There are 4 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Unusual Tenses From: Padraic Brown 2. Alien conlang sketch update From: H. S. Teoh 3a. Re: The Language of Pao From: Anthony Miles 4. Deriving Positionals from Directionals From: Anthony Miles Messages ________________________________________________________________________ 1a. Re: Unusual Tenses Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com Date: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:02 am ((PDT)) > From: Leonardo Castro leolucas1...@gmail.com > Actually, I talked about aspects, tenses and moods just for > comparison, because I want my conlang to have only "modifiers" that > can be used as preffixes. > > Instead of indicative and subjunctive, for instance, it'll have > modifiers meaning "actually/factually" and "hypothetically". Right --- but is that not just another way of saying a modifier for indicative (the mood of reality, factuality) and subjunctive (the mood of irreality, hypotheticality)? :) > They > could be combined to mean a "hypothetical fact" (something considered > as a fact in a hypothetical reality) or a "factual hypothesis". Right. Such a fact would still be hypothetical and not real -- hence it would still not be indicative. Unless you're positing a secondary set of moods that would cover this territory -- a sort of parallel analog "Indicative-2" that would work only in the hypothetical. Sort of like when we say "for the sake of argument" or "assuming X to be true...". Padraic Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Alien conlang sketch update Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx Date: Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:28 pm ((PDT)) What started out as a toylang refused to remain just as a toylang, but is turning out to be a full-fledged conlang (albeit still somewhat tongue-in-cheek). Here's the latest version of this lang: Phonology ========= Consonant phonemes: Stops: pj,b t,d k,g ? Nasals: m n Å Fricatives: f,v s S x Liquids: l r R\ Affricates: pf ts,tsÊ° Vowel phonemes: i u e o a Don't be deceived by the relatively-simple phonemic system; the actual phones underlying these phonemes are rather more complex esp. in the vowels: i u I U e o @ E O V a A The consonants are somewhat less complex, but there are [K] and [T] in addition to the consonants listed above, and possibly also [D] and [G] (not currently attested in corpus yet, but implied by currently known phonological rules). Which phone is used to realize a particular phoneme is decided by a number of context-sensitive rules. The rules for vowels are: /a/: before /x/: [A] unstressed: [V] stressed: [a] /e/: before /R\/: [E] before /t/: [E] before /k/: [E] after /tsÊ°/: [E] after /v/: [E] elsewhere: [e] if stressed, [@] if unstressed. /i/: stressed without consonantal coda: [i] elsewhere: [I] /o/: after /v/: [O] elsewhere: [o] /u/: before /N/: [U] unstressed: [U] elsewhere: [u] For consonants, there's a curious dissimilation rule involving consonant clusters with stops: if there's a consonant cluster /CâCâ/ and Câ is a stop (possibly nasal), then /Câ/ fricativises. For example: /k/ + /t/ -> /xt/ /t/ + /t/ -> /Tt/ /t/ + /m/ -> /Tm/ /l/ + /t/ -> /Kt/ There are some exceptions, of course, but generally, consonant clusters tend to "prefer" a fricative + stop rather than two stops in a row. Affricates appear to be immune to this effect. It is currently unknown whether stop + affricate would mutate into fricative + affricate. Grammar ======= Verbal clauses -------------- Thus far, I haven't found any evidence of "real" verbs yet, though the possibility isn't entirely closed yet. Instead, there's a curious system of possessives plus a verbalizing/instrumental suffix -mi that seems to act like a stand-in for common verbs. Possessives appear to be a big thing in this language; there's a set of possessive suffixes that can attach to any noun: -en my -tek your(sg) -tai your(pl) -et his/her -ut their (proximal) -ax their (distal) The distal possessive -ax seems to be often used in a generic sense, e.g. "many-eyed creatures are monstrous, *they* say". Sorta parallel to the impersonal 3PL in Russian ("Ðе Ñак говоÑÑÑ" - they don't say [it] like this; i.e., this is not how one says it). Derivatively, -ax may be used as a plural marker as well -- _ipfax_ (ipf "eye" + -ax) = "eyes". So given a noun like _voluÅ_ "spaceship", one may form: voluÅgen - my spaceship (the /g/ is a linking consonant) voluÅtek - your(sg) spaceship voluÅtai - your(pl) spaceship voluÅget - his/her spaceship voluÅgut - their(prox) spaceship voluÅgax - their(dist) spaceship What's interesting, is that on top of these possessive constructions, a kind of pseudo-verbal system is built using the verbalizing/instrumental suffix -mi. For example: ehrlu ['ExR\lU] tongue ehrlunen ['ExR\lUn@n] ehrlu-en tongue-1SG.POSS My tongue ehrlunemi [,ExR\lUn@'mi] ehrlu-en-mi tongue-1SG.POSS-V I speak. Verbs formed with noun + -mi have idiomatic semantic assignments: tongue -> speak; mouth -> eat; eye -> see; ear -> hear; etc.. However, analyzing the -mi constructs simply as verbs doesn't quite account for the evidence. Rather, it seems that while the -mi noun does play the main verbal role, it's not the entire story. For example, to say "I open the glass dome", one says: gruÅgemi itseÅgu axshapftu ['grUNg@mI 'itsÊ°ENgU 'AxSVpftU] gruÅ-en-mi itseÅ-u axshapf-tu hands-1SG.POSS-V glass_dome-PAT outside-DAT I open the glass dome. (The -u suffix is a patientive suffix marking the undergoer or (in this case) direct object of the clause.) By itself, _gruÅgemi_ would simply mean "I handle [the glass dome]", without specifying how I'm handling the glass dome. It's the dative noun _axshapftu_ "to outside" that specifies that this handling is, in particular, to open the glass dome. A parallel construction applies to the verb "to close": gruÅgemi itseÅgu vershtu ['grUNg@mI 'itsÊ°ENgU 'vErStU] gruÅ-en-mi itseÅ-u versht-tu hands-1SG.POSS-V glass_dome-PAT inside-DAT I close the glass dome. Again, _gruÅgemi_ itself only says that I'm doing something to the glass dome with my hands; _vershtu_ "to inside" is taken in the sense of "to shut in", and therefore completes to meaning: to close / shut the glass dome. As further evidence that the -mi nouns aren't just simple verbs, consider the utterance "I speak to you": ehrlunemi kuhteku [,ExR\lUn@'mi 'kuxtEkU] ehrlu-en-mi kuh-tek-u tongue-1SG.POSS-V ear-2SG.POSS-PAT Strictly speaking, _ehrlunemi_ by itself is sufficient to indicate the sense "to speak"; but instead of taking a plain personal pronoun as direct object, it requires "your ear". Herein is another interesting feature of the grammar: there appear to be *no* personal pronouns in the language at all! Or at least, none that can stand on their own. Instead, there are only the possessive suffixes that must attach to *some* head noun. So when a bare personal pronoun is required, a periphrasis is employed, usually involving the noun _buf_ "body". For example: ipfemi bufteku ['Ipf@mI 'buftEkU] ipf-en-mi buf-tek-u eye-1SG.POSS-V body-2SG.POSS-PAT I see you. (Lit. I see your body) In the previous example, however, one does not say _ehrlunemi bufteku_ "I speak to your body"; but a different head noun _kuh_ "ear" is required ("I speak to your ear"). Going further, one may ask, well this is all well and good when I've a convenient body part to use with -mi to describe what my actions, but what happens if, say, I'm flying somewhere on *your* spaceship? To fly by spaceship, as may be expected, is expressed by suffixing the verbalizer -mi to _voluÅ_ "spaceship" (parallel to the English construction "I bus to work"). But if I'm flying *your* spaceship, I can't just say: voluÅtekmi aiherltu [vO'lUNtExmI 'ajxErKtU] voluÅ-tek-mi aiherl-tu spaceship-2SG.POSS-V distant_skies-DAT because this would be interpreted as "*you* fly your spaceship to the distant skies". So here, we start to see yet more evidence that analysing -mi as simply a verbalising suffix is inadequate: voluÅtekmi gruÅgen aiherltu [vO'lUNtExmI 'grUNg@n 'ajxErKtu] voluÅ-tek-mi gruÅ-en aiherl-tu spaceship-2SG.POSS-V hands-1SG.POSS distant_skies-DAT I fly your spaceship to the distant skies. Here, the noun _gruÅgen_ appears unmarked, and thus seems to be the most likely candidate for the subject of the clause; the -mi noun thus appears to be an *instrumental* noun (I'm flying *by your spaceship*). So under this analysis, it appears that the earlier utterances are instances of the *elision* of the subject when it is coreferential with the possessor of the -mi noun! Another interesting nuance here is that _gruÅgen_ "lit. my hands" implies that the speaker is actively flying the spaceship; it's possible to say instead: voluÅtekmi bufen aiherltu [vO'lUNtExmI 'buf@n 'ajxErKtu] voluÅ-tek-mi buf-en aiherl-tu spaceship-2SG.POSS-INSTR body-1SG.POSS distant_skies-DAT I ride your spaceship to the distant skies. (I'm glossing -mi here as INSTR based on the previous analysis that it's more like an instrumental than a verbalizer.) The substitution with _buf_ "body" changes the meaning of the clause to a passive role -- I ride your spaceship (as a passenger rather than the pilot). Again, we see how the full sense of the verb appears to be distributed across the various NPs in the clause. This isn't the end of the story for -mi, though. :) There's one more piece of evidence so far that hints at more to come: tseÅmi gruÅgen itseÅteku. ['tsÊ°ENmI 'grUNg@n 'ItsÊ°ENtEkU] tseÅ-mi gruÅ-en itseÅ-tek-u. glass-V hands-1SG.POSS glass_dome-2SG.POSS-PAT I shatter your glass dome. Here, I'm glossing -mi as a verbaliser once more, because glossing it as INSTR doesn't seem to make sense ("I handle your glass dome with glass"?). It appears that _tseÅmi_ carries the sense of "shatter", as though -mi here is used in the sense of deriving the most characteristic action of the noun it modifies (tongue -> speak, ear -> hear, feet -> walk, therefore glass -> shatter). Also, _gruÅgen_ implies that the shattering was done with my hands -- so it seems odd that "my hands" wasn't the NP marked as instrumental! So there appears to be more going on with -mi that what I've been able to rationalize so far. Well, this is as far as I've gotten with verbs (or verb-like things). Attributive clauses ------------------- On a slightly less complicated note, the current corpus attests an attributive -i suffix, which is used like this: voluÅtek dasti. [vO'lUNtEk 'dastI] voluÅ-tek dast-i. spaceship-2SG.POSS over_there-PRED Your spaceship is over there. This appears relatively straightforward, until one realizes a subtle difference when compared to the following sentence: voluÅteku daxshti [vO'lUNtEkU 'dAxStI] voluÅ-tek-u daxsht-i spaceship-2SG.POSS-PAT trouble-PRED Your spaceship is broken (has trouble). Notice that "spaceship" in this context carries the patientive suffix -u, whereas in the previous example it was unmarked. This seems to imply some kind of differentiation between different types of attributive clauses. Perhaps in this case, the trouble (presumably engine trouble or some such) is regarded as afflicting the spaceship, so the latter is marked with a patientive suffix; whereas in the former example, the spaceship plays a neutral role, so it is left unmarked. Only time will tell what exactly is going on here. :) Well, that is all for now. The stereotypical one-eyed green aliens wave goodbye at their kind readers until next time. (Meanwhile, behind the stage, the voice actors heave a sigh of relief. ;-)) P.S. I just realized I didn't talk about the ablative/elative suffix -at, but since this post is already too long, I'll save that for next time. T -- If a person can't communicate, the very least he could do is to shut up. -- Tom Lehrer, on people who bemoan their communication woes with their loved ones. Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3a. Re: The Language of Pao Posted by: "Anthony Miles" mamercu...@gmail.com Date: Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:09 pm ((PDT)) >On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:49 AM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> When I first read The Languages of Pao, I didn't realize how little >> information it had in it, and on re-reading it, I disliked the story so >> much I didn't finish it. >It isn't among Jack Vance's best works. I lost my copy a couple of >years ago, and haven't been in any hurry to replace it, there are so >many other Vance works that I more strongly want to re-read. (Cha) It's definitely a teething book for young conlangers (do). (Cha) In Vance's defence, it was the first book I ever read where the author introduced an alien language and then provided a gloss, nowever rough (do). (Cha) If you're doing Paonese, are you planning to do the language of the Dominuses and then create Pastiche (do)? (Cha) Vance doesn't always do full conlanging, but he is very good about throwing in loads of argot and jargon that is appropriate to the setting (do). Messages in this topic (6) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Deriving Positionals from Directionals Posted by: "Anthony Miles" mamercu...@gmail.com Date: Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:14 pm ((PDT)) Traffic seems slow this week, so here's a thought that I've had brewing for a while. The impetus for founding the Guild of Scholars, who regulate the Martian language Siye, was to eliminate misunderstandings between the two dialects of the City. Dialect A had affricates in the very important directional suffixes (and elsewhere, such as cases, but the directionals are my point here), so the suffixes /tu/, /su/, /na/, /nu/, and /ki/ were pronounced [tsu] [su] [na] [nu] [tSi]. Dialect B had passed the affricate phase and moved onto fricatives. In Dialect B, /tu/, /su/. /na/, /nu/, and /ki/ were pronounced [su] [su] [na] [nu] [Si]. Thus, in Dialect B, the allative directional /tu/ and the ablative directlonal /su/ were homophonous. Now, I could render the directionals as meaningless in the later speakers of Dialect B, but where's the fun in that? So I thought about it, and I concluded that the Dialect B speakers reanalyzed [su] as a horizontal POSITIONAL suffix, with a phonological basis: [s] is associated with the horizontal, [S] with the stative, [n] with the vertical. Within this system, [s] only appears with [u] and [S] only appears with [i]. [n], however, appears with [a] and [u]. My question is: given the current development of this system, what is the most likely outcome of [na] and [nu]? Would Dialect B keep both? Favor [na] because it contrasts with [su]? Favor [nu] by analogy with [su]? Or would [na] and [nu] develop a semantic distinction other than that between 'up' and 'down'? Messages in this topic (1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------