phrase can modify an entire sentence or clause

Two production rules taking an ad-clausal adverb as input (ie not the head) and producing a phrase of some other open lexical class.
A —> C + O O is something like, a verb that makes a clause about an ad-clausal adverb.
B —> C + S S is something that nominalizes ad-clausal adverbs.

All the open classes and their rules:

Spoiler:

A clauses
B nouns
A —> A + C clausal adverbs
A —> B + D monovalent verbs
B —> A + E complementizers; an open class?
B —> B + F adjectives
C —> A + G clausal conjunctions, including subordinators and FANBOYS.
C —> B + H one kind of postposition or case-marker; resulting phrase can modify an entire sentence or clause
D —> A + I what turns a clause into a one-place verb?
D —> B + J bivalent verbs
E —> A + K don’t know yet
E —> B + L don’t know yet
F —> A + M relativizer
F —> B + N postposition creating a phrase that can modify a noun; for example, a genitive postposition.
A —> C + O a “verb” that takes an adverb as its argument?
A —> D + P “ “ “ “ “ verb “ “ “
A —> E + Q “ “ “ “ “ complementizer “ “ “
A —> F + R “ “ “ “ “ adjective “ “ “
B —> C + S something that nominalises clausal adverbs
B —> D + T nominalizers that nominalize one-place verbs
B —> E + U nominalizers that nominalize complementizers! Wow!
B —> F + V nominalizers that nominalize adjectives; like maybe “-ness” particles.

Classes 1-16 are ways of making clauses about classes G-V respectively.
Classes 17-32 are ways of nominalising classes G-V.

Classes 33-48 can make phrases of classes C-F out of a word or phrase of classes C-F.

Classes 49-64 can make phrases of classes G-V out of clauses (class A).
Classes 65-80 can make phrases of classes G-V out of nouns. I suppose that makes many (or most?) of them postpositions of various sorts.
But because of the production rule
J —> B + 68
class 68 is the small closed class of trivalent verbs. (e.g. give, show, tell).
(Unless I goofed up!)

Also, I think I came up with an ad-complementizer adverb use. In the phrase 'if and only if', the word 'if' is modified by 'only'. Does that count?

It might! I need to think about it.



Thanks!

[MissTerry]

Wow, Arpien looks extremely sophisticated and complex!

[eldin raigmore]

Wow, Arpien looks extremely sophisticated and complex!

I don’t think it is, really; I think it looks that way because I posted its complete context-free grammar.
The number of closed and open word-classes is about average for a natural language.
The Chomsky normal form is about as simple as possible given the word-classes.

But I could be wrong.