Vreleksá Forum Index Vreleksá
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Barath-ais Sakri

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Conlangs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tolkien_Freak



Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 1231
Location: in front of my computer. always.
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:26 pm    Post subject: Barath-ais Sakri Reply with quote
New conlang from me! Finally decided to stop being lazy and do another lang.

It's based partly of Semitic langs (triliteral roots, but with a vowel as part of the root too), but combined with Japanese*10[sup]4[/sup] for a fully-functional social status marking system. It's spoken by a nation that has a very strict caste system (like India or feudal Europe), and marks the social status of the speaker relative to the listener, and to everyone else involved in the sentence.

Haven't gotten to verbs yet (nor have I fully fleshed out the phonology), but the nouns look something like this. Honorific level (is this the right word? I can't figure out a better one) is marked by messing with the base, and case and number are marked on a separate following particle. (thus, Barath-ais Sakri: Barath.H3-GEN language)

Ex with honorifics (using A-BRTh-1, name for the nation)
1 Ebrath
2 Abarth
3 Barath
4 Burtha

With I-SKR-2 (language), it's
1 eskir
2 iskar
3 sakri
4 sukir

1 is for talking to the King, 2 is for lower castes talking to nobles, 3 is for talking withing your caste and the King talking to nobles and 4 is for nobles and the King talking to lower castes.

(nouns are listed vowel-consonant roots-declension)

I'll be working on verbs soon, and I'm going to try to experiment with an idea I had for circumpositions.

@Eldin: Would it be plausible to have an erg-abs alignment for talking to upper classes and nom-acc for talking to lower classes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Barath-ais Sakri Reply with quote
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
@Eldin: Would it be plausible to have an erg-abs alignment for talking to upper classes and nom-acc for talking to lower classes?
Well, yes, but a Hierarchical system is likelier, don't you think?

There are RL natlangs in which, if one speaks of royalty, the subject of the sentence must be one of the royals. In these languages there are many passive sentences where the patient is royal and so must be the subject.

A Direct/Inverse Voice System seems more likely. The higher-ranking person is always the Subject. If the higher-ranking person is also the Agent, the verb is in the Direct Voice; if the higher-ranking person is the Patient, the verb is in the Inverse Voice.

When they're of equal rank you'll need some kind of disambiguation. If they're both third-person royals, this might be a kind of "obviation".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A split-ergative system is likelier to use the nom-acc alignment when talking about higher classes and an erg-abs alignment when talking about lower classes, than to vary the alignment depending upon whom one is speaking to.

Here's my suggestion:

Nouns (and pronouns) for persons who outrank both the Speaker and the Addressee (or the highest-ranking Addressee) are treated nominatively/accusatively.

Nouns (and pronouns) for persons whom both the Speaker and the Addresse (or highest-ranking Address) outrank, are treated ergatively/absolutively.

Nouns (and pronouns) with intermediate rank -- equal to that of the Speaker, or that of the (highest-ranking) Addressee, or between those ranks -- are treated in a tripartite fashion.

That would make the system erg/abs for all non-human nouns (and pronouns). But nouns for humans would have to have three cases, although some speakers would never use all three of them if talking to some addressees.

(If the system isn't sensitive to the rank of the addressee(s), a speaker would never use the "ergative" case for nouns referring to persons of higher rank, and never use the "accusative" case for nouns referring to persons of lower rank.)

The assumptions are:
Upper classes are likelier to be agents, so if unmarked are probably agents, and if patients probably must be marked.
Lower classes are likelier to be patients, so if unmarked are probably patients, and if agents probably must be marked.

There are many split-ergative systems which do just that, but they use the Definiteness Hierarchy and/or the Empathy Hierarchy and/or the Animacy Hierarchy, rather than a class system for humans, as you are proposing.

(BTW I think the proposal is a pretty good one.)

You still might need some kind of disambiguation.

If both the Agent and the Patient outrank both the Speaker and the Addressee, you need to mark them different; I think marking the Patient as Accusative and leaving the Agent unmarked (let's call that "nominative") would work.

If both the Speaker and the Addressee outrank both the Agent and the Patient, you need to mark them different; I think marking the Agent as Ergative and leaving the Patient unmarked (let's call that "absolutive") would work.

When the Speaker outranks the Agent and the Patient, but the Agent and Patient outrank the Addressee, what do you use? A tripartite system?

When the Addressee outranks the Agent and the Patient, but the Agent and Patient outrank the Speaker, what do you use? A tripartite system?

Should it be sensitive to the Addressee's rank at all?
If so, what if there are multiple AddresseeS?
I think a group of addressees should be ranked equal to their highest-ranking member; the other addressees should be ignored.
In fact this should probably go for number as well; a Duke and a bunch of Baronets should be addressed as singular rather than as plural, ignoring the Baronets.

What if the Speaker (and/or Addressee, if the system is sensitive to the rank of the Addressee) is of the same rank as either the Agent or the Patient? Should you use a tripartite system for Agents, Patients, and intransitive Subjects, the same rank as the Speaker? (and/or the Addressee?)

--------------------------------------

To me, one of the big differences depending on the relative rank of Speaker and Addressee, will be in irrealis-mode statements. In particular, in commands, requests, wishes, etc.; also in statements conditional on one of these. A lower-ranking Speaker has to treat the wishes of the Addressee as facts that can't be gainsaid; they may be unknown to the Speaker, but they aren't really "irrealis", in one way of thinking. Similarly a lower-ranking Speaker has to treat his own wishes as very tenuous "irrealis" -- kind of "hyper-irrealis" -- since the Addressee can overturn them with a word.

A higher-ranking Speaker doesn't have to do that with a lower-ranking Addressee. In fact, he can assume his own commands are just part of Reality for the Addressee; he can say "You will ... " as a Future Realis statement.

-------------------

Did I help?

Are you more confused, or less?

Which parts of what I said are you going to ignore?

------------

Good luck!
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tolkien_Freak



Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 1231
Location: in front of my computer. always.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:19 am    Post subject: Re: Barath-ais Sakri Reply with quote
eldin raigmore wrote:
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
@Eldin: Would it be plausible to have an erg-abs alignment for talking to upper classes and nom-acc for talking to lower classes?
Well, yes, but a Hierarchical system is likelier, don't you think?

There are RL natlangs in which, if one speaks of royalty, the subject of the sentence must be one of the royals. In these languages there are many passive sentences where the patient is royal and so must be the subject.

A Direct/Inverse Voice System seems more likely. The higher-ranking person is always the Subject. If the higher-ranking person is also the Agent, the verb is in the Direct Voice; if the higher-ranking person is the Patient, the verb is in the Inverse Voice.

When they're of equal rank you'll need some kind of disambiguation. If they're both third-person royals, this might be a kind of "obviation".

I like the idea, but I think I'll opt for the split-ergative system, just since it's more like what I was thinking.

Quote:
A split-ergative system is likelier to use the nom-acc alignment when talking about higher classes and an erg-abs alignment when talking about lower classes, than to vary the alignment depending upon whom one is speaking to.

Yep, don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that just then.

Quote:
Here's my suggestion:

Nouns (and pronouns) for persons who outrank both the Speaker and the Addressee (or the highest-ranking Addressee) are treated nominatively/accusatively.

Nouns (and pronouns) for persons whom both the Speaker and the Addresse (or highest-ranking Address) outrank, are treated ergatively/absolutively.

I like it, but I might want to flip it since the idea is that the nobles don't actually have to do anything for themselves (the peasants do it), rather then them being ultimately responsible for everything.

Quote:
The assumptions are:
Upper classes are likelier to be agents, so if unmarked are probably agents, and if patients probably must be marked.
Lower classes are likelier to be patients, so if unmarked are probably patients, and if agents probably must be marked.

Like I said, I'll probably flip it (though I might go for some weird voice construction like '[verb] is done for [subj]').

Quote:
(BTW I think the proposal is a pretty good one.)

Thanks.

Quote:
If both the Agent and the Patient outrank both the Speaker and the Addressee, you need to mark them different; I think marking the Patient as Accusative and leaving the Agent unmarked (let's call that "nominative") would work.

If both the Speaker and the Addressee outrank both the Agent and the Patient, you need to mark them different; I think marking the Agent as Ergative and leaving the Patient unmarked (let's call that "absolutive") would work.

When the Speaker outranks the Agent and the Patient, but the Agent and Patient outrank the Addressee, what do you use? A tripartite system?

When the Addressee outranks the Agent and the Patient, but the Agent and Patient outrank the Speaker, what do you use? A tripartite system?

Maybe I should have it more or less fixed to rank - (a noble is always erg/abs and a peasant is always nom/acc) with the King using nom/acc to everybody.

Quote:
Should it be sensitive to the Addressee's rank at all?
If so, what if there are multiple AddresseeS?
I think a group of addressees should be ranked equal to their highest-ranking member; the other addressees should be ignored.
In fact this should probably go for number as well; a Duke and a bunch of Baronets should be addressed as singular rather than as plural, ignoring the Baronets.

I like it.

--------------------------------------

Quote:
A higher-ranking Speaker doesn't have to do that with a lower-ranking Addressee. In fact, he can assume his own commands are just part of Reality for the Addressee; he can say "You will ... " as a Future Realis statement.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Maybe upward commands/requests could have a special mood, indicating that it is the [lower] speaker's desire, but that doesn't matter much to the [higher] addresse.

-------------------

Quote:
Did I help?

Are you more confused, or less?

Which parts of what I said are you going to ignore?

Yes, less, and only the parts that end up not applying.

Thanks very much!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tolkien_Freak



Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 1231
Location: in front of my computer. always.
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Verbs done!

For 'honorifics', I decided to go with a static system - rather than marking people in relation to each other, you just mark their position. As with nouns, honorifics are conducted with vowels in the stem while inflections are attached at the end after a hyphen. They don't mark for person or number of anything, often the honorifics are enough.

Intransitive forms (marking only one honorific level) are only used in active voice with no object or passive with no agent. Transitive forms (marking two levels) mark subj and obj in active voice, subj and agent in the rest.
Aside from active and passive, it has adjutative and causative voices. Adjutative is used for subj assisting agent or subj following agent's orders, while causative is used for subject causing (generally ordering) agent to do something.
(Is it okay if adjutative and causative use nom/abs, erg, and acc all together, or is mixing alignments something necessary to avoid?)

Other than that, the system is simple. The only things of note are 4 moods:
Hypothetical (self-explanatory)
Inferential - Used for relating others' wishes. Analogous to '-garu' in Japanese.
Volitive - desires that probably will be fulfilled. Imperative for King>nobles or higher nobles>lower nobles.
Optative - desires that probably won't be fulfilled. Used for lower suggesting to higher.
(should the names on the last two be switched?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
Verbs done!
For 'honorifics', I decided to go with a static system - rather than marking people in relation to each other, you just mark their position.


For example, in American corporations, there are four ranks;
  1. Top management; the main guy and those who report directly to him/her.
  2. Middle management; any manager who is neither top management nor line management.
  3. Line management; any manager whose direct subordinates are line-workers.
  4. Line workers; any worker not in management.
This leaves out non-employees such as customers, people who buy our stuff or sell us what we need, competitors, and the general public. Most conversations in corporate America just aren't about such people.
It also doesn't differentiate the line workers between the "direct" -- those who actually touch the product (as part of their jobs) or meet the customers (as part of their jobs) -- and "indirect", though that difference is important.

Your culture might have:
  1. the Emperor and the Imperial Family and the possible Imperial Heirs and the Emperor's Ministers (but not their ministers!).
  2. Any other noble who outranks the lowest-ranked nobles.
  3. Baronets, knights, gentry -- anyone who has subordinates but whose subordinates don't have subordinates.
  4. Squires without land, knights-errant (e.g. black-mailed knights without squires or pages or land), peasants, vergers, townsmen (other than town officials!), etc.
  5. Foreigners, animals, inanimate objects, trash, and such things


Tolkien_Freak wrote:
As with nouns, honorifics are conducted with vowels in the stem while inflections are attached at the end after a hyphen. They don't mark for person or number of anything, often the honorifics are enough.

Intransitive forms (marking only one honorific level) are only used in active voice with no object or passive with no agent. Transitive forms (marking two levels) mark subj and obj in active voice, subj and agent in the rest.
OK.
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
Aside from active and passive, it has adjutative and causative voices. Adjutative is used for subj assisting agent or subj following agent's orders, while causative is used for subject causing (generally ordering) agent to do something.
These are great! I think what you call "adjutative" already has a name; I'm not sure whether or not it's "adjutatitive".
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
(Is it okay if adjutative and causative use nom/abs, erg, and acc all together, or is mixing alignments something necessary to avoid?)
I don't know. "Voice" and "case" and "alignment" are quite dependent on each other as a general rule; I couldn't figure it out without examples and experimentation. See if you can find it in some natlangs, or at least find something similar enough to be an inspiration.

Tolkien_Freak wrote:
Other than that, the system is simple. The only things of note are 4 moods:
Hypothetical (self-explanatory)
Inferential - Used for relating others' wishes. Analogous to '-garu' in Japanese.
This isn't what I'm used to hearing called "inferential".
"Inferential" is usually an evidential (which might be a kind of mood), and means the speaker is logically deducing the probable truth of what he or she is saying from other things that he or she actually has evidence for.
The mood for what someone else says -- which is also an evidential -- is called "reportative".
You want a mood specifically for passing on someone else's commands or requests, right? I don't know a good name for it. There may be one out there, though. I'm pretty sure "inferential" isn't it; or, if it is (and I suppose it may be), I just hadn't heard so yet.

Tolkien_Freak wrote:
Volitive - desires that probably will be fulfilled. Imperative for King>nobles or higher nobles>lower nobles.
Optative - desires that probably won't be fulfilled. Used for lower suggesting to higher.
(should the names on the last two be switched?)
I think it's OK like it is.
"Vol-" has to do with will or wish; it might as well be the speaker who wills or wishes it. I imagine most of the time it is the speaker.
"Opt-" has to do with choosing; the speaker is presenting a choice to the addressee, or is telling the addressee that the truth of what the speaker says depends on the choice made by someone other than the speaker (perhaps the addressee, perhaps a third person).

-------

I like that you make distinctions not everyone makes, and that they fit in with your culture's "mindset".
I like your voices and I like your moods.
What you actually call them might be neater or cleaner; or there may be no need to neaten it up.

----------------------------

EDIT: added "(but not their ministers!)"
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission

Last edited by eldin raigmore on Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tolkien_Freak



Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 1231
Location: in front of my computer. always.
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eldin raigmore wrote:
This leaves out non-employees such as customers, people who buy our stuff or sell us what we need, competitors, and the general public. Most conversations in corporate America just aren't about such people.
It also doesn't differentiate the line workers between the "direct" -- those who actually touch the product (as part of their jobs) or meet the customers (as part of their jobs) -- and "indirect", though that difference is important.

Your culture might have:
  1. the Emperor and the Imperial Family and the possible Imperial Heirs and the Emperor's Ministers.
  2. Any other noble who outranks the lowest-ranked nobles.
  3. Baronets, knights, gentry -- anyone who has subordinates but whose subordinates don't have subordinates.
  4. Squires without land, knights-errant (e.g. black-mailed knights without squires or pages or land), peasants, vergers, townsmen (other than town officials!), etc.
  5. Foreigners, animals, inanimate objects, trash, and such things

What I have is more like this:
  1. The King and royal family
  2. All nobles, regardless of rank; foreign leaders/nobles/diplomats
  3. Craftsmen, merchants, and such
  4. Peasants and servants

Everything else varies by what it is less than category - most animals are 3, but things like eagles and lions and other such 'inspirational' animals are 2 and things like rats and insects are 4. Inanimate objects are usually 4, but something like 'throne' or 'sword' would be 2.

Quote:
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
Aside from active and passive, it has adjutative and causative voices. Adjutative is used for subj assisting agent or subj following agent's orders, while causative is used for subject causing (generally ordering) agent to do something.
These are great! I think what you call "adjutative" already has a name; I'm not sure whether or not it's "adjutatitive".

'Adjutative' is what I found on Wikipedia for a voice that refers to subject assisting agent.
Quote:
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
(Is it okay if adjutative and causative use nom/abs, erg, and acc all together, or is mixing alignments something necessary to avoid?)
I don't know. "Voice" and "case" and "alignment" are quite dependent on each other as a general rule; I couldn't figure it out without examples and experimentation. See if you can find it in some natlangs, or at least find something similar enough to be an inspiration.

Alright.

Quote:
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
Other than that, the system is simple. The only things of note are 4 moods:
Hypothetical (self-explanatory)
Inferential - Used for relating others' wishes. Analogous to '-garu' in Japanese.
This isn't what I'm used to hearing called "inferential".
"Inferential" is usually an evidential (which might be a kind of mood), and means the speaker is logically deducing the probable truth of what he or she is saying from other things that he or she actually has evidence for.
The mood for what someone else says -- which is also an evidential -- is called "reportative".
You want a mood specifically for passing on someone else's commands or requests, right? I don't know a good name for it. There may be one out there, though. I'm pretty sure "inferential" isn't it; or, if it is (and I suppose it may be), I just hadn't heard so yet.

Yeah, it's a WAY narrowed use of the name. I saw it on Wikipedia and I thought 'I can use this for that(^).' I think 'reportative' would work, though, and expand it to reporting anything that you did not say or think yourself.

-------

Quote:
I like that you make distinctions not everyone makes, and that they fit in with your culture's "mindset".
I like your voices and I like your moods.
What you actually call them might be neater or cleaner; or there may be no need to neaten it up.

Thanks! I suck at naming things, so it probably could do with cleaning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tolkien_Freak wrote:
What I have is more like this:
  1. The King and royal family
  2. All nobles, regardless of rank; foreign leaders/nobles/diplomats
  3. Craftsmen, merchants, and such
  4. Peasants and servants
Everything else varies by what it is less than category - most animals are 3, but things like eagles and lions and other such 'inspirational' animals are 2 and things like rats and insects are 4. Inanimate objects are usually 4, but something like 'throne' or 'sword' would be 2.
I'm a bit surprised foreigners are included so high. Hinduism's caste-system makes all non-Hindus "outcastes", the equivalent of "untouchables".

Tolkien_Freak wrote:
'Adjutative' is what I found on Wikipedia for a voice that refers to subject assisting agent.
Good. Thanks!

Tolkien_Freak wrote:
Yeah, it's a WAY narrowed use of the name. I saw it on Wikipedia and I thought 'I can use this for that(^).'
Technically speaking some kind of "-ferential" or "-phoric" would make sense as a name for this mood; it's just that you'd be likely to need to explain it.

Tolkien_Freak wrote:
I think 'reportative' would work, though, and expand it to reporting anything that you did not say or think yourself.
That would be great! It'd be like some natlangs actually have and like some linguists actually call it. "Quotative" might be as good or even better.

Tolkien_Freak wrote:
Thanks! I suck at naming things, so it probably could do with cleaning.
(1) I'm obviously less-than-perfect myself; and (2) I don't think anything's wrong with what you have now.

I look forward to more!
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aeetlrcreejl



Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 839
Location: Over yonder
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My Tird Kalsem is like Barath-ais Sakri, but instead of honorifics, it has evidentiality.

Tirdhi Kalsem tirdelzi Barathut, rilfewmelkez, rimtawq.
_________________
Iwocwá ĵọṭãsák.
/iwotSwa_H d`Z`Ot`~asa_Hk/
[iocwa_H d`Z`Ot`_h~a_Hk]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Conlangs
All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Theme ACID © 2003 par HEDONISM Web Hosting Directory


Start Your Own Video Sharing Site

Free Web Hosting | Free Forum Hosting | FlashWebHost.com | Image Hosting | Photo Gallery | FreeMarriage.com

Powered by PhpBBweb.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com