Random ideas: Morphosyntax

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1283
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Arayaz »

Salmoneus wrote: 26 Jan 2024 21:20I'm skeptical whether a language would ever have a convention as specific as requiring all nouns to be accompanied by adjectives of material and position in all instances, though.

Imagine: "help, a shark is eating my leg!" - "I'm afraid your sentence is ungrammatical child, and so I do not understand. Please specify, what is the shark made out of and where is it located? Likewise, what is your leg made of and where is it?" - "Just grab the harpoon!" - "I'm sorry, but which harpoon? The steel one, or the bronze one?" - "you only have one fucking spear!!!" - "yes, but grammatically you must specify both the substance and the location!"

I think in practice people would often omit these words. After all, once you've said "the cat is lying on the mat", how often do you need to specify that the cat is a cat made out of cat-material and that the cat is lying ON TOP of the mat (not attached beside it like a clock on the wall) and that the mat itself is positioned horizontally on a surface? Do you need to specify that so often that it's actually work taking the time to always say?
Arayaz wrote:But this full complex would only be used the first time it's mentioned; later, only the minimal information necessary is given
And the first time it's mentioned, yes, one could probably be left out.

However, thank you for your advice; I'll come up with something else.
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, Makihip, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
Visions1
greek
greek
Posts: 495
Joined: 27 Jul 2021 08:05

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Visions1 »

Don't languages often include info we in English find totally needless? Navajo's various verbs for carrying dif things, or verb inflection, etc.?
Why not just make it an endless amount of noun classes/modifiers/classifiers? I think that might be it.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3044
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Salmoneus »

Visions1 wrote: 26 Jan 2024 22:42 Don't languages often include info we in English find totally needless?
Yes, absolutely. Within reason - although the edge of reason may be hard to determine. Iaai (iirc) has over thirty possessive classifiers, and (iirc) some argue that the class of classifiers is actually open. [however, as I say, when your class of classifiers is large enough, it becomes more sensible to just call them nouns; and of course possessive classifiers are only used in a particular circumstance].

And Crey is of course right about obligatory marking of orientation and of shape.

But the more obligatory you make certain information, the more the language is going to respond by grammaticalising it. If, say, orientation information is encoded on each noun by a simple one-syllable suffix, then I'd see no issue at all with it always being obligatory (if there's accomodation for situations where there is no true logical orientation, of course).
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4108
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

Porphyrogenitos wrote: 23 Jan 2024 23:56yiw waʈa
ᴀɴɪᴍᴀʟ dog
'a/the dog'

waʈara
dog-sᴛᴠ (singulative)
'a/the dog'
What's the difference between these two?


I have also tried to make a classifier system of generic nouns (Aikhenvald definiteness them as a type of classifiers in her broad definition), but I always failed. I started to make the generic nouns have grammatical meanings or derivational meanings and went far from what the system is, just redundant classifiers.

I have to check the grammars you mentioned. I only know Dixon's Yidiny grammar.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4108
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

What if all location prepositions (they don't have to be such an open class as in English) had a deictic meaning?

Ro bam 'in the house (there)'
Pa bam 'in the house (here)'
But cannot just say 'in the house'.

Maybe it appears in some natlangs?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5118
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

Closest thing I can think of right now is German varieties that fuse prepositions with articles.

zu-m Haus
to-the.DAT.N house
'to the house'

zu-nem Haus
to-a.DAT.N house
'to a house'

So you need to specify definiteness on the preposition in principle. Well, unless you have a demonstrative/strong article. In that case the two remain unfused. Or in the indefinite plural, where there is no article.

zu dem Haus
to DEM.DAT.N house
'to this/that house'

zu Häusern
to house.PL
'to houses'
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]
Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2401
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Keenir »

Salmoneus wrote: 26 Jan 2024 21:20I'm skeptical whether a language would ever have a convention as specific as requiring all nouns to be accompanied by adjectives of material and position in all instances, though.

Imagine: "help, a shark is eating my leg!" - "I'm afraid your sentence is ungrammatical child, and so I do not understand. Please specify, what is the shark made out of and where is it located? Likewise, what is your leg made of and where is it?" - "Just grab the harpoon!" - "I'm sorry, but which harpoon? The steel one, or the bronze one?" - "you only have one fucking spear!!!" - "yes, but grammatically you must specify both the substance and the location!"
One suspects that, ungrammaticallity may be used as emphaticness or alarm...such as the shark eating a leg. One suspects that RL languages which are heavy with evidentiality and such features, are very pro-drop when someone is yelling in pain and panic, to a person close enough to understand the entirety of the message & reply.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5118
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

Which reminds me of a thought I had recently: v-drop. Some languages can drop arguments if they can be inferred from the context, a v-drop language drops the verb/predicate whenever possible.

Yasa tano _.
I food _
'I (eat) the food.'

Yasa _ lada ko suka.
I _ in the bed
'I (sleep) in the bed.'

I guess this is already done in some contexts in some natlangs but a v-drop languagw would do it whenever possible.
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
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6354
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by eldin raigmore »

I understand that African-American Vernacular English sometimes(?) drops the copula*, depending on the aspect.
Does that count as verb-dropping? In English the copula is a verb. (In several other languages, it’s not a verb.)

*(The only example that comes to mind involves telling the addressee where the subject is.)
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1283
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Arayaz »

eldin raigmore wrote: 18 Feb 2024 22:44 I understand that African-American Vernacular English sometimes(?) drops the copula*, depending on the aspect.
Does that count as verb-dropping? In English the copula is a verb. (In several other languages, it’s not a verb.)

*(The only example that comes to mind involves telling the addressee where the subject is.)
That's not verb-drop, because reintroducing it produces a different meaning.
Edit: Wait, it is, when it's used as a copula. The use/non-use of "be" as an aspectual auxiliary, however, is not verb-drop.
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, Makihip, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
Visions1
greek
greek
Posts: 495
Joined: 27 Jul 2021 08:05

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Visions1 »

Instead of a Nom-Acc-Gen or Nom-Acc-Obl distinction,
have an Ablative-Allative-Oblique distinction.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4108
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Omzinesý »

Visions1 wrote: 22 Feb 2024 21:56 Instead of a Nom-Acc-Gen or Nom-Acc-Obl distinction,
have an Ablative-Allative-Oblique distinction.
Is this an answer to some older discussion?
What do you mean? All languages have to have a subject case.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4196
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Ahzoh »

Visions1 wrote: 22 Feb 2024 21:56 Instead of a Nom-Acc-Gen or Nom-Acc-Obl distinction,
have an Ablative-Allative-Oblique distinction.
Can't work, at least not with that terminology. The definition of oblique is that it covers everything that isn't nominative (and vocative), absolutive, or direct.
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5118
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

But wouldn't a kind of 'source' vs. 'goal' vs. 'everything else' work? I guess it would amount to a complex combination of Split-S or Fluid-S with differential object marking and secundative alignment. So like the follwing.

Intransitive verbs split according to semantic
S-ABL V (e.g. I snore)
S-ALL V (e.g. I dry up)
S-OBL V (e.g. I walk)

Transitive verbs
A-ABL P-ALL V (e.g. I punch the wall)
A-ABL P-OBL V (e.g. I throw the ball)

Ditransitive verbs
D-ABL R-ALL T-OBL (e.g. I show the picture to my friend)
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
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4196
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Ahzoh »

Creyeditor wrote: 23 Feb 2024 17:42 But wouldn't a kind of 'source' vs. 'goal' vs. 'everything else' work? I guess it would amount to a complex combination of Split-S or Fluid-S with differential object marking and secundative alignment. So like the follwing.

Intransitive verbs split according to semantic
S-ABL V (e.g. I snore)
S-ALL V (e.g. I dry up)
S-OBL V (e.g. I walk)

Transitive verbs
A-ABL P-ALL V (e.g. I punch the wall)
A-ABL P-OBL V (e.g. I throw the ball)

Ditransitive verbs
D-ABL R-ALL T-OBL (e.g. I show the picture to my friend)
That would just end up as ablative, allative, and direct case (which marks core subject and core object).
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5118
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

But what if the direct case is also used for non-core arguments and non-arguments? Like so

ba-ce di fo-gu
I-ABL snore house-OBL
I snore in my house
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]
Visions1
greek
greek
Posts: 495
Joined: 27 Jul 2021 08:05

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Visions1 »

Omzinesý wrote: 23 Feb 2024 12:39 Is this an answer to some older discussion?
No, this was just a stupid idea that rolled into my head. It was based on a discussion in the "If Natlangs were Conlangs" thread.
Creyeditor wrote: 23 Feb 2024 17:42 But wouldn't a kind of 'source' vs. 'goal' vs. 'everything else' work? I guess it would amount to a complex combination of Split-S or Fluid-S with differential object marking and secundative alignment. So like the follwing.
Exactly what I was thinking (though if someone has an alternative, that'd also be great).
The way you described it is really cool. I was fiddling around with the idea myself after it occurred to me, and I realized you can also make things causative w' the ABL/ALL:

1-ABL snore 3-ALL - I made him snore
1-ABL dry-up - I made someone dry up
3-ABL dry-up 1-OBL - He dried me up
(Maybe 3-ABL 1-OBL dry-NOM-ALL - He gets me to dry up)

Possession could be interesting. Would it be allative or ablative? (Or just possessive...)

And what about bringing/motion constructions?
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5118
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Creyeditor »

Visions1 wrote: 26 Feb 2024 06:58 1-ABL snore 3-ALL - I made him snore
Why wouldn't this be 'I snored at/to him'?

Visions1 wrote: 26 Feb 2024 06:58 And what about bringing/motion constructions?
Well, the moved/moving thing (as well as the bringer) should be oblique and the goal should be allative, right?
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]
Visions1
greek
greek
Posts: 495
Joined: 27 Jul 2021 08:05

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Visions1 »

Creyeditor wrote: 26 Feb 2024 12:51 Why wouldn't this be 'I snored at/to him'?
Oh. Good point.
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4196
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: Random ideas: Morphosyntax

Post by Ahzoh »

I have this idea for Vrkhazhian:

The language has no unmarked ditransitive verbs and the only way to form a true ditransitive is a verb in the applicative voice, of which there are two: the dative and the instrumental (which also double as a benefactive and causative, respectively).

So, you'd have a verb "give", it can only take one argument, either the recipient ("I give (to) John") or the theme ("I give a present (away)"). The other argument would be oblique arguments, either in a dative case ("I give a present John-DAT") or an instrumental one ("I give John a present-INS").

To make "give" a true ditransitive, it must be marked in the applicative voice, probably the dative one. The recipient and the theme would then both be marked with the accusative case, suggesting a double-object construction. So, "I-NOM give-DAT John-ACC present-ACC"

Although, in Vrkhazhian, "give" is supposed to be the instrumental/causative of "have" in the sense of "I make X have Y" > "I give X Y", which means it would involve the instrumental applicative voice. "I-NOM have fish-ACC" > "I-NOM have-INS John-ACC fish-ACC"
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Post Reply