River Skasti

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

eldin raigmore wrote: 09 Apr 2024 17:16
DV82LECM wrote: 08 Apr 2024 19:36 I have been meaning to ask this for a while but wasn't sure if I ever would: has there ever been any attested language that has exhibited a tripartite plural system like I use? I have never seen one.
Look here https://books.google.com/books/about/N ... -pgAFcE0C .
Something similar to your “tripartite” plural system might be attested by one or more of the languages Corbett discusses.

I’m not certain what you mean by “tripartite plural”. I tried to find where you discussed it, but couldn’t find it quickly enough.
If you mean something similar to what Corbett calls “top-second” number systems, then I’m sure he discusses some natural language(s) that have something similar.

….

Interesting conlang!
I just mean tripartite because it appears to indicate "three parts." I am certain there is more to its definition, but I like the word.

Edit: looking up the exact definition, I think I rely on the idea of "sets." The subject is a set, the object is a set, and the both of them are a set.
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
Knox Adjacent
sinic
sinic
Posts: 302
Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by Knox Adjacent »

DV82LECM wrote: 09 Apr 2024 16:13
Knox Adjacent wrote: 09 Apr 2024 01:27 Never seen one either, but great minds think alike?
I wager. Did you derive the same?
You could say that.
https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=32 ... ku#p322389
Thi⁴ sau⁴ kai⁵³ sau⁴ chii³?
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

I expanded the tense slot.

/s-/: intransitive immediate past ("just did")
/is-/: intransitive hodiernal past ("did yesterday")
/es-/: intransitive simple past ("did")

/ʃ-/: intransitive immediate future ("be about to do")
/iʃ-/: intransitive crastinal future ("will do tomorrow")
/eʃ-/: intransitive simple future ("will do")

/-zi-/: transitive immediate past ("just did to")
/-ze-/: transitive hodiernal past ("did to yesterday")
/-za-/: transitive simple past ("did to")

/-d͡ʒi-/: transitive immediate future ("be about to do to")
/-d͡ʒe-/: transitive crastinal future ("will do to tomorrow")
/-d͡ʒa-/: transitive simple future ("will do to")

•intransitives go between subject plural and person slot.
•transitives go between root and person slot.
•the full syllable form is used with inanimate 4p verbs,
ex. /gle/ "to rain."
•3f.INTRNS.IMM.PST and 3f.INTRNS.IMM.FUT are /s'a-/ and
/ʃ'a-/; other forms follow this pattern, ex. /is'a-/.
•4p.INTRNS.IMM.PST and 4p.INTRNS.IMM.FUT are /skwe-/ and /ʃkwe-/; other forms follow this pattern, ex. /eskwe-/.
•/is- iʃ- es- eʃ-/ with plural /a-/ render /i̯es- i̯eʃ- e̯as- e̯aʃ-/.

Real talk, as an ankyloglot, making nearly all tense entirely dependent upon front vowel space makes me kinda sad. 😫🤣
Last edited by DV82LECM on 11 Feb 2025 00:35, edited 1 time in total.
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

Collective Nouns, /yu-/, and their alignment:
•there are collective nouns, like níene "leaves/foliage".
•these do not take the plural marker /a-/, and are thought of as singular noun, though can take ordinal numbers.

•/ju-/ marks 4p-4p.
•collective nouns plural reference pattern:
SUBJ: base phrase and base phrase + /o=/.
OBJ: base phrase and base phrase + /a=/.

Ày̌emóa itǫ́ àyutħúoyo níenenè yowú.
[ˌa.ge.ˈmo̯a i.ˈtõ ˌa.jut.ˈxu̯o.jo ˈni̯e.ne.ˌne jo.ˈwu]
a-y̌emóa itǫ́ a=yu-tħ>uo<-yo níene-~ yo-wu
PLUR-tree-NOM that SUB.PLUR=4p.4p-possess-CLS leaves-ACC 4p-be.yellow
"Those trees have yellow leaves."
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

I haven't posted in a while, but have been making BTS updates. I wanted to show a full update to the verbal template.

Template form:
number-person-tense-ROOT-polarity-modality-aspect-voice-adjective-clause

Number:
/a=/: SUBJ.PLR.
/o=/: OBJ.PLR.
/ẽ=/: DUAL.PLR.
•/a/ works with transitive and intransitive verbs.
•/o ẽ/ work with transitive verbs only.
•these are clitics, thus cannot act without pronouns.

Intransitive Pronouns:
/we-/: 1p ("I")
/le-/: 2p ("you")
/ka-/: 3m ("he")
/xa-/: 3f ("she")
/jo-/: 4p ("one/it")

Transitive Pronouns:

Code: Select all

        1p	2p	3m	3f	4p
1p		wi-	pi-	hi-	pu-
2p	li-		ti-	θi-	tu-	
3m	pe-	te-	ke-	k'e-	ko-
3f	he-	θe-	x'e-	xe-	xo-
4p	bu-	du-	go-	γo-	ju-
•/pu tu ko xo/ are used most, implying something done to other things, animate or not, *by* humans.
•/bu du go ɣo/ are used for something is done *to* humans, most often pertaining to a living thing.
•/ju/ is used when something non-human does something to another non-human.

Tense:
/s=/: intransitive immediate past ("just did")
/is=/: intransitive recent past ("recently did")
/es=/: intransitive remote past ("did a long time ago")

/ʃ=/: intransitive immediate future ("be about to do")
/iʃ=/: intransitive recent future ("will do soon")
/eʃ=/: intransitive remote future ("will do in a while")
•these go *before* intransitive pronouns.

/-zi-/: transitive immediate past ("just did to")
/-ze-/: transitive recent past ("recently did to")
/-za-/: transitive remote past ("did to a long time ago")

/-d͡ʒi-/: transitive immediate future ("be about to do to")
/-d͡ʒe-/: transitive recent future ("will do to soon")
/-d͡ʒa-/ transitive remote future ("will do to in a while")
•these go *after* transitive pronouns.

•the full syllable form is used with inanimate 4p verbs.
•3f.INTRNS.IMM.PST and 3f.INTRNS.IMM.FUT are /s'a-/ and
/ʃ'a-/; other forms follow this pattern, ex. /is'a-/.
•4p.INTRNS.IMM.PST and 4p.INTRNS.IMM.FUT are /skwe-/ and /ʃkwe-/; other forms follow this pattern, ex. /eskwe-/.
•/is= iʃ= es= eʃ=/ with plural /a=/ render /i̯es= i̯eʃ= e̯as= e̯aʃ=/.

ROOT

Polarity:
/-k(u)-/: negation ("not")
•fuses with modality, aspect, and voice slots.
•all alternative forms exist below; they reflect that morpheme collapsed down to it with no other intervening slot.
•once activated, all slot forms after are affirmative.

Modality:
/-Ø/: imperative ("do...!")
/-ku-Ø/: ("don't...!")
/-ma~wã-/: interrogative ("do...?)
/-kmo~go̯ã-/: ("don't...?")
/-na~lã-/: emphatic ("DO...!")
/-kno~glõ-/: ("DON'T...!")
/-mna~blã-/: interrogative emphatic ("DO...?")
/-kmona~go̯ana-/ ("DON'T...?")
/-ðã-/: capacitive ("can...")
/-ksõ-/ ("cannot...")
/-sma~swã-/: ("can...?")
/-ksoma-/ ("can't...?")
/-sna~slã-/: obligative ("must...")
/-ksona-/: ("mustn't...")
/-smana~swana-/: ("must...?")
/-ksomna-/ ("mustn't...?")
/-ʒã-/: desiderative ("want...")
/-k(t)ʃõ-/ ("don't want...")
/-ʃma~ʃwã-/: ("want...?")
/-k(t)ʃoma-/ ("don't want...?")
/-ʃna~ʃlã-/: necessitative ("need...")
/-k(t)ʃona-/: ("needn't...")
/-ʃmana~ʃwana-/: ("need...?")
/-k(t)ʃomna-/ ("don't need...?)

/-ŋa~jã-/: conditional ("would...")
/-(c)çõ-/ ("wouldn't...")
/-kma~gwã-/: ("would...?")
/-(c)çoma-/ ("wouldn't...?")
/-kna~glã-/: exhortative ("should...")
/-(c)çona-/ ("shouldn't...")
/-kmana~gwana-/: ("should...?")
/-(c)çomna-/ ("shouldn't...?")
/-ksã-/: conditional capacitive ("would be able...")
/-(c)çõðã-/ ("wouldn't be able...")
/-ksama-/: ("would be able...?")
/-(c)çosma-/ ("wouldn't be able...?")
/-ksana-/: conditional obligative ("would have to...")
/-(c)çosna-/ ("wouldn't have to...")
/-ksamna-/: ("would have to...?")
/-(c)çosmena-/ ("wouldn't have to...?")
/-k(t)ʃã-/: conditional desiderative ("would want...")
/-(c)çõʒã-/ ("wouldn't want...")
/-k(t)ʃama-/: ("would want...?")
/-(c)çoʃma-/ ("wouldn't want...?")
/-k(t)ʃana-/: conditional necessitative ("would need...")
/-(c)çoʃna-/ ("wouldn't need...")
/-k(t)ʃamna-/: ("would need...?")
/-(c)çoʃmena-/ ("wouldn't need...?")

/-ʔã-/: hypothetical ("might...")
/-k'õ-/ ("might not...")
/-xma~(p)ɸã-/: ("might...?")
/-k'oma-/ ("might not...?")
/-xna~(t)ɬã-/: potential ("may...")
/-k'ona-/ ("may not...")
/-xmana~(p)ɸana-/: ("may...?")
/-k'omna-/ ("may not...?")
/-st͡sã-/: hypothetical capacitive ("might be able...")
/-k'õðã-/ ("might not be able...")
/-st͡sama-/: ("might be able...?")
/-k'osma-/ ("might not be able...?")
/-st͡sana-/: hypothetical obligative ("might have to...")
/-k'osna-/ ("might not have to...")
/-st͡samna-/: ("might have to...?")
/-k'osmena-/ ("might not have to...?")
/-ʃt͡ʃã-/: hypothetical desiderative ("might want...")
/-k'õʒã-/ ("might not want...")
/-ʃt͡ʃama-/: ("might want...?")
/-k'oʃma-/ ("might not want...?")
/-ʃt͡ʃana-/: hypothetical necessitative ("might need...")
/-k'oʃna-/ ("might not need...")
/-ʃt͡ʃamna-/: ("might need...?")
/-k'oʃmena-/ ("might not need...?")
•allomorphs derive from dissimilation of morphemes in direct proximity to a root ending in a nasal vowel.

Aspect:
/-x(i)-/: perfect ("have done")
/-k'u-/: ("not have done")
/-(t)ʃ(i)-/: habitual ("do often")
/-kʃu-/: ("not do often")
/-s(i)-/: continuous ("keep doing")
/-ksu-/: ("not keep doing")

Voice:
/-ka-/: causative ("cause to do")
/-k'o-/: ("not cause to do")
/-ta-/: passive ("be done to")
/-kto-/: ("not be done to")
/-pa-/: reflexive ("do to oneself")
/-kpo-/: ("not do to oneself")
/-kta-/: passive causative ("be caused to do")
/-k'ota-/: ("not be caused to do")
/-kpa-/: reflexive causative ("cause to do to oneself")
/-k'opa-/: ("not cause to do to oneself")
•in similar fashion with negation, this slot fuses with aspect to render forms /-sCe- -ʃCe- -xCe-/.

Adjective:
•this is a slot for stative verbs, creating adverbs.

Clausal Conjuction (Skasti "comma"):
/-jo/: "that (which)"
•this ends a clausal phrase, allowing the break for the next.
•allows higher constructions of verbal phrases.
•is the slot for morphemes like, 'so' or 'although.'
Last edited by DV82LECM on 17 Feb 2025 16:33, edited 48 times in total.
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6420
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by eldin raigmore »

I like this!
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4397
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by Omzinesý »

DV82LECM wrote: 28 Nov 2024 08:55
/-st͡si-/: perfect progressive ("have been doing")
/-k'us(i)-/: ("not have been doing")
What does this really mean?
I think English "have been doing" rather means that the action still goes on.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
lurker
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1570
Joined: 28 Jul 2023 14:08
Location: The City of Eternal Noon

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by lurker »

Omzinesý wrote: 28 Nov 2024 22:01
DV82LECM wrote: 28 Nov 2024 08:55
/-st͡si-/: perfect progressive ("have been doing")
/-k'us(i)-/: ("not have been doing")
What does this really mean?
I think English "have been doing" rather means that the action still goes on.
IIRC, at least in English, the perfect have... indicates a present state resulting from a past action.

I have eaten, so I am full.

With the progressive I think it indicates a present state resulting from an ongoing, but not presently occurring series of connected events... maybe? Not a linguist.

I have been eating too much, so I have gained weight.

BTW this is great. Phonology has always been my weakest area of conlanging, hence why I gravitate to xenolangs, and you've put way more thought into the phonology than I could ever manage.
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

Omzinesý wrote: 28 Nov 2024 22:01
DV82LECM wrote: 28 Nov 2024 08:55
/-st͡si-/: perfect progressive ("have been doing")
/-k'us(i)-/: ("not have been doing")
What does this really mean?
I think English "have been doing" rather means that the action still goes on.
I read somewhere that English does have such a combination like you mentioned. I imagine that if the moment arose to imply such a thing, it's not bad to have it. As much, I decided upon the same with the habitual -- something likely less common to use. I admit to being rather English-centric with my translations and morpheme constructions. However, there is a slight pattern to it; I employ deixis in distance, intention, severity, and probability, almost everywhere, utilizing sound symbolism as mnemonic devices. This is a philosophical language in some right, as well.
Last edited by DV82LECM on 28 Nov 2024 22:46, edited 1 time in total.
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

lurker wrote: 28 Nov 2024 22:13
Omzinesý wrote: 28 Nov 2024 22:01
DV82LECM wrote: 28 Nov 2024 08:55
/-st͡si-/: perfect progressive ("have been doing")
/-k'us(i)-/: ("not have been doing")
What does this really mean?
I think English "have been doing" rather means that the action still goes on.
IIRC, at least in English, the perfect have... indicates a present state resulting from a past action.

I have eaten, so I am full.

With the progressive I think it indicates a present state resulting from an ongoing, but not presently occurring series of connected events... maybe? Not a linguist.

I have been eating too much, so I have gained weight.

BTW this is great. Phonology has always been my weakest area of conlanging, hence why I gravitate to xenolangs, and you've put way more thought into the phonology than I could ever manage.
You hit the nail. That's about what I imagine it means, too. Also, phonetics was always my strong suit. It was so much so that grammar was usually so infrequently on the table. I tried several templates (Papuan, Bantu, and Arabic), but synthesis and this phono-aesthetic template were the dream combination. I sincerely shock myself with how intricate I've made it.
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

eldin raigmore wrote: 09 Apr 2024 17:16
DV82LECM wrote: 08 Apr 2024 19:36 I have been meaning to ask this for a while but wasn't sure if I ever would: has there ever been any attested language that has exhibited a tripartite plural system like I use? I have never seen one.
Look here https://books.google.com/books/about/N ... -pgAFcE0C .
Something similar to your “tripartite” plural system might be attested by one or more of the languages Corbett discusses.
Hey, Eldin, I was always meaning to ask, could you point me to the exact article that you were referring to?
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

New noun plural paradigm:
•/a-/ is the universal plural marker for consonants; for vowels, /a-/ merges with word-initial /i u e o a/, rendering /i̯e u̯o e̯a o̯a aʔa/; nasals follow this pattern (root-initial /i̯e u̯o e̯a o̯a/ + nasals become /ji wu je wo/, intervocalically).

New vocab:
luo "eye"
ikcéya "horse"
pcų "to hear"
hwie "arrow"

Ępùdepcų́kcǫyò iekcéyą awési ìeskweyé.
[ẽ.ˌpu.zep.ˈsũk.sõ.ˌjo i̯ek.ˈse.jã a.ˈwe.θi ˌi̯e.skwe.ˈje]
ę=pu-de-pcų-ku-zą-yo a-ikcéya-~ a-we-si a=is=yo-ye
DUAL.PLUR=1p.4p-REC.TRNS.PST-hear-NEG-CAP-CLS PLUR-horse-ACC PLUR-1p-AND SUBJ.PLUR=REC.INTRNS.PST=4p-come.
"We weren't able to hear the horses that were coming toward us."
Last edited by DV82LECM on 17 Feb 2025 13:30, edited 3 times in total.
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

Still working on new grammar, but as I did for the full verbal system, this is the noun system. I had scattered the information that I wrote over the last year in a way I felt needed a (far) more comprehensive update.


River Skasti is a nominative-accusative language, with a somewhat flexible word order. The nominative is unmarked. The basic plural for nouns is the same as the verbal /a-/.

Accusative:
•this is indicated by the nasalization of the final vowel; for words ending in a nasal vowel or /mV nV ŋV/, a dummy syllable consisting of /-nV/ manifests (/V/ is an oral shadow vowel of the final root vowel, /i e ie/ > /e/, /u o uo/ > /o/, /a ea oa/ > /a/, making the final root nasal become oral).

Genitive:
•this is indicated by the diphthongization of final root vowels or split by a central /ʔ/.

/-i/ > /-ie/, /-u/ > /-uo/
/-e/ > /-ea/, /-o/ > /-oa/
/-a/ > /-aʔa/
/-ie/ > /-iʔe/, /-uo/ > /-uʔo/
/-ea/ > /-eʔa/, /-oa/ > /-oʔa/
/-ji/ > /-jiʔe/, /-wu/ > /-wuʔo/
/-je/ > /-jeʔa/, /-wo/ > /-woʔa/
+ all nasal equivalents

la ("(the) water...")
lá'a ("(the) water's...")
("...(the) water.")

y̌emóa ("the tree...")
y̌emó'a ("the tree's...")
y̌emóana ("...the tree.")

heščíke ("the wolf...")
heščíkea ("the wolf's...")
heščíkę ("...the wolf.")

ay̌lų́ ("the enemies...")
ay̌lúǫ ("the enemies'...")
ay̌lúno ("...the enemies.")

Genitive Pronouns:
/wi̯e~wij-/: 1p.GEN "my"
/li̯e~lij-/: 2p.GEN "your"
/ke̯a~kej-/: 3m.GEN "his"
/xe̯a~xej-/ 3f.GEN "her"
/ju̯o~juw-/ 4p.GEN "one's/its"
•one corresponds to consonants and the other, vowels.

Genitive Plurals:
/e=/: SUBJ.PLR.GEN.
/u=/: OBJ.PLR.GEN.
/ĩ=/: DUAL.PLR.GEN.

keahána "his sister"
èkeahána "their (men) sister"
ùkeahána "his sisters"
į̀keahána "their (men) sisters"

ħeyìmeňú "her flower"
èħeyìmeňú "their (women) flower"
ùħeyìmeňú "her flowers"
į̀ħeyìmeňú "their (women) flowers"

Full list of other cases:

Dative: /-lu/
lálu "to/for the water"

Locative: /-ʔu/
lá'u "at/on/inside (the shallows of) the water"

Andative: /-θi/
lási "toward the water"

Adessive: /-s'u/
lás'u "onto/into the water"

Venative: /-ʃe/
láše "from the water"

Elative: /-ʃ'o/
láš'o "off of/out of the water"

Superessive: /-bu/
láw̌u "above the water"

Subessive: /-do/
láło "(deep) underneath the water"

Perlative: /-wo/
láwo "along/next to/on the side of the water"

Prolative: /-je/
láye "between/through water"

Instrumental: /-gi/
láy̌i "with/by (means of)/using the water"

Comitative: /-ha/
láha "with/and the water"

Privative: /-x'a/
láh'a "without the water"

Comparative: /-te/
láte "similar to/like the water"

Partative: /-pi/
lápi "some of/part of the water"

Vocative: /-ka/
Láka! "oh, Water"

Demonstratives:
("this")
itǫ́ ("that")
ełwą́ ("yon")

ku ("here")
ikó ("there")
ey̌wá ("yonder")
•these go after a noun but before a verb, and never phrasal final.
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6420
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by eldin raigmore »

DV82LECM wrote: 30 Nov 2024 04:35
eldin raigmore wrote: 09 Apr 2024 17:16 ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
Look here https://books.google.com/books/about/N ... -pgAFcE0C .
Something similar to your “tripartite” plural system might be attested by one or more of the languages Corbett discusses.
Hey, Eldin, I was always meaning to ask, could you point me to the exact article that you were referring to?
Article #45, it seems. Pages from around page 120 to around page 131.
Especially page 120; it has a chart.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 23 Jan 2025 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6420
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by eldin raigmore »

DV82LECM wrote: 30 Nov 2024 04:35
eldin raigmore wrote: 09 Apr 2024 17:16
DV82LECM wrote: 08 Apr 2024 19:36 I have been meaning to ask this for a while but wasn't sure if I ever would: has there ever been any attested language that has exhibited a tripartite plural system like I use? I have never seen one.
Look here https://books.google.com/books/about/N ... -pgAFcE0C .
Something similar to your “tripartite” plural system might be attested by one or more of the languages Corbett discusses.
Hey, Eldin, I was always meaning to ask, could you point me to the exact article that you were referring to?
The online excerpt, starts talking about top/second systems, in section 4.5 Top and second systems on page 120,
in Integrating number values and the Animacy hierarchy .
OTOH everything between pages 89 and 177 MIGHT contain something you’d find useful.
….
In some polysynthetic (? maybe I mean agglutinating languages?), a main verb with both a subject (agent) and an object (patient),
is preceded by a portmanteau morpheme which fuses some semantic information and some syntactic information, about the subject and about the object.
In my limited experience,
some of the information is told about the subject while also being told about the object;
some of the information is told only about the subject, not about the object;
and some of the information is told about the object, but not about the subject.

For instance; maybe it tells about the subject’s person and number, but not about its definiteness nor gender nor case;
while also telling about the object’s number and definiteness and gender, but not about its person nor case.
(I probably got some details wrong!)

That sounds like it might have been similar to your goal; perhaps moreso than the top/second systems.

….

How are you ?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6420
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by eldin raigmore »

DV82LECM wrote: 08 Apr 2024 19:36 I have been meaning to ask this for a while but wasn't sure if I ever would: has there ever been any attested language that has exhibited a tripartite plural system like I use? I have never seen one.
I have been looking for your description of your tripartite system of marking grammatical number; but I can’t find it!

I assume it’s a way of marking a verb that takes at least a nominative subject or agent and at least one accusative object or patient, to agree in number with both the subject and the object?

I’ll be stoked to learn!
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

eldin raigmore wrote: 28 Feb 2025 23:29
DV82LECM wrote: 08 Apr 2024 19:36 I have been meaning to ask this for a while but wasn't sure if I ever would: has there ever been any attested language that has exhibited a tripartite plural system like I use? I have never seen one.
I have been looking for your description of your tripartite system of marking grammatical number; but I can’t find it!

I assume it’s a way of marking a verb that takes at least a nominative subject or agent and at least one accusative object or patient, to agree in number with both the subject and the object?

I’ll be stoked to learn!
You're saying that in that set of articles, you can't find it? Well then, Knox and I are the "progenitors" of something, dare I say, new? (He just seems to do his with an ergative-absolutive alignment.) Below is what it essentially is.

wilúhu "I see you."
àwilúhu "we see you."
òwilúhu "I see y'all."
ę̀wilúhu "we see y'all."
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6420
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by eldin raigmore »

DV82LECM wrote: 28 Feb 2025 23:39 You're saying that in that set of articles, you can't find it?
No, I’m about 90% sure that’s not what I meant.
DV82LECM wrote:Well then, Knox and I are the "progenitors" of something, dare I say, new? (He just seems to do his with an ergative-absolutive alignment.) Below is what it essentially is.

wilúhu "I see you."
àwilúhu "we see you."
òwilúhu "I see y'all."
ę̀wilúhu "we see y'all."
Why is it tripartite?
Unmarked=[w-]= singular subject, singular object
[àw-] = plural subject, singular object
[òw-] = singular subject, plural object
[ę̀w-] = plural subject, plural object

A bit like tlHingaan or Swahili or other Bantu languages; or at least, I guess so!

I count four parts ? Or do I ?
DV82LECM
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by DV82LECM »

eldin raigmore wrote: 01 Mar 2025 00:04
DV82LECM wrote: 28 Feb 2025 23:39 You're saying that in that set of articles, you can't find it?
No, I’m about 90% sure that’s not what I meant.
DV82LECM wrote:Well then, Knox and I are the "progenitors" of something, dare I say, new? (He just seems to do his with an ergative-absolutive alignment.) Below is what it essentially is.

wilúhu "I see you."
àwilúhu "we see you."
òwilúhu "I see y'all."
ę̀wilúhu "we see y'all."
Why is it tripartite?
Unmarked=[w-]= singular subject, singular object
[àw-] = plural subject, singular object
[òw-] = singular subject, plural object
[ę̀w-] = plural subject, plural object

A bit like tlHingaan or Swahili or other Bantu languages; or at least, I guess so!

I count four parts ? Or do I ?
/a= o= ẽ=/, /wi-/, /luhu/

/a=/ derives from nominal plural /a-/.
/o=/ derives from a sense had where roundedness is associated with "otherness," or even "negative/nothingness."
/ẽ=/ derives from wénu "two."
•these never act independently without pronouns, thus why I consider them clitics.

I say "tripartite" for there being three morphemes, but I can easily amend that. Frankly, as this was revealing itself, I never figured to consider the base form as a null. Since there are no pronouns that aren't singular by nature, I just figured the system only ever had to be notably threefold. The proclitics I came up with ONLY refer to plurality, itself.

Also, I utilize this same principle with possession, which I wager (more than my verbs) that few languages do.

keahána "his sister"
èkeahána "their (men) sister"
ùkeahána "his sisters"
į̀keahána "their (men) sisters"

ħeyìmeňú "her flower"
èħeyìmeňú "their (women) flower"
ùħeyìmeňú "her flowers"
į̀ħeyìmeňú "their (women) flowers"
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6420
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: River Skasti (new grammar)

Post by eldin raigmore »

DV82LECM wrote: 01 Mar 2025 00:07
eldin raigmore wrote: 01 Mar 2025 00:04
DV82LECM wrote: 28 Feb 2025 23:39 You're saying that in that set of articles, you can't find it?
No, I’m about 90% sure that’s not what I meant.
DV82LECM wrote:Well then, Knox and I are the "progenitors" of something, dare I say, new? (He just seems to do his with an ergative-absolutive alignment.) Below is what it essentially is.

wilúhu "I see you."
àwilúhu "we see you."
òwilúhu "I see y'all."
ę̀wilúhu "we see y'all."
Why is it tripartite?
Unmarked=[w-]= singular subject, singular object
[àw-] = plural subject, singular object
[òw-] = singular subject, plural object
[ę̀w-] = plural subject, plural object

A bit like tlHingaan or Swahili or other Bantu languages; or at least, I guess so!

I count four parts ? Or do I ?
DV82LECM wrote: /a= o= ẽ=/, /wi-/, /luhu/

/a=/ derives from nominal plural /a-/.
/o=/ derives from a sense had where roundedness is associated with "otherness," or even "negative/nothingness."
/ẽ=/ derives from wénu "two."
•these never act independently without pronouns, thus why I consider them clitics.

I say "tripartite" for there being three morphemes, but I can easily amend that. Frankly, as this was revealing itself, I never figured to consider the base form as a null. Since there are no pronouns that aren't singular by nature, I just figured the system only ever had to be notably threefold. The proclitics I came up with ONLY refer to plurality, itself.
Oh!
Thanks!
DV82LECM wrote: Also, I utilize this same principle with possession, which I wager (more than my verbs) that few languages do.

keahána "his sister"
èkeahána "their (men) sister"
ùkeahána "his sisters"
į̀keahána "their (men) sisters"

ħeyìmeňú "her flower"
èħeyìmeňú "their (women) flower"
ùħeyìmeňú "her flowers"
į̀ħeyìmeňú "their (women) flowers"

THAT is GREAT!
Post Reply