There are 5 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Mass Nouns
From: Garth Wallace
2. A traveller's report in Buruya Nzaysa
From: Jan Strasser
3a. Re: Vowel Contraction Question
From: Anthony Miles
4a. subject and object covered by a single case?
From: Matthew Boutilier
4b. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
From: MorphemeAddict
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Mass Nouns
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:10 am ((PDT))
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Dustfinger Batailleur
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Are there natural languages that have no mass nouns? How about only
> residual instances of these or of count nouns?
Japanese has no grammatical number, and numbers must be accompanied by
an appropriate counter word to quantify a noun (sort of like "head of
cattle"), so in a sense all Japanese nouns are mass nouns. However,
counter words are grammatically distinct from nouns (usually
compounding with the number, e.g. "ichi" one + "hon" cylinders ->
"ippon"), and quantification does not require the use of a possessive
(you just stick the number-counter complex after the noun, or after
the case particle), so it's not quite the same.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. A traveller's report in Buruya Nzaysa
Posted by: "Jan Strasser" [email protected]
Date: Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:11 pm ((PDT))
I translated a fairly long text into Buruya Nzaysa recently. Originally,
I had envisioned to use it as the starting text for one of the next
conlang relays, but it's too long for that (previous relays have usually
started with texts of about a quarter the size), so I'm posting it here
as an annotated translation instead, and I also recommend it as a great
translation challenge for all ambitious conlangers.
The text is a slightly adapted version of Marco Polo's description of
alligators in Yunnan (~1298;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Travels_of_Marco_Polo/Book_2/Chapter_49).
I'm splitting it into four sections to try and avoid a TL;DR reaction on
your part. I'm also cross-posting it to my blog
(http://audmanh.wordpress.com/) Anyway, here's section one:
Nzɔ ɛma bura
Sah ni tsə tavlɛ nzɔ ɛma bura roni, ño u rudi mvomu ri ta’oh rabɛ lu
mɛsə ada pɛmo, o ño u rifə mvomu ri wɛ’oh owa lu ivrɛ ome ñugɛ oltəña.
Tiya podɔ ovla rɛ sah emodo ño u lamu o mɛgɔ kwə ntsa muda.
Ɛ’i’ɔxa rumɛ rɛ saxa ɔ rɔ kəlu ah lamu modo, o rɛ saxa ɔ raxolbo yɛni ah
asi ñolu. Saxa mɛsu lo əmo ɔ ñe bitsi mvɔ mvunɛ, dal saxa ño lo xol ayru
tsɛga ɔ munanɔ ño u tali. Sə lo əmo ayru ɔ tətsɔ ntsa, o saxa lo soldu ɔ
suni ah ulpi sopsə. Sə lo mab ɔ ñavra mvomu ri esa ñalta leda ɔ ru sewe
inzɔ, o sa ɔ tselɔ ño u silvo olda. Nte’a, esah nzɔ mvɔwa ño u kili o
rifə kwə muda xutsɔ olah ɔra maldɔ o əña kwə u nzɔ payu o lesəgɔ.
The great serpents
In this province are found great serpents of such vast size as to strike
fear into those who see them, and so hideous that the very account of
them must excite the wonder of those to hear it. I will tell you how
long and big they are.
You may be assured that some of them are ten paces in length, and in
bulk they are equal to a great cask. They have two short forelegs near
the head, but for foot nothing but claws like those of a hawk. The head
is very big, and the eyes are bigger than apples. The mouth is large
enough to swallow a man whole, and is garnished with great pointed
teeth. And in short they are so fierce-looking and so hideously ugly
that every man and beast must stand in fear and trembling of them.
Well, let's start analyzing the text sentence by sentence:
Sah ni tsə tavlɛ nzɔ ɛma bura roni,
NULL.AUX-3PL in.3 that.ACC far_away_region TOP.NOM serpent notable dwell
In that region dwell great serpents,
ño u rudi mvomu ri ta’oh rabɛ lu
mɛsə ada pɛmo,
as.3 INDEF.NOM giant enough_for.3 SUB.NOM INCH.AUX-2PL during.3 DEF.ACC
meet.VN to.3 fear
so much like giants that you begin to be afraid when you encounter them,
o ño u rifə mvomu ri wɛ’oh owa lu
ivrɛ ome ñugɛ oltəña.
and as.3 INDEF.NOM scary enough_for.3 SUB.NOM FUT.AUX-2PL after.3
DEF.ACC story from.1 about.3 be_fascinated
and so scary that you will be fascinated after my story about them.
The very first sentence of the text already posed a significant
challenge, twice: How does Buruya Nzaysa express a conditional clause
that is not dependent on another clause, but on the degree to which an
attributive noun fits its referent? In the English version of the text
that I translated from, the structure in question was expressed in two
different ways: 'of such vast size as to...' (using a preposition +
infinitive construction dependent on a noun that is itself the object of
a preposition), and 'so hideous that...' (using a complement clause
dependent on a predicate adjective). Buruya Nzaysa does not distinguish
between nouns and adjectives, so I decided that these constructions
could be seen as logically equivalent, and would both be expressed in
the same way here. But how? At first I decided to coin an adverb mvɔwa
'so much, to such an extent' (from Ndak Ta mbopm 'enough'), to which a
normal complement clause would be added. Then I realized that complement
clauses act like nouns, and nouns can't be subordinated to adverbs
directly, so I added the genitive/circumstantial preposition u in
between: mvɔwa u ri.... This felt semantically natural ('enough of it
that...'), but it had two minor disadvantages: Firstly, this use of u
relies on an older benefactive/purposive sense that has otherwise been
lost, and secondly the precise sequence of words is a bit clumsy to
pronounce for a probably fairly common construction. The solution I
found was to treat the first part of the phrase as a single phonological
word in the parent language already - mbopm wau, which would regularly
evolve into mvomu in Buruya Nzaysa. Since this is an ordinary
preposition, it can simply take a complement clause as its object.
Another thing to note is the parallel structure of the two conditional
complement clauses, with two nominalized verbs as the objects of
prepositions, and with each of these two nominalized verbs expressing
their own patient/theme as a stranded preposition with an implicit 3rd
person object: rabɛ lu mɛsə ada, lit. 'during the meeting with it', and
owa lu ivrɛ ome ñugɛ, lit. 'after the telling by me about it'.
Tiya podɔ ovla rɛ sah emodo ño u
lamu o mɛgɔ kwə ntsa muda.
INT.AUX-1SG>3 for.2 describe SUB.ACC NULL.COP-3PL how_much as.3
INDEF.NOM long and mighty with.3 very look
I'm going to describe to you how much they appear very long and powerful.
The second sentence, the second significant challenge. (The rest of the
text proved easier.) Once again, we have an issue of degree, but this
time directly subordinated to a matrix verb in a structure equivalent to
indirect speech, although there's a slight semantic difference to the
latter. The question here is: How does the language deal with
interrogative content clauses? In English, the interrogative pronoun
'how much' is used as a subordinator directly, but this is not possible
in Buruya Nzaysa. Instead, emodo 'how much' is an adverb modifying the
verb of a complement clause, which is itself used as the direct object
of the matrix verb: 'describe that it looks how much like...'
Within the complement clause, we also find a grouped noun phrase where
two nouns (both of them semantically more like adjectives, by the way)
are coordinated by using a single indefinite article, the conjunction o
'and', and a stranded preposition kwə 'with', so that the phrase in
question is literally 'like a long one and a mighty one with it'. (See
also:
http://audmanh.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/grouped-noun-phrases-in-buruya-nzaysa/)
Ɛ’i’ɔxa rumɛ rɛ saxa ɔ rɔ kəlu ah lamu modo,
OPT.AUX-2PL>3 know SUB.ACC NULL.AUX-3PL>3 INDEF.ACC ten step of.3 long count
You will want to know that they measure ten paces in length,
o rɛ saxa ɔ raxolbo yɛni ah asi ñolu.
and SUB.ACC NULL.AUX-3PL>3 INDEF.ACC cask wine of.3 thickness match
and that they match a barrel of wine in thickness.
There's not so much to say about this sentence. One of the more
interesting points is that numerals can't function as determiners, so
the quantification of the length of the serpent requires an additional
indefinite article. In the second clause we can see that comparison is
typically expressed verbally, here stating equality by using ñolu
'match'. (For more on comparative structures in Buruya Nzaysa see
http://audmanh.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/comparative-statements-in-buruya-nzaysa/)
New words:
kəlu (n.) 'step, yard (as a measurement of distance)'. Etymology: Ndak
Ta kenglau 'walking space'.
raxolbo (n.) 'cask, barrel'. Etymology: Ndak Ta ragolbu 'that which is
filled'.
Saxa mɛsu lo əmo ɔ ñe bitsi mvɔ mvunɛ,
NULL.AUX-3PL>3 near.3 DEF.NOM head INDEF.ACC two leg short hold
Near the head they have two short legs,
dal saxa ño lo xol ayru tsɛga ɔ munanɔ ño
u tali.
but NULL.AUX-3PL>3 as.3 DEF.NOM foot of.3.ANIM only INDEF.ACC claw
as.3 INDEF.NOM hawk
but as their feet only claws like a hawk.
Another example of a numeral preceded by an article in ɔ ñe bitsi mvɔ
'two short legs'. The second half of the sentence consists of a
verb-gapping construction. The content verb would have been the same as
in the first clause, and so it can get left out. However, the auxiliary
verb can't be omitted; the lack of an overt content verb causes it to
refer back to the verb of the previous clause.
New words:
munanɔ (n.) 'claw'. A relatively recent compound of mu 'skin' and nanɔ
'cut', literally 'skin-cutter'.
tali (n.) 'hawk, falcon'. Borrowed from Miwan utalju, which literally
means 'discoverer'. A likely reason for the loss of the initial /u/ is
that it may have been interpreted as part of the article (DEF.ACC lu
and/or INDEF.NOM u); also, unstressed initial vowels are rare in Buruya
Nzaysa anyway.
Sə lo əmo ayru ɔ tətsɔ ntsa,
NULL.COP-3SG DEF.NOM head of.3.ANIM INDEF.ACC big very
Their head is very big,
o saxa lo soldu ɔ suni ah ulpi sopsə.
and NULL.AUX-3PL>3 DEF.NOM eyes INDEF.ACC apple of.3 size defeat
and the eyes surpass apples in size.
The beginning of this sentence provides an example of a nominal
predicate, which is formed in Buruya Nzaysa by inflecting the auxiliary
intransitively, but adding the predicate as an additional noun phrase in
the accusative case. The auxiliary then functions like a copula. (Note
that the only structural difference to the verb-gapping construction in
the previous sentence is whether the auxiliary carries transitive or
intransitive agreement.)
In the second clause we see another comparison, this time expressing
superiority by using the verb sopsə 'defeat, exceed, surpass'.
New words:
ulpi (n.) 'size'. Etymology: Ndak Ta ula pai 'rise big'. Buruya Nzaysa
tends to use quality words both as attributes and as abstract nouns (an
example is asi, which normally means 'thick, obese' but which I've
glossed as 'thickness' above), but some other words denoting qualities
refer primarily to the bearer of the quality and can't be used in the
abstract sense (an example is rudi 'giant' in the first sentence of this
text), and yet others refer primarily to the abstraction. The latter
type, of which ulpi is one of the most prominent instances, is fairly
rare overall though.
Sə lo mab ɔ ñavra mvomu ri esa
ñalta leda ɔ ru sewe inzɔ,
NULL.COP-3SG DEF.NOM mouth INDEF.ACC large enough_for.3 SUB.NOM
EMPH.AUX-3SG>3 indeed completely INDEF.ACC man tall swallow
The mouth is so large that it can actually swallow a tall man whole,
o sa ɔ tselɔ ño u silvo olda.
and NULL.AUX-3SG>3 INDEF.ACC tooth as.3 INDEF.NOM dagger be_armed_with
and it is armed with teeth like daggers.
The first part of this sentence contains another 'so much that...'
construction with a complement clause as the object of the preposition
mvomu, as described earlier. Note the emphatic auxiliary esa, which
highlights the unusual abilities of the serpent.
New words:
inzɔ (v.) 'swallow'. Borrowed from Delta Naidda ina så 'swallow down'.
silvo (n.) 'dagger'. Borrowed from Miwan sīlvo 'cut'; this word was at
first used verbally like its source (with a semantic shift to 'pierce,
stab'), but the ending /-vo/ quickly became associated with the
homophonous native agent nominalizer, and so silvo eventually acquired
nominal semantics, with a new verb sili being back-formed to take over
the verbal meaning.
olda (v.) 'be armed, be equipped with'. Etymology: Ndak Ta oldas 'should
fight'. This verb, originally a mostly intransitive formation based on
an old obligative mood form, can now also be used transitively with the
weapon as its direct object. It is still mostly limited to the semantic
field of fighting though; if you wanted to talk about e.g. being
equipped with a bag to carry things, you would have to use a more
generic verb like mvunɛ 'have, hold, own' instead.
Nte’a, esah nzɔ mvɔwa ño u kili o rifə
kwə muda
truly, EMPH.AUX-3PL TOP.NOM so_much as.3 INDEF.NOM dangerous and ugly
with.3 look
They are truly so fierce-looking and ugly
xutsɔ olah ɔra maldɔ o əña kwə u nzɔ payu
o lesəgɔ.
therefore OBL.AUX-3PL all person and animal with.3 from.3 TOP.NOM worry
and tremble
that all people and animals must be worried and trembling because of them.
Where the English translation has an adjectival predicate, Buruya Nzaysa
uses a prepositional phrase with the essive preposition ño 'as, like' as
an adjunct to the verb muda 'look, appear, resemble'. Within the
prepositional phrase, we see a grouped noun phrase again, combining two
separate characterizations with the conjunction o 'and' and a stranded
preposition kwə.
New words:
mvɔwa (adv.) 'so much, to such an extent, sufficiently'. Etymology: Ndak
Ta mbopm 'enough'. This is the "original" version of what I discussed in
connection with the first sentence of this text. In most instances I
eventually replaced it with the prepositional variant mvomu, but mvɔwa
remains a valid word, and it's used here as an adverbial qualifier, with
the resulting consequence introduced using the conjunction xutsɔ 'so,
therefore'.
kili (n.) 'wild, feral, fierce, dangerous'. Borrowed from Delta Naidda
kïlye. Its native cognate is the verb kəye 'threaten, confront,
challenge, provoke, upset', about which I wrote a word of the day
article back in December 2012
(http://audmanh.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/k%c9%99ye/).
Part Two coming up soon...
Jan
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Vowel Contraction Question
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" [email protected]
Date: Mon Aug 12, 2013 1:03 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:49:04 -0400, Anthony Miles <[email protected]> wrote:
Paradigmatic pressures would favour the versions containing /e:/, since the
base is /e:/. I don't see anything in syntax proper that could make a
difference, unless it gets in through sandhi effects and then we'd need to know
what the adjoining words are likely to be.
Otherwise, I dunno, contractions of long sequences of vowels is something I
have trouble with too. I'm not familiar with any detailed natlang examples. I
infer, though, from your not specifying alternatives for the comitative that
/iu/ cannot contract. Which pairs of vowels are susceptible to contraction?
Looking at what the shapes of three-vowel sequences are where one or the other
of the pairs can't contract might suggest a good principle to generalise on.
Anyway, there is something that I find suspect about what you've already done,
and that's [m] > [n]! I've never seen an unconditional natlang example of
that, no more than I've seen an unconditional example of [p] > [t]. For
comparison I do know at least one case of [m] > [N] (in Saanich, as part of
elimination of a whole labial series), and at least two cases of [p] > [k]
(Saanich again, and Arapaho).
Pencek http://akana.conlang.org/wiki/Pencek has the same blemish, and Radius
couldn't point out precedent when I asked him about it then. Arguably so does
Tairezazh, unless there was something freaky going on with internal
syllabification at one point.
Alex
Only /au/ and /ai/ contract to long /e:/ and /o:/, but a sequence /aii/ can
contract to the diphthong /ei/ < /e:i/. /i/ and /u/ become glides /y/ and /w/
word-initially or between a consonant and a vowel. I've decided to go with nai
> ne:, naipa > e:pa, aii > e:i > nei, aiiu > ne:u, and maai > ma:i > mae. For
regular i-stems the endings are -i, -ipa, -i:, u:, and ma-. For u-stems: -u,
-upa, -i:, -u:, and ma- (yes, there is overlap - it's a case system). The idea
of n and l is to eliminate all liquids and nasals for the language so that
radical innovation can occur.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. subject and object covered by a single case?
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" [email protected]
Date: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:03 pm ((PDT))
i've been thinking of some apparently ergative-absolutive usages in English
where a verb is used in active form that has passive meaning. e.g.
"the book reads quickly," "the car drives nicely," "the bourbon drinks
smoothly."
and i'm wondering how common it is, in natlangs or conlangs, for something
like this to be not only possible but the *norm*. well, keep reading.
i'm working on this much for a beloved conlang of mine:
*qiʔkɑ-n*
drank.INTRANS-1SG
'I drank' ... with *no object* (or perhaps a partitive genitive, e.g. "*some
* water")
*lij-æn qiʔkɑ-ʔ*
water-ABS drank.INTRANS-3
'The water *was drunk*' (cf. the water drank [smoothly])
*lij-æn qik<t>ɑ-n
*
water-ABS drank<TRANS>-1SG
'I drank *the* water.' (as opposed to some water)
thus, in my current version of things, i apparently have *two* possible
"transitivities," *intransitive* and *transitive*, but they are divided
differently from e.g. English. "I drank (some water)" is intransitive
grammatically because it doesn't focus on a definite object, and of course
"The water was drunk" is intransitive because the patient is the
grammatical subject.
but "i drank *the* *water*" must be transitive, and the patient is put in
the absolutive.
with me so far? this is kosher, right?
i suppose this implies that non-pronominal agents of "transitive" sentences
ought to be in an ergative case, e.g.
*āχ-t lij-æn qik<t>ɑ-**ʔ*
man-ERG water-ABS drank<TRANS>-3
'The man drank *the *water' (where the verb agrees with....'man'??)
i guess all i'm really doing is taking a regular ergative-absolutive system
and labeling a certain kind of usage (with a non-definite object) as
intransitive.
but the more i think about it, the more i wonder if i could get away with *
trashing* the ergative (which still would've existed historically, but no
longer) which was subverted by a topicalizing construction:
*āχ-æn -- lij-æn qik<t>ɑ-**ʔ* *>* *āχ-æn lij-æn qik<t>ɑ-**ʔ*
'The man, he drank the water' > 'The man drank the water.'
ONE case for subject and object, that is still a case (contrasting with GEN
and VOC)? there have got to be natlang (or even conlang) precedents for
something like this, yes?
matt
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:47 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Matthew Boutilier
<[email protected]>wrote:
> i've been thinking of some apparently ergative-absolutive usages in English
> where a verb is used in active form that has passive meaning. e.g.
> "the book reads quickly," "the car drives nicely," "the bourbon drinks
> smoothly."
>
These are examples of what I believe Rick Morneau calls the middle voice in
his monograph on Latejami.
stevo
>
> and i'm wondering how common it is, in natlangs or conlangs, for something
> like this to be not only possible but the *norm*. well, keep reading.
>
> i'm working on this much for a beloved conlang of mine:
>
> *qiʔkɑ-n*
> drank.INTRANS-1SG
> 'I drank' ... with *no object* (or perhaps a partitive genitive, e.g.
> "*some
> * water")
>
> *lij-æn qiʔkɑ-ʔ*
> water-ABS drank.INTRANS-3
> 'The water *was drunk*' (cf. the water drank [smoothly])
>
> *lij-æn qik<t>ɑ-n
> *
> water-ABS drank<TRANS>-1SG
> 'I drank *the* water.' (as opposed to some water)
>
> thus, in my current version of things, i apparently have *two* possible
> "transitivities," *intransitive* and *transitive*, but they are divided
> differently from e.g. English. "I drank (some water)" is intransitive
> grammatically because it doesn't focus on a definite object, and of course
> "The water was drunk" is intransitive because the patient is the
> grammatical subject.
>
> but "i drank *the* *water*" must be transitive, and the patient is put in
> the absolutive.
>
> with me so far? this is kosher, right?
>
> i suppose this implies that non-pronominal agents of "transitive" sentences
> ought to be in an ergative case, e.g.
> *āχ-t lij-æn qik<t>ɑ-**ʔ*
> man-ERG water-ABS drank<TRANS>-3
> 'The man drank *the *water' (where the verb agrees with....'man'??)
>
> i guess all i'm really doing is taking a regular ergative-absolutive system
> and labeling a certain kind of usage (with a non-definite object) as
> intransitive.
>
> but the more i think about it, the more i wonder if i could get away with *
> trashing* the ergative (which still would've existed historically, but no
> longer) which was subverted by a topicalizing construction:
>
> *āχ-æn -- lij-æn qik<t>ɑ-**ʔ* *>* *āχ-æn lij-æn qik<t>ɑ-**ʔ*
> 'The man, he drank the water' > 'The man drank the water.'
>
> ONE case for subject and object, that is still a case (contrasting with GEN
> and VOC)? there have got to be natlang (or even conlang) precedents for
> something like this, yes?
>
> matt
>
Messages in this topic (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
