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" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:02 am ((PDT))
> From: Leonardo Castro [email protected]
> 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" [email protected]
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" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:09 pm ((PDT))
>On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:49 AM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> 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" [email protected]
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:
[email protected]
[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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
