There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
From: qiihoskeh
1b. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
From: qiihoskeh
1c. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
From: Nico Baier
1d. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
From: David Peterson
1e. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
From: Jyri Lehtinen
2a. Re: THEORY: Is Jespersen cycle a cycle?
From: Padraic Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
Posted by: "qiihoskeh" qiihos...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:09 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:58:26 -0400, Anthony Miles <mamercu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know if anybody else has this difficulty. I am currently doing a major
>revision of the Siye grammar on FrathWiki, expanding the nominal, verbal, and
>syntactical sections. I have only two things to add to the nominal section,
>but the verbal section (chapter?) is now fourteen pages long. Whenever I am
>working on the verbal section, I find that I cannot explain the forms of the
>verbs without resorting to syntax. How do you draw a line between your verbal
>section and your syntactical sections?
>
For the morphological sections, I mostly just give the affixes along with their
names (and note any morphological complications). Then I refer to the names in
the syntax sections. If I figure out which of my sketches does a good job of
this, I'll post a link. But sometimes I break it down differently, with a
number of sections, each covering part of the morphosyntax, such as Tense and
Aspect or Grammatical Voice. In Jul17 I use the latter type of organization:
http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/Jul17/L3Intro.htm
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
Posted by: "qiihoskeh" qiihos...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:25 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:09:09 -0400, qiihoskeh <qiihos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:58:26 -0400, Anthony Miles <mamercu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't know if anybody else has this difficulty. I am currently doing a
>>major revision of the Siye grammar on FrathWiki, expanding the nominal,
>>verbal, and syntactical sections. I have only two things to add to the
>>nominal section, but the verbal section (chapter?) is now fourteen pages
>>long. Whenever I am working on the verbal section, I find that I cannot
>>explain the forms of the verbs without resorting to syntax. How do you draw a
>>line between your verbal section and your syntactical sections?
>>
>
>For the morphological sections, I mostly just give the affixes along with
>their names (and note any morphological complications). Then I refer to the
>names in the syntax sections. If I figure out which of my sketches does a good
>job of this, I'll post a link.
>
I've looked through some of my online sketches and it seems the best example I
can come up with is my latest:
http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/Aug06/U0Intro.htm
> But sometimes I break it down differently, with a number of sections, each
> covering part of the morphosyntax, such as Tense and Aspect or Grammatical
> Voice. In Jul17 I use the latter type of organization:
>
>http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/Jul17/L3Intro.htm
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
Posted by: "Nico Baier" nico.ba...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:20 am ((PDT))
So David, where would you put things like raising/control constructions,
wh-question formation or subordination?
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
Posted by: "David Peterson" deda...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:25 am ((PDT))
In the morphology section (for WH-questions and yes/no questions), and in the
lexicon (for all constructions that are dependent on the particularities of a
given verb or subset of verbs [i.e. raising/control and subordination]). If a
special section was wanted, I'd put it under verbal morphology.
David Peterson
LCS President
presid...@conlang.org
www.conlang.org
On Aug 16, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Nico Baier <nico.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So David, where would you put things like raising/control constructions,
> wh-question formation or subordination?
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Theory: The Line Between Verb and Syntax Sections
Posted by: "Jyri Lehtinen" lehtinen.j...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:11 am ((PDT))
This is certainly a way to do it. I've found that especially shorter
grammatical descriptions benefit from being morphologically driven. For a
bit more advanced topics, such as subordination, I'd suggest also adding
more syntactically minded chapters. This is simply because semantically
closely related categories can require you to use very different morphology
(or syntax for that matter).
You might for example have a simple clause linking morpheme that attaches
to verbs and simply says that this is a subordinated verb and every
inflection (person, tense, aspect...) of the finite verb of the main clause
also applies here. But when some of these categories changes, you suddenly
need to revert back to fully inflected finite verbs with perhaps a special
subordinate mood and a conjunction marking the subordinate clause. This is
in fact not that different to what English does:
We chatted while eating.
We chatted after we had eaten.
We chatted while you were eating.
Notice how the subordinated verb of the first sentence has totally
different morphology associated to it compared to the subordinate clauses
of the last two sentences. If you don't already know the structure of the
language, finding out these things might be a pain if they aren't compiled
under unified chapters. Whether you decide to put such chapters under a
special "syntax" title or among the morphological description is naturally
a matter or personal taste and what happens to work the best.
For a really thorough reference grammar you might even consider a dual
presentation. First have a section where you go through all the morphology
giving short descriptions of the uses of each inflection and cross
referencing for broader descriptions of use in later syntax chapters. After
that have the syntax section where you describe how all the morphology is
used in actual sentences but now organised based on use rather than form.
The downside is of course that you end up describing many of the things
twice and having a ridiculously long grammar.
-Jyri
2013/8/16 David Peterson <deda...@gmail.com>
> In the morphology section (for WH-questions and yes/no questions), and in
> the lexicon (for all constructions that are dependent on the
> particularities of a given verb or subset of verbs [i.e. raising/control
> and subordination]). If a special section was wanted, I'd put it under
> verbal morphology.
>
> David Peterson
> LCS President
> presid...@conlang.org
> www.conlang.org
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Nico Baier <nico.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So David, where would you put things like raising/control constructions,
> wh-question formation or subordination?
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: THEORY: Is Jespersen cycle a cycle?
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:01 pm ((PDT))
>> > True: past performance is in no way indicative of the future :P.
>>
>> It's only barely subjunctive of the future. ;))
>>
>>
> A pox 'pon ye Padraic!! Kenn'd ye not that I hae'd a plum pit in my
> mouth when I read that? Ye near killed me laddie!
Ha! Ei wewôte mun man dydet his selfe gobbe fyllen suuo êhhuuernes gobbe under
his ekrenam!
Padraic
> Adam
Messages in this topic (11)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
