There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Is Esperanto Indo-European?
From: Dustfinger Batailleur
1.2. Re: Is Esperanto Indo-European?
From: Padraic Brown
1.3. Re: Is Esperanto Indo-European?
From: Leonardo Castro
2a. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: James Kane
2b. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: H. S. Teoh
2c. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: Matthew Boutilier
2d. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: Matthew Boutilier
2e. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: Adam Walker
2f. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: James Kane
2g. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: Padraic Brown
2h. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: Herman Miller
2i. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
From: H. S. Teoh
3. Regional Pronounciations
From: Ph. D.
4a. Re: TECH: SIL Toolbox - Markers
From: taliesin the storyteller
5a. Re: Language preservation and people agglomeration.
From: Leonardo Castro
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Is Esperanto Indo-European?
Posted by: "Dustfinger Batailleur" dustfinge...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 2:40 pm ((PDT))
If you're looking for similarity of features, why not use the wave model?
On 5 June 2013 17:15, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/6/5 R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>:
> >
> > IMO the whole notion of classifying conlangs in natlang
> > language families is to miss the point both of what conlangs
> > are about and why historical linguistics theory classifies
> > languages in language families - that's not always easy.
>
> I guess that classification into language families also makes language
> learning easier for us. When we start studying Romanian, we probably
> think "well, I'm going to study another Romance language" and we keep
> comparing everything with the other Romance languages we already know,
> what helps memorization. We know the best place to save each new
> language we study in our brains.
>
> In this sense, knowing that a conlang is Indo-European makes us
> automatically think "so, it's very probably non-tonal, its words may
> have internal inflexions and it may have conjugations to express
> different times".
>
> Naturally, most people are neither conlangers nor linguists and will
> study just one or two foreign language in their lives, so language
> classification is probably completely irrelevant to them.
>
> >
> > For more information, look in the archives ;)
> >
> > --
> > Ray
> > ==================================
> > http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> > ==================================
> > "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
> > for individual beings and events."
> > [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
>
Messages in this topic (31)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Is Esperanto Indo-European?
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 4:59 pm ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 6/5/13, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Can a conlang be classified into the conventional natlang families?
>
> >> > There's been some discussion of this here or on AUXLANG in the past.
>
> > It was here, some time last year. "Indo-European" is defined by
> > descent from a common ancestor through an unbroken continuity of
> > speakers.
>
> Don't Modern Hebrew and Sanskrit pose a problem to this
> definition?
No more than Latin or any other ancient language that finds new life in a
new age among people that never spoke it natively. Me, I don't place so
much emphasis on the "unbroken continuity of speakers" aspect of the
definition. After all, Cornish remains a Celtic language even though it's
continuity of speakers was broken for some decades between Mrs. Pentreath
and the modern revival. Revived Hebrew and Modern Latin or Modern
Sanskrit are clearly modified though descended from the ancient languages
spoken by their original communities. Heck, even *ancient* Sanskrit was
modified by that great conlanger, Panini! ;))
Tweakage of these "modernised" or "revived" languages notwithstanding,
they are clearly direct descendants of older natural languages. (English
and French are also tweaked to some degree -- both have standard and
educated forms that are consciously maintained and preserved from normal
change, but they are not considered to be any less Germanic or Romance
for it.) E-o may well be on its way to becoming a naturalised conlang, but
can't be said to be a direct descendant of any language. It was, after
all, the creation from whole cloth of its singular inventor.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (31)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Is Esperanto Indo-European?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 4:08 am ((PDT))
2013/6/5 Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com>:
> Tweakage of these "modernised" or "revived" languages notwithstanding,
> they are clearly direct descendants of older natural languages. (English
> and French are also tweaked to some degree -- both have standard and
> educated forms that are consciously maintained and preserved from normal
> change, but they are not considered to be any less Germanic or Romance
> for it.) E-o may well be on its way to becoming a naturalised conlang, but
> can't be said to be a direct descendant of any language. It was, after
> all, the creation from whole cloth of its singular inventor.
AFAIK there was little influence of non-Indo-European languages in
E-o, so it's a descendant of Indo-European languages in this sense.
BTW, the notion that a language can't be, say, Indo-European and
Afro-Asiatic at the same time comes from a strict tree model, and I
see no reason for it to be strict.
>
> Padraic
>
>
Messages in this topic (31)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "James Kane" kane...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 3:46 pm ((PDT))
The latest lang that I've been working on, Mulesuax, is quite analytic. While
it doesn't feature case endings, it does feature case particles that come
before the noun in question, as Mulesuax is strongly head-initial.
So _ua_ is used for 'X is a Y', which happens to be the third person singular
pronoun (dua for the plural):
_ua ba mulessuas mo ttlamt_
is-subj.-Mulesuax-d.o.-language
'Mulesuax is a language'
For adjectives, 'X is Y', the verb _banh_, to have, is used:
_banh ba do-kksums mo liksia_
have-subj.-pl-shaman-d.o.-honourable
'The shamans have honour/The shamans are honourable'
The case particle does a sort of nominalisation on the adjective, so either
translation is acceptable.
For both of these constructions, it's simply verb-subject-direct.object
James
On 6/06/2013, at 9:15 AM, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i am interested in how your conlangs that put case endings on nouns make
> nominal predicates (especially if you have a zero-copula!).
>
> so, like, if you have to say "the X is a Y," "she is Z," do you have a
> special way of doing that? even if your way is just to put the same case
> ending on X and Y, and/or insert a word for "is," i'd still like to hear
> about it, with examples.
>
> this might not even be something that people have considered as an area for
> innovation (well, especially if you have a nice word meaning "is").
>
> but my incipient proto-lang does not have a word for "is" (well, it does,
> but its usage is quite restricted, à la Turkish). rather, predicate nouns
> are marked by the *absence* of the nominative ending. so:
>
> āχ-æn
> man-NOM
> 'a/the man'
>
> tuqān-æn
> swordsman-NOM
> 'a/the swordsman'
>
> and you can do:
>
> āχ-æn tuqān-Ø
> man-NOM swordsman-PRED
> 'The man is a swordsman.'
>
> similarly with question-words:
>
> kæʔn-æn tɬin nis-Ø ?
> name-NOM thou.GEN what?-PRED
> 'What is your name?' (using *nisæn 'what (kind)?')
>
> but i think there are a lot of other possibilities, and i would like to
> hear what you people have done, if this is something that you've given
> attention to.
>
> matt
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 4:47 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:15:41PM -0500, Matthew Boutilier wrote:
> i am interested in how your conlangs that put case endings on nouns make
> nominal predicates (especially if you have a zero-copula!).
>
> so, like, if you have to say "the X is a Y," "she is Z," do you have a
> special way of doing that? even if your way is just to put the same case
> ending on X and Y, and/or insert a word for "is," i'd still like to hear
> about it, with examples.
Tatari Faran has no copula. At all. Before I present the examples, I
should explain that in TF, NP's have the structure:
noun [modifiers] case_marker
IOW, nouns cannot stand alone; they are required to be paired with a
case marker. However, interestingly enough, in nominal predicates the
predicating noun *does* stand alone! Here are some examples:
1) samat sa.
man CASE2:MASC
A man.
2) bata' sa.
chief CASE2:MASC
A chief.
3) samat sa bata'-0.
man CASE2:MASC chief-PRED
The man is a chief.
4) bata' sa samat-0.
chief CASE2:MASC man-PRED
The chief is a man.
This is strikingly similar to your protolang's omission of case ending
in nominal predicates!
However, the story doesn't end here. Sentences (3) and (4) above, while
grammatically valid, feel like they "lack" something... because in TF,
indicative clauses are usually strengthened by words called "finalizers"
-- words synonymous with the main verb / predicative adjective that are
tacked onto the end of a sentence to re-emphasize its indicative
quality. These finalizers are omitted from questions and irrealis /
subjunctive clauses, as an overt gesture of non-finality. So the usual
pattern for a simple TF clause is:
NP verb FIN
or:
NP adjective FIN
However, (3) and (4) above have the structure:
NP noun
-- they are missing the finalizer usually heard at the end of an
indicative clause. Therefore, to give proper closure to the utterance,
TF speakers often insert the word _ai_, which by itself is an
interjection meaning "yes" or "indeed":
3b) samat sa bata' ai.
man CASE2:MASC chief FIN
The man is a chief.
When used in this context, _ai_ loses some of its original meaning of
"yes", so I left it untranslated. (TF finalizers are often cognate with
other semantically-rich words, but they themselves carry no such
semantic content, having been reduced to a mere grammatical function.)
This usage of _ai_ is still a relatively new innovation in TF, so its
use isn't as consistent as the usual verbal/adjectival finalizers are,
yet. So (3) and (4) are still grammatical utterances, but (3b) is
becoming more preferred thanks to analogy with verbal/adjectival
clauses.
The choice of _ai_ as finalizer also lets one add emphasis to nominal
predicates -- "the man is a chief *indeed*!". It also lets you
substitute the opposite finalizer _bai_ (on its own meaning "no") to
effect a negation of the predicate:
5) samat sa bata' bai.
man CASE2:MASC chief NEG.FIN
The man is not a chief.
According to tradition grammar, (5) should be worded as:
5b) samat sa bata' be.
man CASE2:MASC chief NEG
The man is not a chief.
_be_ being the usual nominal negator, so here the predicate NP is _bata'
be_, whereas in (5), the NP is _bata'_ and _bai_ is a finalizer tacked
on after the predicate. (5), however, is quickly catching on among TF
speakers, since it fits in better with the NP PRED FIN formula used in
verbal/adjectival clauses. (5b) is now being heard as somewhat
incomplete due to the missing finalizer, and indeed, _bai_ looks awfully
like it was a historical contraction of _be ai_, thus showing the same
tendency toward requiring a finalizer -- the same one! -- as the
non-negated nominal predicate.
> this might not even be something that people have considered as an
> area for innovation (well, especially if you have a nice word meaning
> "is").
In retrospect, I'm quite happy that I chose to outright ban "is" from
Tatari Faran from day one. TF has absolutely no copula to speak of; it's
not just eliding the present tense copula as many natlangs tend to do.
To express things that in English (and many other natlangs) would use a
verb to-be for, TF uses various alternative constructions and
periphrases. This choice has led to some rather interesting structures
as you can see above.
> but my incipient proto-lang does not have a word for "is" (well, it
> does, but its usage is quite restricted, à la Turkish). rather,
> predicate nouns are marked by the *absence* of the nominative ending.
> so:
I'm quite pleasantly surprised at how similar this is to TF. :)
[...]
> similarly with question-words:
>
> kæʔn-æn tɬin nis-Ø ?
> name-NOM thou.GEN what?-PRED
> 'What is your name?' (using *nisæn 'what (kind)?')
[...]
When it comes to questions with nominal predicates, TF has several modes
of expression. I won't use asking for names as example, because TF uses
an atypical idiom there, but let's say we take the previous examples
"the man is a chief" and turn that into questions of various sorts:
6) sii so samat sa?
what CASE2:NEUT man CASE2:MASC
Who is the man? I.e., what is his occupation?
(3) or (3b) would be a typical answer.
(The neuter gender is used with _sii_ here as a generic epicene.
Strictly speaking, it should be _sii sa_ with the masculine case marker,
since the referent is masculine, but it appears that this stricter usage
is starting to be displaced by the more generic neuter _sii so_.)
7) samat sa bata' ta?
man CASE2:MASC chief Q
Is the man a chief? (One may answer _ai_ "yes" or _bai_ "no", or
use (3b) which conveniently has _ai_ embedded at the end!)
8) sia so bata'?
who CASE2:NEUT chief
Who is the chief?
Note the lack of finalizers in (6) through (8), which is an overt
gesture of a non-indicative mood. This lack is especially felt in (8),
where the case marker for _bata'_ is omitted.
The difference between (6) and (8) is that in (6), the referent, the
man, is already known, and we're asking about who he is, in the sense of
his occupation -- is he the chief, or the village clown? Whereas in (8),
we don't know who among the many possible candidates might be the chief,
and we're asking who is the one filling that role. Hence the use of a
distinct interrogative noun _sia_ instead of _sii_. This distinction
also shows up in the presence of the case marker after _samat_ in (6),
and its overt absence after _bata'_ in (8).
T
--
Кто везде - тот нигде.
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 5:20 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:15:41PM -0500, Matthew Boutilier wrote:
> > i am interested in how your conlangs that put case endings on nouns make
> > nominal predicates (especially if you have a zero-copula!).
> >
> > so, like, if you have to say "the X is a Y," "she is Z," do you have a
> > special way of doing that? even if your way is just to put the same case
> > ending on X and Y, and/or insert a word for "is," i'd still like to hear
> > about it, with examples.
>
> Tatari Faran has no copula. At all. Before I present the examples, I
> should explain that in TF, NP's have the structure:
>
> noun [modifiers] case_marker
>
> IOW, nouns cannot stand alone; they are required to be paired with a
> case marker. However, interestingly enough, in nominal predicates the
> predicating noun *does* stand alone! Here are some examples:
>
> 1) samat sa.
> man CASE2:MASC
> A man.
>
> 2) bata' sa.
> chief CASE2:MASC
> A chief.
>
> 3) samat sa bata'-0.
> man CASE2:MASC chief-PRED
> The man is a chief.
>
> 4) bata' sa samat-0.
> chief CASE2:MASC man-PRED
> The chief is a man.
>
> This is strikingly similar to your protolang's omission of case ending
> in nominal predicates!
>
whoa!! i was going to say, this sounds extremely familiar.
>
> However, the story doesn't end here. Sentences (3) and (4) above, while
> grammatically valid, feel like they "lack" something... because in TF,
> indicative clauses are usually strengthened by words called "finalizers"
> -- words synonymous with the main verb / predicative adjective that are
> tacked onto the end of a sentence to re-emphasize its indicative
> quality. These finalizers are omitted from questions and irrealis /
> subjunctive clauses, as an overt gesture of non-finality. So the usual
> pattern for a simple TF clause is:
>
> NP verb FIN
>
> or:
>
> NP adjective FIN
>
> However, (3) and (4) above have the structure:
>
> NP noun
>
> -- they are missing the finalizer usually heard at the end of an
> indicative clause.
so, on its own, could you use (3) to mean "[if] the man were a chief," or
something (irrealis)? i assume you'd need an "if" word in there somewhere.
this reminds me a bit of Middle Egyptian, which tends only to employ the
copula *jw* with adverbial predicates (nominal predicates are another
story) when there is somehow a firm assertion:
*jw r` m pt
*
COP sun in sky
"the sun is in the sky"
"the sun was in the sky"
"the sun will be in the sky"
*r` m pt
*
sun in sky
"when the sun is in the sky..."
"were the sun in the sky..."
though i don't think this is a super rigid distinction. and i realize that
your finalizing element is not a copula.
> When it comes to questions with nominal predicates, TF has several modes
> of expression. I won't use asking for names as example, because TF uses
> an atypical idiom there, but let's say we take the previous examples
> "the man is a chief" and turn that into questions of various sorts:
>
> 6) sii so samat sa?
> what CASE2:NEUT man CASE2:MASC
> Who is the man? I.e., what is his occupation?
> (3) or (3b) would be a typical answer.
>
> (The neuter gender is used with _sii_ here as a generic epicene.
> Strictly speaking, it should be _sii sa_ with the masculine case marker,
> since the referent is masculine, but it appears that this stricter usage
> is starting to be displaced by the more generic neuter _sii so_.)
>
> 7) samat sa bata' ta?
> man CASE2:MASC chief Q
> Is the man a chief? (One may answer _ai_ "yes" or _bai_ "no", or
> use (3b) which conveniently has _ai_ embedded at the end!)
>
>
ok, i have a similar construction, the case-endingless nominal predicate
with an interrogative particle:
āχ-æn u=turæxæʔs-Ø ?
man-NOM Q=chieftain-PRED ?
using '=' to show a clitic.
matt
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 5:29 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gravgaln uses the equative case for such constructions.
do *both* nouns go in the equative case, or just the second one? (or - no
way - just the first?)
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:46 PM, James Kane <kane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The latest lang that I've been working on, Mulesuax, is quite analytic.
> While it doesn't feature case endings, it does feature case particles that
> come before the noun in question, as Mulesuax is strongly head-initial.
>
> So _ua_ is used for 'X is a Y', which happens to be the third person
> singular pronoun (dua for the plural):
> _ua ba mulessuas mo ttlamt_
> is-subj.-Mulesuax-d.o.-language
> 'Mulesuax is a language'
>
> For adjectives, 'X is Y', the verb _banh_, to have, is used:
> _banh ba do-kksums mo liksia_
> have-subj.-pl-shaman-d.o.-honourable
> 'The shamans have honour/The shamans are honourable'
> The case particle does a sort of nominalisation on the adjective, so
> either translation is acceptable.
>
> For both of these constructions, it's simply verb-subject-direct.object
>
nice. wait, so: 'd.o.' is ... "direct object"?? you put your predicate noun
(and adjective) in the direct object case?
i was really hoping someone would respond who does that.
matt
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 6:35 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gravgaln uses the equative case for such constructions.
>
>
> do *both* nouns go in the equative case, or just the second one? (or - no
> way - just the first?)
>
>
>
I'm still working that out. I'm looking at two options
.
Tom-EQU is warrior-EQU would be the first option. This would be simple and
clear cut.
The second potion would have only the second noun in Equative, thusly:
Tom-AGT is warrior-EQU _or_ Tom-PAT is warrior-EQU. This option leaves
room for volition to enter in. Placing Tom in Agentive would make his
status as a warrior his choice and something he has striven for. Placing
Tom in Patientive case would make it a circumstance about which Tom had no
choice, something he was forced into.
I *think* I'm going to do the latter, but I *could* end up making my life
easier for a change.
Adam
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "James Kane" kane...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 6:47 pm ((PDT))
>> The latest lang that I've been working on, Mulesuax, is quite analytic.
>> While it doesn't feature case endings, it does feature case particles that
>> come before the noun in question, as Mulesuax is strongly head-initial.
>>
>> So _ua_ is used for 'X is a Y', which happens to be the third person
>> singular pronoun (dua for the plural):
>> _ua ba mulessuas mo ttlamt_
>> is-subj.-Mulesuax-d.o.-language
>> 'Mulesuax is a language'
>>
>> For adjectives, 'X is Y', the verb _banh_, to have, is used:
>> _banh ba do-kksums mo liksia_
>> have-subj.-pl-shaman-d.o.-honourable
>> 'The shamans have honour/The shamans are honourable'
>> The case particle does a sort of nominalisation on the adjective, so
>> either translation is acceptable.
>>
>> For both of these constructions, it's simply verb-subject-direct.object
>
>
> nice. wait, so: 'd.o.' is ... "direct object"?? you put your predicate noun
> (and adjective) in the direct object case?
>
> i was really hoping someone would respond who does that.
>
>
> matt
Yes, it stands for direct object. I haven't decided how intransitive verbs will
dictate case, but I think I'm going to have a simple accusative/nominative
distinction. Then maybe I can drop the subject of a transitive phrase and it
won't be confused as an intransitive phrase?
Out of all my case markers I thought that the direct object case worked best in
this circumstance... And to me it seems natural enough but I might be mistaken.
Is there any reason that this construction is odd?
James
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 7:24 pm ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 6/5/13, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i am interested in how your conlangs that put case endings on nouns make
> nominal predicates (especially if you have a zero-copula!).
Well, Mentolatian has a part-time copula:
qua-trev-i, i-dnandu fi-lond-inno munt-u og-ronu
Of plants, for Mankind’s health mint (is) best.
Literally: TOPIC-herb-PL POSS-mankind LOC-health-STATE mint-STEM
LOC-summit
Qua-cabiro: sirt o-canetw og-ronu.
As for wealth, contentment of-soul (is the) best.
The verb siyan (be) can serve as a kind of copula:
Qua-tirto: ev siyâ-m!
TOPIC-fish: I be-STATIVE
This construction doesn't mark a simple equative as with the zero copula.
This one raises the bar a little and conveys the meaning of "I am that
which fish are" or "I am one in being one in mind and one in soul with
fish". Very philosophical that.
Qua-rauno his, i-firu og-lamménno; sam-varam rontocu i-dnamnanmos he
siyâ-m.
Concerning this mystery of the man at him-dying; truly/merely the place of
being given birth it is. --> Man's death is truly the place of his birth.
Loucarian is likewise a zero copula language, though various adverbs can
be used copulatively in order to emphasise the situation:
pethooues an narsas = evil the man (The man is evil.)
an narsas sart pethooues = the man certainly evil (The man is truly evil.)
POIC semoudat al narsas, qouis, ica vigilare pro iscôm lingouam per, qouis, al
iscô triboum, wad satif, icacouis, ica grimare pro suas nobes per.
Said Yeshua: Fortunate the man, who, he watches over his tongue over; who, the
his house, goes sufficient; the one who, he weeps on account of his sins on
account of.
Here you can see the adverb "wad", a clipped form of wadere (to go) used
copulatively. This too is a kind of emphatic:
al iscô triboum, wad satif = his house is truly sufficient
satif al iscô triboum = sufficient his house
The Avantimannish verb wesan (be) distinguishes between copulative and
substantive forms:
ho that et myrthfulle = she (it is) that is happy
ho that be myrthfulle = she (it is) that be content
> so, like, if you have to say "the X is a Y," "she is Z," do
> you have a
> special way of doing that? even if your way is just to put
> the same case
> ending on X and Y, and/or insert a word for "is," i'd still
> like to hear
> about it, with examples.
>
> this might not even be something that people have considered
> as an area for
> innovation (well, especially if you have a nice word meaning
> "is").
I guess siyan counts in that respect!
> but my incipient proto-lang does not have a word for "is"
> (well, it does,
> but its usage is quite restricted, à la Turkish). rather,
> predicate nouns
> are marked by the *absence* of the nominative ending. so:
Would that restrictive use involve "be" as a substantive verb, as opposed
to a copula?
>
> āχ-æn
> man-NOM
> 'a/the man'
>
> tuqān-æn
> swordsman-NOM
> 'a/the swordsman'
>
> and you can do:
>
> āχ-æn tuqān-Ø
> man-NOM swordsman-PRED
> 'The man is a swordsman.'
In Mentolatian you can't really do this. They like to compartmentalise the
two parts, keeping apart the man and what he is or what he does, so you'd
have to say:
qua-firu: sam tatasicu hi.
Concerning the man, indeed sword-bearer he.
> similarly with question-words:
>
> kæʔn-æn tɬin
> nis-Ø ?
> name-NOM thou.GEN what?-PRED
> 'What is your name?' (using *nisæn 'what (kind)?')
In non-copulative questions, Mentolatian switches SV for VS:
Le-hattu qua-dauv ev dur-yo-d
D.O.-tea TOPIC-you I made
le-hattu qua-m dur-yo-d dauv?
D.O.-tea TOPIC-me made you?
> but i think there are a lot of other possibilities, and i
> would like to
> hear what you people have done, if this is something that
> you've given attention to.
Padraic
> matt
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "Herman Miller" hmil...@prismnet.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 8:05 pm ((PDT))
On 6/5/2013 5:15 PM, Matthew Boutilier wrote:
> i am interested in how your conlangs that put case endings on nouns make
> nominal predicates (especially if you have a zero-copula!).
>
> so, like, if you have to say "the X is a Y," "she is Z," do you have a
> special way of doing that? even if your way is just to put the same case
> ending on X and Y, and/or insert a word for "is," i'd still like to hear
> about it, with examples.
>
> this might not even be something that people have considered as an area for
> innovation (well, especially if you have a nice word meaning "is").
>
> but my incipient proto-lang does not have a word for "is" (well, it does,
> but its usage is quite restricted, à la Turkish). rather, predicate nouns
> are marked by the *absence* of the nominative ending. so:
Jarda has the verbs "lê" and "jö", which are ordinary transitive verbs
with an ergative subject (the difference is that "lê" equates two things
while "jö" states that one thing is a kind of another thing).
lê nja ṛŏl-ṛa zi ram
is this person-ERG my friend-ABS
this person is my friend
jö vêl-ka swan-el-Ø
is flute-ERG play.music-VN-ABS
a flute is a musical instrument (a kind of musical instrument)
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: nominal (or adjectival) predicates: how do you form them?
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 8:44 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:20:49PM -0500, Matthew Boutilier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
[...]
> > 1) samat sa.
> > man CASE2:MASC
> > A man.
> >
> > 2) bata' sa.
> > chief CASE2:MASC
> > A chief.
> >
> > 3) samat sa bata'-0.
> > man CASE2:MASC chief-PRED
> > The man is a chief.
> >
> > 4) bata' sa samat-0.
> > chief CASE2:MASC man-PRED
> > The chief is a man.
> >
> > This is strikingly similar to your protolang's omission of case ending
> > in nominal predicates!
> >
>
> whoa!! i was going to say, this sounds extremely familiar.
:)
> > However, the story doesn't end here. Sentences (3) and (4) above,
> > while grammatically valid, feel like they "lack" something...
> > because in TF, indicative clauses are usually strengthened by words
> > called "finalizers" -- words synonymous with the main verb /
> > predicative adjective that are tacked onto the end of a sentence to
> > re-emphasize its indicative quality. These finalizers are omitted
> > from questions and irrealis / subjunctive clauses, as an overt
> > gesture of non-finality. So the usual pattern for a simple TF clause
> > is:
> >
> > NP verb FIN
> >
> > or:
> >
> > NP adjective FIN
> >
> > However, (3) and (4) above have the structure:
> >
> > NP noun
> >
> > -- they are missing the finalizer usually heard at the end of an
> > indicative clause.
>
>
> so, on its own, could you use (3) to mean "[if] the man were a chief," or
> something (irrealis)? i assume you'd need an "if" word in there somewhere.
Well, the absence of a finalizer on its own does not necessarily
indicate irrealis/subjunctive. For one thing, finalizers also can also
be elided from all but the last clause in a long string of clauses
joined by conjunctions. This is often done for dramatic effect. The
missing finalizers in the earlier clauses make the listener anticipate
more, and the finalizer at the very end comes "with a bang",
figuratively speaking.
For irrealis/subjunctive, there is also a word-order change and the
insertion of subjunctive markers, the most common of which is _era_
"if". So the proper conditional form of (3) would be:
3c) bata' era samat sa
chief if man CASE2:MASC
If the man were a chief, ...
This utterance is, of course, incomplete; the overt change in word order
and omission of finalizer makes the listener expect a following
indicative clause. Interestingly, _era_ when used in indicative word
order becomes "maybe":
3d) samat sa bata' era.
man CASE2:MASC chief maybe
Maybe the man is a chief.
One can employ _era_ in both of two adjoining clauses to form irrealis
statements:
9) bata' era samat sa,
chief if man CASE2:MASC
tara' ka surat era nekaa na hike.
3SG CASE1:MASC seek maybe criminal CASE3:MASC FIN
If the man were a chief, he would seek out the criminal (for
vengeance).
The _era_ in the second clause implies that the speaker doubts that the
man is chief. If this _era_ were omitted, then it would be a conditional
indicative statement (haha, I just made an irrealis statement).
> this reminds me a bit of Middle Egyptian, which tends only to employ
> the copula *jw* with adverbial predicates (nominal predicates are
> another story) when there is somehow a firm assertion:
>
> *jw r` m pt
> *
> COP sun in sky
> "the sun is in the sky"
> "the sun was in the sky"
> "the sun will be in the sky"
>
> *r` m pt
> *
> sun in sky
>
> "when the sun is in the sky..."
> "were the sun in the sky..."
>
> though i don't think this is a super rigid distinction. and i realize
> that your finalizing element is not a copula.
Right, but in this case, it seems the M.E. copula is being used in a
similar way to TF's _ai_ when used as a finalizer. :)
TF finalizers are interesting beasts... although they carry no semantic
content per se, they *are* cognate with meaningful words, and often add
nuance to the main clause. Some verbs can be paired with different
finalizers to give them different shades of meaning, e.g.: _surat
tarian_ - to seek, to look for something; _surat hike_ - to seek out for
the purpose of causing trouble (e.g. "if you don't pay protection money
we're going to *find* you!").
Most interestingly, though, finalizers seem to be most noticed when they
are *absent*. Their ubiquitous presence in indicative clauses conditions
one to expect them everywhere. When they don't show up, it causes one to
pause and take notice. Thus we have the device I alluded to earlier, of
stringing a bunch of clauses together and elide all but the last
finalizer in order to give a dramatic effect at the end. The absence of
finalizers also gives a ring of incompleteness to questions,
conditionals, and subjunctives.
Imperatives usually don't have finalizers either -- the action is only
desired, not actually done yet -- but one may add a finalizer to the
imperative to strengthen it -- it has the effect of "I want this *done*,
to the very *completion* thereof!"
One of the more obscure uses of finalizers are to mark cause and effect
clauses: in TF, a statement like "A because B" has the causal marker
_isi_ "because" present in *both* clauses; the way you tell them apart
is by the absence of finalizer in the cause, and the presence of
finalizer in the effect.
10a) tara' sei akuka isi kuen na anan,
3SG CASE2:FEM climb because tree CASE3:MASC FIN
ni-hamra isi keika'ina ka.
CASE3.FEM-see because wolf CASE1:MASC
She climbed the tree because she saw the wolf.
10b) tara' sei akuka isi kuen na,
3SG CASE2:FEM climb because tree CASE3:MASC
ni-hamra isi keika'ina ka aram.
CASE3.FEM-see because wolf CASE1:MASC FIN
Because she climbed the tree, she saw the wolf.
The only difference between (10a) and (10b) is which clause has a
finalizer; the order of clauses can be swapped without changing the
meaning.
> > When it comes to questions with nominal predicates, TF has several
> > modes of expression. I won't use asking for names as example,
> > because TF uses an atypical idiom there, but let's say we take the
> > previous examples "the man is a chief" and turn that into questions
> > of various sorts:
> >
> > 6) sii so samat sa?
> > what CASE2:NEUT man CASE2:MASC
> > Who is the man? I.e., what is his occupation?
> > (3) or (3b) would be a typical answer.
> >
> > (The neuter gender is used with _sii_ here as a generic epicene.
> > Strictly speaking, it should be _sii sa_ with the masculine case marker,
> > since the referent is masculine, but it appears that this stricter usage
> > is starting to be displaced by the more generic neuter _sii so_.)
> >
> > 7) samat sa bata' ta?
> > man CASE2:MASC chief Q
> > Is the man a chief? (One may answer _ai_ "yes" or _bai_ "no", or
> > use (3b) which conveniently has _ai_ embedded at the end!)
> >
> >
> ok, i have a similar construction, the case-endingless nominal predicate
> with an interrogative particle:
>
> āχ-æn u=turæxæʔs-Ø ?
> man-NOM Q=chieftain-PRED ?
>
> using '=' to show a clitic.
[...]
Nice, this construction parallels TF's quite well, modulo the respective
languages' syntaxes. :)
T
--
You have to expect the unexpected. -- RL
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Regional Pronounciations
Posted by: "Ph. D." p...@phillipdriscoll.com
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 4:44 pm ((PDT))
Interesting maps:
http://www.businessinsider.com/22-maps-that-show-the-deepest-linguistic-conflicts-in-america-2013-6
--Ph. D.
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: TECH: SIL Toolbox - Markers
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" taliesin-conl...@nvg.org
Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 1:22 am ((PDT))
On 03. juni 2013 02:32, Zach Wellstood wrote:
> I'm just getting into Toolbox for my lexicon needs. The learning curve has
> been almost as bad as FontForge (for me, anyway).
Try sending the same question to the toolbox-list, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/shoeboxtoolbox-field-linguists-toolbox?hl=en
It might be you'll need to batch-edit the entire dictionary, replacing
\ec with \eg throughout.
t.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Language preservation and people agglomeration.
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 3:36 am ((PDT))
2013/6/5 George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Leonardo Castro
> <leolucas1...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm gradually accepting the idea that a language can only be preserved
>> if there are a large agglomeration of people that speak it. And also
>> that there's no way to help endangered languages but economically
>> developping these agglomerations, including by increasing their
>> population.
>>
>> Any noticeable problems with this idea?
>>
>>
> What do you mean by "large agglomeration"?
I mean one large enough to cause its people not to need to speak other
language whille living their lives (working, eating, going to parties
and getting local government services).
2013/6/5 Daniel Prohaska <dan...@ryan-prohaska.com>:
> I think the question is rather whether a given language is passed on to the
> next generation and whether it has a stable environment to be spoken in.
> "Large agglomeration" is relative as such an agglomeration can consist of as
> few as 50-100 persons, if they live in a socio-economic environment where
> their language is the main form of expression in every day life and all
> generations speak it, then this is a viable language community. But of
> course, the smaller (in numbers) the community the easier it is to tip the
> balance.
> Dan
That's it!
Messages in this topic (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
