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 

Logical conlangs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Conlangs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update:

Did some significant reorganization of the content of chapters 2-4.

Introduction - only one section left. First draft should be up by Tuesday at the latest.
Chapter 1 - Phonology - about 50% done.
Chapter 2 - Lexical Semantics - hasn't been written.
Chapter 3 - Morphology - is about 60% done.
Chapter 4 - Morphosyntax - has a few comments written.
Chapter 5 - Syntax - has several paragraphs written.
Chapter 6 - Example Texts - hasn't been written.
Chapter 7 - Appendices - hasn't been written.

Just passed 10,000 words and 50 pages :O
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Huzzah!

First draft of the Introduction is up:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_8UOanEoO5GVzNCTG1xRnc5NlU/edit?usp=sharing

Please excuse all the "Error Bookmark not defined" messages in the table of contents - I couldn't get it to show the list but not have the other chapters in the pdf without that happening.

Anyways, hope you enjoy Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very impressive and very enjoyable. Smile
So of course I'm immediately going to find somethng wrong with it. Sad Rolling Eyes

Why do you have a complementizer for complement clauses (subordinate clauses used as if nouns), and a subordinator for adjunct clauses (subordinate clauses used as if adverbs), but no relativizer for relative clauses (subordinate clauses used as if adjectives)?
Was that on purpose, or do your conlang's relativization strategies need no relativizer?
Is the complementizer the same as the adjunct-clause subordinator?
Is there a relativizer that's the same as either the complementizer or the subordinator? Or different from either?

Did you mean < primative > with an < a >, or < primitive > with an < i >?

What do you mean "event-theme-patient"? Shouldn't it be something like "event-actor-undergoer" maybe?

If by "theme" you mean something pragmatic, like "topic", what exactly do you mean, and how can you be sure the patient isn't the theme?

If by "theme" you mean something semantic, like "entity located or moved", then isn't the theme usually (or at least frequently) the patient and the patient usually (or at least frequently) the theme? If you do mean something semantic, but not "entity located or moved", what exactly do you mean? And again, how can you be sure the theme isn't the patient?

____________________________________________________________


That's it. I think it's great. I especially look forward to some things mentioned in its Table of Contents; for instance, cyrillicization, the root/case alternation pattern, morphological templates, and subordination. Among others I look forward to but forgot to mention.
_________________
"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
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the constructive comments!

1) Complementizers etc
When I copied over the glossing list, I included all the terms that relate to how the 'cases' etc function, which is definitely not always 1:1.
I haven't looked into it too much yet, but so far I only have a single complementizer that is used to indicate subordinate clauses in general.

Would these generalizations be right?

Subordinate clause: a subordinate clause that is a full sentence
Noun clause: a subordinate clause acting as the syntactic object
Relative clause: a subordinate clause that is about the syntactic object of the matrix clause.
Adverbial clause: an (incomplete) clause that modifies the matrix clause by indicating eg. time or manner

If so, then so far, Se'Ku still only uses a single subordinating marker that is ~inflected for person, time, etc to produce relativizers -> that vs. who vs. when, etc. So the differentiation is not between clausal types here, but rather the properties of the referent (animate vs. inanimate, human, temporal marking, etc).

If there is a subordinate clause, then a subordinating marker is required.

2) Thank you for pointing that out; it should be 'primitive' and not be a reference to primates Razz

3) Event-Theme-Patient
In this section I'm using terminology from semantic roles, which include Agent, Theme, Patient, etc. In the LCS form of the example "Leslie salted the beef," Leslie is the Agent, salt (the noun form in the LCS)is the theme, and beef is the patient (because it is what is acted on). But this is due to the logical structural encoding: in the normal sentence, beef is the theme, and there is no patient, because 'salt' is acting as a verb here and so cannot have a (nominal) semantic role. So the semantic roles each sentential item plays depends on the coding format of the concepts you're using.

The beef is not an undergoer or experiencer because that requires (at minimum) being alive.

I should probably include a section on semantic roles in the introduction somewhere, as they will be used frequently later on.


Glad you enjoyed it Smile The first chapter proper shouldn't take too much more time, and the sections on orthography are essentially done. The hardest part, actually, was adding in the non-phonemic graphemes to mark structural components of the complex words - which, of course, needed a system. [/end teaser]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aert wrote:
Thanks for the constructive comments!

Thanks for saying they're constructive:


Aert wrote:
1) Complementizers etc
When I copied over the glossing list, I included all the terms that relate to how the 'cases' etc function, which is definitely not always 1:1.
I haven't looked into it too much yet, but so far I only have a single complementizer that is used to indicate subordinate clauses in general.

Would these generalizations be right?

Subordinate clause: a subordinate clause that is a full sentence
Noun clause: a subordinate clause acting as the syntactic object
Relative clause: a subordinate clause that is about the syntactic object of the matrix clause.
Adverbial clause: an (incomplete) clause that modifies the matrix clause by indicating eg. time or manner

I think the answer is "almost, but not quite".

A dependent clause is one whose nucleus (which almost always means "whose verb") depends for part of its meaning on some other, independent clause. For instance, the dependent clause may have relative tense, fully-interpretable only when one has reference to the independent clause's absolute tense.

An embedded clause is one which plays some role (for instance, a role prototypically played by nouns, or a role prototypically played by adjectives, or a role prototypically played by adverbs) in a containing, matrix clause.

A subordinate clause is a dependent embedded clause; it is dependent on the matrix in which it is embedded.

A complement clause is any subordinate clause that plays a role prototypically played by a noun or noun-phrase or pronoun. For instance, it might be a subject, or a direct object, or maybe (though I can't think of an example) an indirect object.
"That Santa Claus doesn't really exist surprised Jimmy" is an example of a complement clause ("Santa Claus doesn't really exist") acting as subject/agent. The complementizer "that" introduces the complement clause. (In other languages the complementizer, assuming one is needed or, at any rate, used, may appear elsewhere than at the beginning of the complement clause.)
"Evil Bob told Jimmy that Santa Claus doesn't really exist" is an example of the same complement clause, with the same complementizer, being used as the direct object and theme of a ditransitive verb.

A relative clause is any subordinate clause that's used for a purpose prototypically fulfilled by an adjective or an adjective-phrase. That is, to modify a noun-phrase. Relative clauses modify the participant which they share with their matrix clause. That shared participant is the topic of the relative clause, but it needn't be its subject. In fact, the shared participant may fill any syntactic role in the matrix clause, and independently fill any other, or the same, syntactic role in the relative clause. (That's not necessarily true in every language, but any combination you can think of is grammatical in some language AFAIK.)
There is a "Noun-Phrase Accessibililty Hierarchy" that governs which participants of the relative clause can be "relativized on", that is, be modified by the RC and be the participant it shares with the MC. Each relativization strategy the language has is applicable to a contiguous segment of this hierarchy.
Relative clauses can be either restrictive RCs or attributive RCs. I assume you already know the difference? If not, I'll be glad to tell you; or you'd probably rather enjoy looking it up yourself.
Part of some relativization strategies is to introduce the RC by a relativizer. Part of some is to echo the shared participant by means of a relative pronoun. In some languages the relative pronoun is the relativizer.

Adjunct clauses are subordinate clauses used for purposes prototypically filled by adverbs. They modify, for instance, verbs, or adjectives, or adverbs, or clauses, or sentences.
Adjunct clauses are (in some languages) (sometimes) introduced by subordinators. They aren't called "adjunctivizers", and I don't know why not.
Typical uses of adjunct clauses as modifiers of verbs or clauses are the following:
  • Further information about tense: while, during, as soon as, before, directly after, etc. "While we were yet speaking the horse fell dead". "When he got there the boy was dead". "As I was walking all alone I heard two crows making a moan". "No sooner said than done".
  • Further information about aspect: as often as, whenever, etc. "Whenever you see or smell smoke, you should suspect that there's a fire nearby".
  • Further information about mood: as sure as, etc. "As sure as God made little green apples, that band is going to be in uniform".



Aert wrote:
If so, then so far, Se'Ku still only uses a single subordinating marker that is ~inflected for person, time, etc to produce relativizers -> that vs. who vs. when, etc. So the differentiation is not between clausal types here, but rather the properties of the referent (animate vs. inanimate, human, temporal marking, etc).

So it's kind of like a relative pronoun. Also, it's a relativizer, as you said.


Aert wrote:
If there is a subordinate clause, then a subordinating marker is required.

Fine. Is the marker for complement clauses the same as for adjunct clauses? That seems to be what you are saying, and if so, that's perfectly fine. I just want to be clear about it.
Maybe when it's used as a complementizer, it has a certain case? Or some other nominal accident?


Aert wrote:
2) Thank you for pointing that out; it should be 'primitive' and not be a reference to primates Razz

You're welcome. In my mind there was always the possibility that you meant it exactly as you spelled it.

Aert wrote:
3) Event-Theme-Patient
In this section I'm using terminology from semantic roles, which include Agent, Theme, Patient, etc. In the LCS form of the example "Leslie salted the beef," Leslie is the Agent, salt (the noun form in the LCS)is the theme, and beef is the patient (because it is what is acted on).

Yes, of course, if salt is a participant, it is the entity located or moved, so it is the theme.


Aert wrote:
But this is due to the logical structural encoding: in the normal sentence, beef is the theme, and there is no patient, because 'salt' is acting as a verb here and so cannot have a (nominal) semantic role. So the semantic roles each sentential item plays depends on the coding format of the concepts you're using.

That makes sense, and I accept it.
I would say that in the normal syntactic analysis the beef is the patient and there isn't a theme. Unless you consider Leslie to have moved the beef from the unsalted state to the salted state; in which case it's still the patient, and is also the theme.

Aert wrote:
The beef is not an undergoer or experiencer because that requires (at minimum) being alive.

Well, I admit it's clearly not an experiencer. I think your definition of "undergoer" must be different from mine.


Aert wrote:
I should probably include a section on semantic roles in the introduction somewhere, as they will be used frequently later on.

It probably wouldn't hurt, and I expect I would enjoy reading it.


you wrote:
the final stuff you wrote

I can hardly wait!
_________________
"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
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My apologies that I haven't replied sooner: I Have been working on the grammar but my specialty is definitely Not phonology.

I will get around to answering your detailed post, but after an initial read-through my answer is probably still the same: all the clause types you mentioned are likely headed by a single lexeme designated as a generalized subordinating marker, which is modified in some ways (eg. to indicate person 'who' inanimate object 'which' time 'when' etc).

Update:
I've added a section on semantic roles in the introduction and edited the section on Lexical Conceptual Structure based on your comments.

Chapter 1 - Phonology - about 60% done
Almost done inventory; orthography section is pretty much done. Still have to do sections on syllable structure, stress, and intonation.

Chapter 2 - Lexical Semantics - have a few notes
Added a section on how semantic roles are used in Śe'Ḱu.

Chapter 3 - Morphology - about 70% done
The section on the "case" system is 85% done, mostly just need examples and some editing. Still have to do introductory remarks and discuss the basic morphological processes, and a bit more on generative derivation. This section is going slowly because I'm not completely certain on how I want to lay out the case system relative to the morphological template and their derivational uses.

Chapter 4 - Morphosyntax - a few comments written.
Structure largely depends on decision re: 'case' system organization.

Chapter 5 - Syntax - several paragraphs written.
Definitely will be the largest chapter in the grammar, and I'm pretty certain about how it will be laid out (and there are a Lot of subsections).

Chapter 6 - Example Texts - unwritten.
Need to finalize everything in the grammar before writing this.

Chapter 7 - Appendices - about 3 pages written.
Almost entirely in the 'Future Projects' section - I have in mind a grandiose plan about making at least two languages and their historical descendants (I have notes on what I think Śe'Ḱu will become), as well as the people, history, and even world for the project to be at once realistic in scope (eg. including sociolinguistics and language change) and so I don't stall after finishing the grammar.
Beyond the fictional world of conlanging and world-building, there's also a section on the more linguistic-oriented projects I have in mind, though only one of them will become an actual academic project.

Almost at 15,000 words, and 65 pages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quick update before bed:

I haven't been doing much work on the grammar because lots of things got in the way, but, two things:

1) There is a very high probability that I'll be working directly with one of my profs on the Salishan lexical suffix phenomena, who has previously advised at least one PhD thesis (an initial grammar) of the Nxa'amxcin language which was the focus of my earlier term paper. Hopefully this can be expanded after first term is done, and I know it will definitely spur more work on the Se'Ku grammar.

2) I've been thinking about descriptive place name derivation, which happens a lot in Salish languages due (in part) to the lexical suffixes. From a very cursory look at how these could pattern (as long as we're talking about root incorporation and not the more specific noun incorporation requiring a verbal root), these can occur in basically any form:

Single-argument compounds

noun-loc.nr (loc.nr=locative nominalization, generally read as 'place of')
eg. book-loc.nr (library), history-loc.nr (museum)

verb-loc.nr ('standard' locative nominalization)
eg. pray-loc.nr (church), learn-loc.nr (school)

Dual-argument compounds

verb-noun-loc.nr [verb-object: using an incorporated noun]
eg. drink-beer-loc.nr (pub; lit 'place of beer-drinking' as a complex verb)

verb-noun-loc.nr [verb-subject]
eg. wander-tree-loc.nr (place of the wandering trees, eg. Fangorn Forest of Lord of the Rings); land-end-loc.nr (land's end)

Sentential compounds

verb-noun-noun-loc.nr [verb subject object]
eg. meet-sea-fire-loc.nr (where sea and fire meet, eg. Iceland or Hawaii's volcanoes)

This was more or less all inspired by the descriptive place name Tsawwassen (part of Greater Vancouver in BC, Canada) 'land facing (the) sea,' which would be rendered in Se'Ku as:

ATTR-ALL-land-sea-loc.nr (lit: 'land is (oriented) towards (the) sea')
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry it's been so long since I posted.
I'll need to re-read your last post, and maybe also the one before that.
_________________
"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
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm actually not sure yet if 'sentential compounds' should exist - gonna have to go through the root incorporation system to see exactly what kind of things are possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Conlangs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
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