There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
From: Henrik Theiling
1b. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
From: Eldin Raigmore
1c. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
From: Henrik Theiling
2a. Re: "Knock it off" or "Leave off"
From: caeruleancentaur
3a. Re: Subject/Object participles
From: caeruleancentaur
4a. Re: Reflexive & Reciprocal Marked on the Verb
From: caeruleancentaur
5a. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
From: caeruleancentaur
5b. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
From: Jim Henry
5c. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
From: Henrik Theiling
5d. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
From: Lars Finsen
5e. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
From: Damátir Ando
6a. Re: Phone frequencies
From: Logan Kearsley
6b. Re: Phone frequencies
From: Eugene Oh
6c. Re: Phone frequencies
From: R A Brown
7a. Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Logan Kearsley
7b. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Jim Henry
7c. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: R A Brown
7d. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Lars Mathiesen
7e. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Logan Kearsley
7f. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Logan Kearsley
7g. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Larry Sulky
7h. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Logan Kearsley
8a. Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
From: Logan Kearsley
8b. Re: Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
From: Larry Sulky
8c. Re: Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
From: Logan Kearsley
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 1:13 pm ((PDT))
Hi!
Eldin Raigmore writes:
> Hmm.
> So the clitic "-lu" is more of a subordinating conjunction than a
> co-ordinating one.
No, -lu is coordinating. How did I imply it was subordinating?
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 2:42 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 22:13:36 +0200, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Eldin Raigmore writes:
>> Hmm.
>> So the clitic "-lu" is more of a subordinating conjunction than a
>> co-ordinating one.
>
>No, -lu is coordinating. How did I imply it was subordinating?
>**Henrik
Well, the Long-Distance-Reflexive, I thought, was to co-index something in a
subordinate clause with the subject of one of its containing clauses; its
matrix, or the main clause, for instance.
The second clause -- the one the "4th person" occurs in -- is certainly not
embedded in the first clause.
Is it dependent on it?
(A "subordinate clause" is one which is both embedded in and dependent on
another clause.)
What's the explanation for calling it a LDR if it refers to the subject of a co-
ordinately conjoined clause?
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 4:05 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Eldin Raigmore writes:
>...
> What's the explanation for calling it a LDR if it refers to the
> subject of a co- ordinately conjoined clause?
Well, from my point if view, a coordinated clause is even 'farther'
away than a subordinated one, since the one does not even enclose the
other, so I have no problem with calling it long distance.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: "Knock it off" or "Leave off"
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 3:14 pm ((PDT))
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Iâd like to know how to convey this message to my cant in your
> conlangs and your L1, including regional type things.
Senjecas has an interjection 'angû' which can mean stop, cease, desist
in two senses:
1) stop doing what you are now doing
2) don't do what you are about to do.
The regular verb for stop, cease, desist, etc., is 'dûsa.'
Charlie
P.S. I have added Senjecas to CALS.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Subject/Object participles
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 3:35 pm ((PDT))
> > Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ...nail as the object of 'hammer'. As far as I can tell, present
> > participles in English are always subject-oriented, while past
> > participles are always object oriented, and altering that requires
> > circumlocutions like "the nail which is being hammered" for 'nail'
> > to be the object in the present tense. But one could just as well
> > have a system that marks the tense/aspect/etc. of a participle
> > separately from whether the thing it modifies is a subject or
> > object. So, what languages do that, and how? And is it done in
> > natural languages, or just conlangs?
>Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Esperanto:
>
> la kuranta viro = the running man
> la martelata najlo = the being-hammered nail
Only mood is marked on the verb in Senjecas. Tense is indicated by a
preceding particle.
tserantu mhirus = the running man
per tserantu mhirus = the man who was running
Passivity is indicated periphrastically using the verb 'mola,' become
and the patient participle.
molanto tematho gwozdos = being hammered nail
per molanto tematho gwozdos = the nail that was being hammered.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Reflexive & Reciprocal Marked on the Verb
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 3:48 pm ((PDT))
> Eldin Raigmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How do your 'langs (whether nat- or con-) handle this?
> Do they just not distinguish "reflexive" from "reciprocal"?
> Do they distinguish it by marking the verb with, say, a "voice"
> or "version" of "reflexive" or "reciprocal" (not the same)?
> Or do they mark the difference elsewhere in the clause, say by
> either a reflexive pronoun or a reciprocal pronoun or both?
>
Senjecas has a reflexive pronoun 'potyus.'
mus potyum per kusa = I kissed myself.
sus potyum per kusa = he kissed himself.
'potyus' is also the intensive pronoun when used attributively.
potyu mus anthom per kusa = I myself kissed the flower.
The reciprocal pronoun is 'anyanyuso.' It is found only in the
genitive and accusative cases.
sues anyanyun per kusa = they kissed each other.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:08 pm ((PDT))
--- In [email protected], Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Consider the sentence "I ate the fruit on the table."
> In English, this is structurally ambiguous, because the
prepositional
> phrase can apply to the verb or a noun- did I eat fruit which was on
> the table, or did I eat the fruit while I was on the table?
> I think someone mentioned a conlang that has a semantic distinction
> between adverbial and adjectival prepositions; that would be
> interesting to investigate. But what about using different syntax to
> distinguish the two cases? Say, prepositions as noun-modifiers, and
> postpositions as verb-modifiers (or vice-versa)?
>
> Then the case where the fruit was on the table before I ate it would
> be "I ate the fruit on the table", whereas the case where I ate the
> fruit while I was on the table would be "I ate the fruit the table
on"
> / "I the table on ate the fruit".
Word order is very strict in Senjecas. All modifiers are placed
before
that which they modify.
mus edhleeposyo epi vruugom per eda.
I table on fruit past eat.
This can only mean that the fruit was on the table. But:
edhleeposyo epi mus vruugom per eda.
table on I fruit past eat.
mus vruugom edhleeposyo epi per eda.
I fruit table on past eat.
Both of these mean that I was on the table while eating the fruit.
The first emphasizes that it was I, not someone else, who was on the
table. The second emphasizes that the eating took place ON the
table, not AT the table.
No ambiguity, at least here, in Senjecas.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 5:11 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:20 AM, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Again I assume that 'fruit' in English is being used as a mass noun. I
> believe - tho i could well be wrong - that 'frukto' is a count noun in
> Esperanto.)
Yes, it is.
>> There are natlangs with mixed adpositional systems, aren't there?
Finnish apparently is one such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_grammar#Postpositions_and_prepositions
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Usually I see this in Esperanto as well: "Mi mangxis
>> la frukton ." But in books
>> by Scandinavian authors, the phrase is commonly
>> placed in front: "Mi mangxis la sxtelitan de mia
>> onklo frukton."
I've seen that usage (prepositional phrase preceding its head)
criticized as a Germanism.
> (But both ancient Greek and TAKE insists on repeating the definite article
> if the phrase follows the noun, as tho one were to say: la frukton la
> sxtelitan de mia onklo - I guess that just ain't allowed in E-o.)
It's allowed, I think, just not common. I'm pretty sure I've
seen that usage in poetry, though I can't think of specific
examples. (Though I may be mixing it up with another unusual
bit of poetic syntax, "ADJ la NOUN".)
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 4:11 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Jim Henry writes:
>...
>>> There are natlangs with mixed adpositional systems, aren't there?
>
> Finnish apparently is one such:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_grammar#Postpositions_and_prepositions
Would you count 'ago' in English as a postposition?
In German, there are a few postpositions, too:
wegen des Hauses
because_of the house
^^^^^^
des Hauses wegen
the house because_of
^^^^^
dem Vernehmen nach
the hearing by
^^^^
'according to reports'
But there are not many.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:33 pm ((PDT))
I'd like to do this "I ate the fruit on the table" sentence as well.
In Urianian I think the ambiguity may be resolved quite simply by
using two different case endings:
Egem frege pildu - I ate the fruit that was on the table, with a
locative u-ending.
Egem frege pildi - I ate the fruit while I was at the table, with an
instrumental i-ending. You don't eat the fruit *with* the table,
exactly, but the instrumental case encompasses a somewhat wider range
of meanings than the preposition "with".
However, in a real conversation, I don't think the sentences would be
as simple as this. If I were conversing with my Urianian friends, I
would say something like:
Freged lian pildu, it egem - that fruit lying on the table, I ate it.
(fruit-dem.acc.pl lie-act.part.nom table-loc.sg 3p.acc eat-1s.pret)
Frege egem sitni baru pildia - the fruit I ate sitting in front of
the table. (fruit-acc.pl eat-1s.pret sit-pass.part.ins front-loc.sg
table-gen.sg) - That was very precise though. Normally I think you
would omit "baru" and put table in the instrumental as above.
In Urianian, as a well-marked language, the word-order is very free,
giving you many opportunities for shifting them about for emphasis, a
feature I think the Urianians are likely to exploit rather extensively.
As for Suraetua, I don't have a general word for fruit, and perhaps
they didn't use one, to let me pick 'apple' - kalaku.
Kalakuwe onglam ij ianjit (apple-pl table-loc eat i.did.to.them)
Kalakuwe onglamen ij ianjit (apple-pl table-loc-adv eat i.did.to.them)
BTW, I am thinking of scrapping the auxiliaries in Suraetua, although
I love them very much. Sacrificed on the altar of realism.
I am also thinking that perhaps some Uralic language has existed in
Uriania at a remote time and thinking of constructing something based
on Décsy's postulated protolanguage. But perhaps I should do a proper
job with the others first.
LEF
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
5e. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
Posted by: "Damátir Ando" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 3:19 pm ((PDT))
I think Japanese also makes this distinction. I always observe "no," a
genitive postposition, added to postpositional phrases with an adjectival
sense.
E.g., "(I) ate the fruit on the table (I performed the act of eating on the
table)"
teeburu no ue de kudamono wo tabemashita.
table GEN over at fruit ACC eat.POLITE.PAST
"(I) ate the fruit on the table (the fruit was on the table)"
teeburu no ue no kudamono wo tabemashita.
table GEN over GEN fruit ACC eat.POLITE.PAST
There's also,
"(I) received a letter from mother"
okaasan kara tegami wo moraimashita
mother from letter ACC receive.POLITE.PAST
vs.
"the letter from mother"
okaasan kara no tegami
mother from GEN letter
...where "no" follows another postposition "kara" (from) to show the phrase
"from mother" is an attribute of the letter.
I've never heard of the syntactic device you proposed. Interestingly, a book
I have mentions Western Armenian has some adpositions that can be used as
either prepositions or postpositions, but there doesn't seem to be any
difference in meaning depending on which way they're used.
--
Damátir Ando,
Creator of Çomyopregi and Sopih
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/rodionraskolnikov2000/
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Phone frequencies
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 9:24 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Alex Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:46:14 -0400, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>I used to have an IPA table that included the frequency of each phone
>>among world languages- which phones occur in 90% of all languages,
>>which phones occur in 80% of languages, which phones occur in only 5%
>>of languages, etc. But I seem to have lost it, and I can't find
>>anything like that on line. Anybody know where I could get a table or
>>a list with frequencies for different phones among world languages?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I was _just_ looking for the very same thing. UPSID
> (the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database) does nearly exactly this,
> and there's an interface to it at
> http://web.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/upsid.html .
> Use "find certain sounds and languages that have them", option #5; it gives
> you a table with frequencies of each phone in the phonologies in its
> database below the output. Not sorted, but you can do that.
Y'know, that would be pretty darn useful.
Unfortunately, my attempts to access the website have so far
invariably been met with network timeout errors.
I don't suppose the database is available in a convenient downloadable
format, like tab-delimited text file or something...?
I did manage to find a DOS program. Maybe I can get some use out of that.
-l.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Phone frequencies
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 9:55 pm ((PDT))
I find it very interesting that both Polish and Arabic lack /e/ and /o/.
Although why the graph marked Mandarin as lacking /i/ I have no idea.
/Beijing/ again, anyone?
Eugene
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Alex Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:46:14 -0400, Logan Kearsley <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I used to have an IPA table that included the frequency of each phone
> >>among world languages- which phones occur in 90% of all languages,
> >>which phones occur in 80% of languages, which phones occur in only 5%
> >>of languages, etc. But I seem to have lost it, and I can't find
> >>anything like that on line. Anybody know where I could get a table or
> >>a list with frequencies for different phones among world languages?
> >
> > Wouldn't you know it, I was _just_ looking for the very same thing.
> UPSID
> > (the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database) does nearly exactly
> this,
> > and there's an interface to it at
> > http://web.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/upsid.html .
> > Use "find certain sounds and languages that have them", option #5; it
> gives
> > you a table with frequencies of each phone in the phonologies in its
> > database below the output. Not sorted, but you can do that.
>
> Y'know, that would be pretty darn useful.
> Unfortunately, my attempts to access the website have so far
> invariably been met with network timeout errors.
> I don't suppose the database is available in a convenient downloadable
> format, like tab-delimited text file or something...?
> I did manage to find a DOS program. Maybe I can get some use out of that.
>
> -l.
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
6c. Re: Phone frequencies
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 11:53 pm ((PDT))
Eugene Oh wrote:
> I find it very interesting that both Polish and Arabic lack /e/ and /o/.
> Although why the graph marked Mandarin as lacking /i/ I have no idea.
> /Beijing/ again, anyone?
Weird. I know there are areas of controversy regarding the Mandarin
phonemic inventory (e.g. the phonemic status of the series written |x|,
|j| and |q| in Pinyin which occur only before [i] or [y]) and of the
phonemic status [j] and [w]) - but an analysis that does not give
phonemic status to /i/ seems to me somewhat perverse.
OK - I see that the third element in _bei_ might be regarded as /j/, but
what about the |i| in _jing_? A vocalization of /j/ or what? As I say:
weird.
[snip]
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Alex Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:46:14 -0400, Logan Kearsley <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I used to have an IPA table that included the frequency of each phone
>>>> among world languages- which phones occur in 90% of all languages,
>>>> which phones occur in 80% of languages, which phones occur in only 5%
>>>> of languages, etc. But I seem to have lost it, and I can't find
>>>> anything like that on line. Anybody know where I could get a table or
>>>> a list with frequencies for different phones among world languages?
>>> Wouldn't you know it, I was _just_ looking for the very same thing.
>> UPSID
>>> (the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database) does nearly exactly
>> this,
>>> and there's an interface to it at
>>> http://web.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/upsid.html .
[snip]
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Sep 7, 2008 9:53 pm ((PDT))
Thought 1- building vocabulary based on consonantal roots allows for a
large and powerful derivational system without having to resort to
long strings of agglutinating affixes.
Thought 2- self-segregating morphology is kinda cool.
It would be neat if these two ideas could be combined. Unfortunately,
most self-segregating morphology schemes are based on limiting the
shapes of syllables that are allowed in certain positions, which seems
directly contradictory to the idea of a derivational system that's
based on changing syllable shapes around a consonantal root.
Any ideas on how to get around that? Or is it inevitable that trying
to implement self-segregating morphology will severely restrict how
much of the total pattern space you can use in a consonantal root
system?
-l.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:08 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thought 1- building vocabulary based on consonantal roots allows for a
> large and powerful derivational system without having to resort to
> long strings of agglutinating affixes.
> Thought 2- self-segregating morphology is kinda cool.
>
> It would be neat if these two ideas could be combined. Unfortunately,
I see a couple of obvious ways to do it.
1. Use one set of consonants for your triliteral roots, and another
set of consonants that can occur in suffixes. There are no prefixes.
Any time you encounter a consonant from the set of root consonants
following one or more suffix consonants and vowels, you've found the
beginning of a word, and any time you find a consonant from the set
of suffix consonants, you've found the beginning of a suffix. If you find
a bunch of root consonants in a row separated only by vowels,
then the first, fourth, seventh etc. indicate the start of a new word.
2. Or allow prefixes too, and have a third set of consonants used
only in prefixes.
That limits your options on root vowel patterns; you couldn't have
vowels before the first root consonant, unless they were part
of a prefix. You could have e.g.
CaCiCu
CCuCa
CiaCCi
CaCauC
etc., with suffixes of form CV+, but not root patterns like
aCCiC
uCiCaC
etc.
Suppose you have 20 consonants and 5 vowels, with
15 consonants allowed in roots and the other 5 in suffixes;
that gives you 3375 possible roots and 150 CV and CVV
suffixes. Not sure offhand how to calculate the possible
root vowel patterns, but there should be scads of them too.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7c. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:56 am ((PDT))
Jim Henry wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thought 1- building vocabulary based on consonantal roots allows for a
>> large and powerful derivational system without having to resort to
>> long strings of agglutinating affixes.
>> Thought 2- self-segregating morphology is kinda cool.
>>
>> It would be neat if these two ideas could be combined. Unfortunately,
>
> I see a couple of obvious ways to do it.
[snip]
...and a third method might be along the lines John Cowan outlined for
xuxuxi:
{quote}
xuxuxi uses vowel harmony/disharmony to resolve the problem.
All multi-syllable words are stressed on the first syllable,
and then the other syllables of the word, except the last,
have vowel harmony. The last syllable of the word has disharmony.
Any remaining syllables before the next stressed syllable are
monosyllabic.
Here's the harmony/disharmony table:
first medial last
a a, e, o i, u
e a, e, i o, u
i a, e, i o, u
o a, o, u i, e
u a, o, u i, e
So a in the first syllable triggers height harmony, and all other vowels
trigger front/back harmony.
{/quote}
See:
http://archives.conlang.info/fhe/quachin/dhirwulqoen.html
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7d. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Lars Mathiesen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 7:14 am ((PDT))
2008/9/8 Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thought 1- building vocabulary based on consonantal roots allows for a
> large and powerful derivational system without having to resort to
> long strings of agglutinating affixes.
> Thought 2- self-segregating morphology is kinda cool.
>
> It would be neat if these two ideas could be combined. Unfortunately,
> most self-segregating morphology schemes are based on limiting the
> shapes of syllables that are allowed in certain positions, which seems
> directly contradictory to the idea of a derivational system that's
> based on changing syllable shapes around a consonantal root.
Looking up self-segregating morphology on Conlang Wikia, it looks like
the accepted definition is that morpheme or word boundaries should be
immediately obvious without full knowledge of the lexicon.
In a semitic style language, the morphemes of a word aren't combined
in sequence, so they don't have boundaries as such. You may be
thinking that you need to make self-segregating _syllables_, but I
don't think that serves any purpose in this context. You will probably
have to come up with another definition of self-segregating to be able
to play.
> Any ideas on how to get around that? Or is it inevitable that trying
> to implement self-segregating morphology will severely restrict how
> much of the total pattern space you can use in a consonantal root
> system?
As I see it, morpheme self-segregation in the usual sense is a perfect
fit to an agglutinating language -- it makes the division of a word
into morphemes absolutely unambiguous.
So your analogous notion would be the property that any given surface
word is derived from its root in one single, obvious way. That is, it
must always be immediately obvious exactly what the root is and what
patterns were applied to get the form. Of course that will restrict
the types of patterns you can create, but there's no inherent reason
why the 'result space' shouldn't be populated as densely as you like.
And if you want self-segregating phonological words, you're actually
better off than with sequential morphemes. Self-segregation (or
self-synchronization in general coding theory) needs redundancy, which
is the same as 'populating the pattern space sparsely'. And since your
words are known to be built on tri-consonantal roots, marking your
word boundaries will only need about the same redundancy per word that
syllable-based schemes do per syllable, so your pattern space can be
more densely populated.
--
Lars
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7e. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 9:13 am ((PDT))
Having slept for a while, I think I've got some good answers to my own
question. Sleeping is good for solving a lot of problems.
It's still good to have alternate suggestions, though; the stuff my
subconscious came up with definitely doesn't constitute the only
option.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thought 1- building vocabulary based on consonantal roots allows for a
>> large and powerful derivational system without having to resort to
>> long strings of agglutinating affixes.
>> Thought 2- self-segregating morphology is kinda cool.
>>
>> It would be neat if these two ideas could be combined. Unfortunately,
>
> I see a couple of obvious ways to do it.
>
> 1. Use one set of consonants for your triliteral roots, and another
> set of consonants that can occur in suffixes. There are no prefixes.
> Any time you encounter a consonant from the set of root consonants
> following one or more suffix consonants and vowels, you've found the
> beginning of a word, and any time you find a consonant from the set
> of suffix consonants, you've found the beginning of a suffix. If you find
> a bunch of root consonants in a row separated only by vowels,
> then the first, fourth, seventh etc. indicate the start of a new word.
>
> 2. Or allow prefixes too, and have a third set of consonants used
> only in prefixes.
If the roots in the class that can have vowel-pattern derivations
applied are all the same length (which is a basic assumption for how
this sort of thing works), I don't think you need three sets of
consonants. Say that Set 1 is for prefixes, and Set 2 is for roots and
suffixes. Then, a transition from S1 to S2 marks the beginning of a
root, which continues for a known number of consonants, and everything
after that until the next word must be suffixes. A transition from S2
to S1 marks the boundaries between words, but that could fail if there
are no prefixes on the next word; that could be solved by mixing the
consonant types in roots- requiring that the first one be from S1 and
the later ones from S2.
> That limits your options on root vowel patterns; you couldn't have
> vowels before the first root consonant, unless they were part
> of a prefix. You could have e.g.
>
> CaCiCu
> CCuCa
> CiaCCi
> CaCauC
>
> etc., with suffixes of form CV+, but not root patterns like
>
> aCCiC
> uCiCaC
>
> etc.
Mm... I'm not seeing why.
It definitely *does* limit the number of consonantal roots, which
could be annoying depending on how many consonants you start out to
work with; but that's a different concern from limiting the
derivations patterns available.
> Suppose you have 20 consonants and 5 vowels, with
> 15 consonants allowed in roots and the other 5 in suffixes;
> that gives you 3375 possible roots and 150 CV and CVV
> suffixes. Not sure offhand how to calculate the possible
> root vowel patterns, but there should be scads of them too.
Number of patterns = (n+1)^(m+1)-1, where n is the number of vowels
available for use in derivation patterns, m is the number of
consonants in a root, all consonant clusters are allowed, and we
assume that there are no strings of multiple vowels and that there
must be at least one vowel somewhere in a word. There are scads even
for fairly small numbers of vowels.
However, modifications are in order to account for additional
restrictions (like, root words can't start with vowels, or root words
must start with vowels, or 3-consonant clusters aren't allowed, etc.),
and each one of those tends to drastically reduce exactly how many
scads you get. Relaxing the assumption that there are no strings of
vowels actually doesn't matter much, because it's equivalent to just
increasing the vowel inventory.
Assume a 4 vowel system with triliteral roots, for illustrative purpose.
(n+1)^(m+1)-1 = 5^4-1 = 624 derivational patterns, more than Arabic, I think.
If you require that root words don't start with vowels, then it becomes:
(n+1)^m-1 = 5^3-1 = 124 derivational patterns, a lot fewer than Arabic.
If 3-consonant clusters aren't allowed:
n*(n+2)*(n+1)^2 = 6*5^2 = 600, which is pretty good (I think; I'm not
absolutely sure that I derived that last expression correctly).
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> ...and a third method might be along the lines John Cowan outlined for
> xuxuxi:
>
> {quote}
> xuxuxi uses vowel harmony/disharmony to resolve the problem.
> All multi-syllable words are stressed on the first syllable,
> and then the other syllables of the word, except the last,
> have vowel harmony. The last syllable of the word has disharmony.
> Any remaining syllables before the next stressed syllable are
> monosyllabic.
That's the sort of thing that I would count as drastically reducing
the number of patterns available, because it restricts the vowel
inventory available for use in any particular word.
> Here's the harmony/disharmony table:
>
> first medial last
> a a, e, o i, u
> e a, e, i o, u
> i a, e, i o, u
> o a, o, u i, e
> u a, o, u i, e
Time for more math to see if this is really as restricting as I think it is.
You've got 5 initial vowels, 3 internal vowels, and 2 final vowels for
any case. If there's only 1 vowel it must be initial, if there're 2
vowels they must be an initial and a final, if there are three or four
vowels, you get all three choices. Vowels can appear in four positions
around a triliteral root.
VCCC CVCC CCVC CCCV 4*5 +
VCVCC VCCVC VCCCV CVCVC CVCCV CCVCV 6*5*2 +
VCVCVC VCCVCV VCVCCV CVCVCV 4*5*3*2 +
VCVCVCV 5*3*3*2
= 290
Barely more than what you get with 3 unrestricted vowels, and a small
fraction of what you get with 4, let alone 5.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Lars Mathiesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Looking up self-segregating morphology on Conlang Wikia, it looks like
> the accepted definition is that morpheme or word boundaries should be
> immediately obvious without full knowledge of the lexicon.
>
> In a semitic style language, the morphemes of a word aren't combined
> in sequence, so they don't have boundaries as such. You may be
> thinking that you need to make self-segregating _syllables_, but I
> don't think that serves any purpose in this context. You will probably
> have to come up with another definition of self-segregating to be able
> to play.
I was mainly thinking of self-segregating words. Yes, obvious internal
segregation can't easily be applied to derivation patterns that may
contain multiple morphemes, so I wasn't worrying about that. It would
be nice, in addition to segregating words, if you could segregate
affix morphemes from the roots as well, but that's a secondary
consideration for me.
> And if you want self-segregating phonological words, you're actually
> better off than with sequential morphemes. Self-segregation (or
> self-synchronization in general coding theory) needs redundancy, which
> is the same as 'populating the pattern space sparsely'. And since your
> words are known to be built on tri-consonantal roots, marking your
> word boundaries will only need about the same redundancy per word that
> syllable-based schemes do per syllable, so your pattern space can be
> more densely populated.
That's a good point. In the limit where there are no affixes and *all*
words in the language have the same root structure, segregation is
trivially easy; every set of three consonants is a new word, and you
just need some way of occasionally disambiguating whether a stray
vowel goes with the last word or the next (although that system is
fragile; it depends on knowing exactly where the speech-stream starts;
if you come in in the middle, you'll be out of synch, and we'd like to
have some way of fixing that). However, that's a really ridiculous
limit. We'd probably like to have the occasional grammatical particle
or anaphor or something that has it's own form distinct from the root
derivation system.
One option became Exceedingly Obvious just after I woke up this
morning- mark word boundaries with successive vowels. If you've
already got the assumption that derivation patterns only use solitary
vowels, then it's natural to think that two vowels in a row must
belong to separate roots.
This requires the restriction that every word must begin and end with
a vowel, which means that the only single-syllable words will be
single vowels, and the number of possible derivations is restricted
to:
n^2*(n+1)^(m-1), assuming that all possible consonant clusters are
allowed so you don't need any internal vowels.
With 4 vowels and triliteral roots, that results in 400 derivation
patterns. Not bad. If we require at least 1 internal vowel, then we
get:
n^3*(n+2), using triliteral roots, which comes out to 384. Still not
bad. Using 5 vowels gets us up to 875 (out of a total possible of
1295... which might be overkill), which is quite good.
I'm not sure how I like the aesthetic of every word beginning and
ending with a vowel, but it does work nicely. And it allows for the
use of shorter roots mixed in to the language as well.
This restricts the form of prefixes to VC{C}, and suffixes to {C}CV
(although, if the clusters are allowed, you could have
single-consonant infixes which hijack the already-present initial and
terminal vowels as well). And it very nearly requires that you only
use one or the other, but that is fixable by designating a consonant
(or class of consonants) to mark the boundaries of an affix list (as
discussed above); pick the clusters right, and that doesn't even
require adding an extra syllable.
-l.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7f. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 9:17 am ((PDT))
> This restricts the form of prefixes to VC{C}, and suffixes to {C}CV
> (although, if the clusters are allowed, you could have
> single-consonant infixes which hijack the already-present initial and
> terminal vowels as well). And it very nearly requires that you only
> use one or the other, but that is fixable by designating a consonant
> (or class of consonants) to mark the boundaries of an affix list (as
> discussed above); pick the clusters right, and that doesn't even
> require adding an extra syllable.
Addendum- you only have to bother with the root-boundary marking
consonants if you care about word-internal morpheme segregation. If
you only care about word-segregation, then that bit can be ignored,
which gives you a little more freedom with the forms of affixes.
-l.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7g. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Larry Sulky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:16 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---BIG SNIP---
> One option became Exceedingly Obvious just after I woke up this
> morning- mark word boundaries with successive vowels. If you've
> already got the assumption that derivation patterns only use solitary
> vowels, then it's natural to think that two vowels in a row must
> belong to separate roots.
---SNIP---
>
> I'm not sure how I like the aesthetic of every word beginning and
> ending with a vowel, but it does work nicely. And it allows for the
> use of shorter roots mixed in to the language as well.
Have a look at Ilomi (earlier called Elomi). That would give you a
sense of what it might look like and how it might work. :-)
>
> This restricts the form of prefixes to VC{C}, and suffixes to {C}CV
> (although, if the clusters are allowed, you could have
> single-consonant infixes which hijack the already-present initial and
> terminal vowels as well). And it very nearly requires that you only
> use one or the other, but that is fixable by designating a consonant
> (or class of consonants) to mark the boundaries of an affix list (as
> discussed above); pick the clusters right, and that doesn't even
> require adding an extra syllable.
Again, Ilomi provides an illustration of this, on the boundary between
components of compound words.
---larry
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7h. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:30 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> I'm not sure how I like the aesthetic of every word beginning and
>> ending with a vowel, but it does work nicely. And it allows for the
>> use of shorter roots mixed in to the language as well.
>
> Have a look at Ilomi (earlier called Elomi). That would give you a
> sense of what it might look like and how it might work. :-)
I have. Not extensively, but I've skimmed most of the website and read
through the lexicon and dialogues. It's not *displeasing*, but I'm not
sure if it's the sort of thing I want to work with myself. Sort of
like how I like looking at paintings, but I don't much like painting
myself.
-l.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:03 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> ...and a third method might be along the lines John Cowan outlined for
> xuxuxi:
>
> {quote}
> xuxuxi uses vowel harmony/disharmony to resolve the problem.
> All multi-syllable words are stressed on the first syllable,
> and then the other syllables of the word, except the last,
> have vowel harmony. The last syllable of the word has disharmony.
> Any remaining syllables before the next stressed syllable are
> monosyllabic.
>
> Here's the harmony/disharmony table:
>
> first medial last
> a a, e, o i, u
> e a, e, i o, u
> i a, e, i o, u
> o a, o, u i, e
> u a, o, u i, e
>
> So a in the first syllable triggers height harmony, and all other vowels
> trigger front/back harmony.
> {/quote}
>
> See:
> http://archives.conlang.info/fhe/quachin/dhirwulqoen.html
And some extra from the link:
Gary Shannon scripsit:
>...
> I've always favored open syllables. They are neat and
> tidy and east to synthesize. But there's a parsing
> probelem with the spoken language.
[...]
> So here's the solution that occured to me as I was
> dozing off last night:
>
> Words take the form CVV or VCVV or CVCVV or VCVCVV or
> CVCVCVV or VCVCVCVV, etc., where the final syllable
> must always have a vowel pair and no other syllable in
> a word is permitted to have a vowel pair.
This sounds like a good plan. And since it depends entirely on a
marking at the end of a word to accomplish word-segregation, there's
no inherent restriction on consonant clusters internal to the word,
which provides a bit of extra freedom. But what if we *want*
word-internal vowel sequences? The harmony system has no problem with
vowel sequences, but it restricts the number of ways you can mix
vowels in words, and the final-pair system has no problem with mixing
up the entire vowel inventory, but it has issues with internal
sequences. Combining the two, however, we can get a system that has
the strengths of both-
Rather than using any pair of vowels to mark the end of a word, what
about having classes of vowels, with particular class pairings being
reserved for boundary-marking, but leaving other pairing free for use
internally? The classes don't have to based on harmony, but that seems
a natural choice. Rather than all vowels except the last harmonizing
with the first in a word, you could have all vowel pairs being
harmonious or all disharmonious except the last. This also opens up
more freedom with affixing, because the internal vowels of a word
won't have to change to re-harmonize with the new initials or new
terminals provided by affixes. Thus, you can use any single vowels you
want internally, and you can use some types of vowel sequences.
It occurs to me also that the final-pair marking system without
initial vowels is essentially equivalent to a surrounding-vowel
system, where all words start and end with a vowel, except that each
initial vowel is shifted backwards by one word. But with the
final-pair system we can still have words starting with vowels if we
want, and even starting with sequences of vowels after restricting the
class of final pairs. This has potentially fun implications for
sandhi, which might trigger elisions or insertion of extra dividing
consonants depending on the relation between the final vowels of one
word and the initials of the next.
We can even still have words ending in consonants after the final pair
if there's a restriction on what consonants can appear word-initially,
so as we don't get confused as to whether the ending consonant does
belong at the end of the last word or the beginning of the next. Even
without such a restriction, though, we can have some artistic fun by
still putting in normally-unpronounced final consonants, as in French,
that become pronounced when the following word meets certain
conditions (those extra diving consonants I mentioned). They don't
carry any additional information, so it doesn't matter which word they
get parsed as being assigned to (as long as they don't produce
confusing homophony on the following word).
Altogether, this results in the most flexible self-segregating
morphological system I have yet seen (although, it only addresses
segregating words, rather than individual morphemes, but a
word-internal segregation system could be superimposed fairly easily).
-l.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
8b. Re: Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
Posted by: "Larry Sulky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:29 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---SNIP---
> Gary Shannon scripsit:
>>...
>> I've always favored open syllables. They are neat and
>> tidy and east to synthesize. But there's a parsing
>> probelem with the spoken language.
> [...]
>> So here's the solution that occured to me as I was
>> dozing off last night:
>>
>> Words take the form CVV or VCVV or CVCVV or VCVCVV or
>> CVCVCVV or VCVCVCVV, etc., where the final syllable
>> must always have a vowel pair and no other syllable in
>> a word is permitted to have a vowel pair.
>
> This sounds like a good plan. And since it depends entirely on a
> marking at the end of a word to accomplish word-segregation, there's
> no inherent restriction on consonant clusters internal to the word,
> which provides a bit of extra freedom.
I am working on a conlang right now that does this. It's looking very
promising. I know, I know, I said I was going to set auxlanging
aside... that's why this one is a conlang that just LOOKS like an
auxlang.
> But what if we *want*
> word-internal vowel sequences?
Try separating them with a glottal stop? Or using only a subset
(perhaps easily diphthongised) for the word-ending markers?
>
> It occurs to me also that the final-pair marking system without
> initial vowels is essentially equivalent to a surrounding-vowel
> system, where all words start and end with a vowel, except that each
> initial vowel is shifted backwards by one word.
Correct. Saves a syllable per word, too, if the vowel pair can be
pronounced as a diphthong.
>
> Altogether, this results in the most flexible self-segregating
> morphological system I have yet seen (although, it only addresses
> segregating words, rather than individual morphemes, but a
> word-internal segregation system could be superimposed fairly easily).
I've also done this. I'd be happy to send you a sample if you'd like.
I think your overall design is very different from what I'm doing, but
I'm happy to share examples if you think they'd be fruitful for you.
--larry
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
8c. Re: Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:52 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ---SNIP---
>> Gary Shannon scripsit:
>>>...
>>> I've always favored open syllables. They are neat and
>>> tidy and east to synthesize. But there's a parsing
>>> probelem with the spoken language.
>> [...]
>>> So here's the solution that occured to me as I was
>>> dozing off last night:
>>>
>>> Words take the form CVV or VCVV or CVCVV or VCVCVV or
>>> CVCVCVV or VCVCVCVV, etc., where the final syllable
>>> must always have a vowel pair and no other syllable in
>>> a word is permitted to have a vowel pair.
>>
>> This sounds like a good plan. And since it depends entirely on a
>> marking at the end of a word to accomplish word-segregation, there's
>> no inherent restriction on consonant clusters internal to the word,
>> which provides a bit of extra freedom.
>
> I am working on a conlang right now that does this. It's looking very
> promising. I know, I know, I said I was going to set auxlanging
> aside... that's why this one is a conlang that just LOOKS like an
> auxlang.
I decided long ago that auxlanging was pretty much pointless for me,
because I am not willing to put in the time or the emotional
investment required to get anybody else interested. Auxlang design
philosophy occasionally comes up with some pretty weird and
interesting things that I like to try out, though. The thing that I
really like about having maximal flexibility in a self-segregating
system is that it allows you to do some things that are distinctly
un-auxlang-like, such as inserting French-esque "disappearing
consonants", if you want to play with that and still keep the
self-segregation.
Gogido is my one intentionally auxlang-esque project, and another nice
thing about this sort of hyper-flexible system is that I might be able
to retrofit it onto Gogido without too much alteration of the existing
grammar and lexicon.
>> But what if we *want*
>> word-internal vowel sequences?
>
> Try separating them with a glottal stop? Or using only a subset
> (perhaps easily diphthongised) for the word-ending markers?
Glottal stops are the 'obvious' solution, but they technically still
count as consonants. That's cheating. :)
Hence, yes, use subsets. If you've got 5 vowels, that gives you 25
pairs (or 16 if you ignore doubles), which should give you plenty of
options for dividing up the terminals vs. non-terminals.
>> It occurs to me also that the final-pair marking system without
>> initial vowels is essentially equivalent to a surrounding-vowel
>> system, where all words start and end with a vowel, except that each
>> initial vowel is shifted backwards by one word.
>
> Correct. Saves a syllable per word, too, if the vowel pair can be
> pronounced as a diphthong.
Oo, good point. Didn't think of that. I tend to think of diphthongs as
single vowel units, distinct from two vowels in series.
>>
>> Altogether, this results in the most flexible self-segregating
>> morphological system I have yet seen (although, it only addresses
>> segregating words, rather than individual morphemes, but a
>> word-internal segregation system could be superimposed fairly easily).
>
> I've also done this. I'd be happy to send you a sample if you'd like.
> I think your overall design is very different from what I'm doing, but
> I'm happy to share examples if you think they'd be fruitful for you.
Sure. I'll look at just about anything for additional inspiration.
-l.
Messages in this topic (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
