Vreleksá

Aeetlrcreejl · Joined: 08 Jun 2007 Posts: 553 Location: Over yonder

[p b m n f v t d T D s z S Z k g x G]

[i { u Q]

Agglutinative

(C)V(C)(V)(C) roots (93,312 possible)

Singular, Dual, Plural

Verb structure is going to be:
(OAgr)+(Voice2)+ROOT+Voice1+(Voice3)+Aspect+SAgr+(IOAgr) (TempAux+ModAux)

Voice1 tells the semantic role of the Subject;
Voice2 tells the semantic role of the Object (it's in parentheses because it's optional -- it doesn't occur if there is no Object);
Voice3 tells the semantic role of the Indirect Object (it's in parentheses because it's optional -- it doesn't occur if there is no IO);
Aspect tells the aspect of the verb (perfective or imperfective);
SAgr is "Subject Agreement";
OAgr is "Object Agreement" (it's in parentheses because it's optional -- it doesn't occur if there is no Object);
IOAgr is "Indirect Object Agreement" (it's in parentheses because it's optional -- it doesn't occur if there is no IO).

Although the verb itself, as a single word, doesn't change form to reflect tense or mood, there may be an auxiliary to indicate tense or mood.
The auxiliary has the form
Tense+Mood.
Tense can be Anterior or Simultaneous or Posterior;
Mood can be Realis or Irrealis.

Tense is mostly Relative Tense.
Anterior = Before some other event also spoken of
Simultaneous = Overapping in time with some other event also spoken of
Posterior = After some other event also spoken of.

But in simple sentences Tense will be interpreted as Absolute Tense:
Anterior = Before the speech-act = Past
Simultaneous = Overlapping with the speech-act = Present
Posterior = After the speech-act = Future.

The Simultaneous "morpheme" will be a zero-"morpheme".

Mood will be simply Realis or Irrealis. A subordinate clause can be in either mood; there won't be any "subjunctive mood" or "conditional mood" per se. Rather the mood indicates merely whether the speaker intends that clause to be a matter-of-fact or rather intends it to be hypothetical or doubtful or conditional on something else.

The Realis "morpheme" will be a zero-"morpheme".

If the Tense is Simultaneous or Present, and the Mood is Realis, no Auxiliary is necessary.

The language is Voice-Prominent. Although it has all of Tenses and Aspects and Moods, the Tense system is very simple -- just three Tenses -- and the Aspect system is very simple -- just two Aspects -- and the Mood system is very simple -- just two Moods.
Of the three -- Tenses and Aspects and Moods -- the verb inflects only for Aspect; Tense and Mood are indicated by an auxiliary (or, in the case of Present Realis, by the lack of an auxiliary).

For purposes of not having too many things that are too complicated I thought we'd just have three tenses and two aspects and two moods.

For the same reasons I think we should have the ditransitive-to-monotransitive alignment system be an ordinary "Dative" alignment, as we are mostly used to.

There are two things I want to do to beef up the verb system and make it complicated; Voice-Prominence, and Mixed Ergativity.

This is about Mixed-Ergativity.

Nouns and pronouns will be arranged in a hierarchy of definiteness, empathy, animacy, topic-worthiness, agent-potency, or whatever we call it.

At the top will be all pronouns, all kinterms (Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Husband, Wife, Son, Daughter, etc.), and all Proper Nouns referring to Humans.

All of these will be Nominative/Accusative. When they appear as the only participant of an intransitive sentence, or as the Subject of a transitive sentence, they will have a "zero" case-ending. But when they appear as the Object of a transitive sentence, they will have an Accusative case-ending.

At the bottom of the hierarchy will be all inanimate common nouns.
These will be Absolutive/Ergative. When they appear as the only participant of an intransitive sentence, or as the Object of a transitive sentence, they will have a "zero" case-ending. But when they appear as the Subject of a transitive sentence, they will have an Ergative case-ending.

In the middle of the hierarchy will be all Proper Nouns referring to Non-Humans, and all Animate Common Nouns. These will be more complicated. They'll have three possible Case-Endings; a Nominative/Absolutive "zero" case-ending, an Ergative case-ending, and an Accusative case ending.

The "zero" ending, the Nominative/Absolutive one, will always be used on the only participant of any intransitive verb with just one participant.

If the verb is Perfective and Past/Anterior, or Perfective and Realis, or Past/Anterior and Realis, then, the zero-ending (the Absolutive one) is used if one of these middle-of-the-hierarchy nouns is used as the Object of a Transitive Verb, and the Ergative ending is used if one of these middle-of-the-hierarchy nouns is used as the Subject of a Transitive Verb.

If the verb is Imperfective and Future/Posterior, or Imperfective and Irrealis, or Future/Posterior and Irrealis, then, the zero-ending (the Nominative one) is used if one of these mid-hierarchy nouns is the Subject of the Transitive Verb; but the Accusative ending is uses on a mid-hierarchy noun that's the Object of a Transitive Verb.

Summarizing;
Markings of mid-hierarchy nouns in transitive clauses.

* Perfective Anterior/Past Realis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Ergative
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Zero

* Perfective Anterior/Past Irrealis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Ergative
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Zero

* Perfective Simultaneous/Present Realis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Ergative
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Zero

* Perfective Posterior/Future Realis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Ergative
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Zero

* Imperfective Anterior/Past Realis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Ergative
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Zero

* Imperfective Posterior/Future Irrealis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Zero
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Accusative

* Imperfective Posterior/Future Realis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Zero
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Accusative

* Imperfective Simultaneous/Present Irrealis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Zero
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Accusative

* Imperfective Anterior/Past Irrealis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Zero
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Accusative

* Perfective Posterior/Future Irrealis
o Mid-hierarchy Subject: Zero
o Mid-hierarchy Object: Accusative

This still leaves two situations to be handled.

* Perfective Simultaneous/Present Irrealis
* Imperfective Simultaneous/Present Realis

In these situations, if the other participant is an upper-hierachy thing (a pronoun or a kinterm or a human proper noun), or is a lower-hierarchy thing (an inanimate common noun), then its case-marking will tell whether it is the subject or the object; the mid-hierarchy noun must be whatever's left over (if the upper-or-lower-hiearchy participant is Subject, the mid-hierarchy participant must be Object, and if the Upper-or-Lower one is Object, the mid-hierarchy one must be Subject). So I propose we leave the mid-hierarchy noun in the Zero-case then.

But if a Perfective Present Irrealis or Imperfective Present Realis Transitive clause has two mid-hierarchy participants -- that is, if both its Subject and its Object are mid-hierarchy -- then either the Subject must be made Ergative or the Object must be made Accusative. (Or both). If we go with allowing either but not allowing both, we basically have a bit of a Split-Transitive or "Austronesian" alignment system sneaking in; if instead we go with requiring Both, we have a bit of a "tripartite" alignment-system sneaking in.

We'll allow Subjects, Objects, and Indirect Objects, to occupy any of the following case roles, deep cases, semantic roles, thematic roles, or theta-roles.

1. cause or agent
2. beneficiary
3. recipient or experiencer
4. instrument
5. patient or theme
6. location
7. source or goal

Voice1 tells which of these the Subject occupies; Voice2 tells which the Object occupies; and Voice3 tells which the Indirect Object occupies.
We could have three different sets of morphemes for Voice1 and Voice2 and Voice3; that way we could have Voice1=zero for "Subject is Cause or Agent", Voice2=zero for "Object is Patient or Theme", and Voice3=zero for "IndirectObject is Recipient or Experiencer".

In essence (theoretically) every verb could come in 7 main voices, depending on which role its Subject is in; the default would be that the Subject is the Cause or Agent. (Practically speaking, though, there would be some voices that just didn't make sense with some verbs).

Theoretically every transitive verb could come in 7 "Applicative Voices" depending on which role its Object is in (but not have the Object be in the same role as the Subject). The default would be that the Object is the Patient or Theme. (Again, there would be certain combinations of Voice and Applicative that just wouldn't make sense for some verbs.)

Theoretically every ditransitive verb could come in 7 "Dative Applicatives", depending on which role its Indirect Object is in (as long as it wasn't the same role as the Subject or Object). The default would be that the IO is the Recipient or Experiencer.

[EDIT]: So theoretically, Intransitive Monovalent verbs could come in 7 Grammatical Voices; Monotransitive or Bivalent verbs could come in 7*6 = 42 Voices (counting Applicatives); and Ditransitive or Trivalent verbs could come in 7*6*5 = 210 Voices (counting Dative Applicatives). But the odds are a few of them won't occur; and many will occur with only a few verbs. [/EDIT]

I want the verb to tell the case (or something about the case), the pragmatic status (definiteness or indefiniteness, specifity/referentiality or nonspecificity/nonreferentiality) or something about it, gender or something about the gender, grammatical number or something about it, and person or something about it, of the Subject, and of the Direct Object if there is one, and of the Indirect Object if there is one.

Because we're going Agglutinative, each Agreement mark going to be composed of the following parts (I just put them in alphabetical order by label);
(Case+Definiteness+Gender+Number+Person).

Technically speaking we could use one order for SAgr, a different order for OAgr, and yet a third order for IOAgr, if we wanted to.

Also we can use one set of morphemes for SAgr, a different set for OAgr, and a third set for IOAgr, if we want to.

I'll discuss them one at a time.

* Case: Because the nouns are case-marked themselves, and may have adpositions adjoined to them, and because the voice-marking on the verb tells a lot about the case of the participants, I am going to keep this simple and general. It will have two values:
o zero -- it's what you would expect it to be. ("Cause or Agent" for SAgr, "Patient or Theme" for OAgr, "Recipient or Experiencer" for IOAgr.)
o Something nonzero -- it isn't what you expected, so you'd better pay close attention to the Voice markings.

* Definiteness: I'm going to propose we care only about Definite or Indefinite, not about Specific or Non-Specific.
o Definite: Zero in SAgr, something non-zero in OAgr and IOAgr.
o Indefinite: Zero in OAgr and IOAgr, something non-zero in SAgr.

* Gender: Also called "noun class". Fans of Swahili and other Bantu languages may want the complete set of noun-classes to each have their own marking here; if that's what the majority want, I'll go along with it. (It'll make poetry interesting, for one thing -- lots of alliteration.) But another way we could do this would be to only mark Animacy vs Inanimacy.
o Animate: Zero for SAgr and IOAgr, something non-zero for OAgr.
o Inanimate: Zero for OAgr, something non-zero for SAgr and IOAgr.

* Number: Three values:
o Singular -- Zero-marked
o Dual
o Plural
. Use zero-marking as well for any mass-noun.
* Person: Three values:
o First
o Second
o Third
. But since we want to distinguish between inclusive and exclusive in 1st person dual and 1st person plural, do we want the Number+Person markings to show that difference in the agreement markers on the verb? Also, since in present perfective irrealis and present imperfective realis transitive clauses with both subject and object coming from the middle of the hierarchy, there could be some trouble, do we want to have an Obviative person (a "fourth person")?

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

For nouns low on the hierarchy, that is for inanimate common nouns, I don't think we need to have three numbers (singular, dual, plural) completely distinguished, at least not in cases other than the Ergative. Instead I think we could do with Plural vs Non-Plural; in other words make Singular and Dual sound just alike for these nouns in the non-Ergative cases. How's that idea?

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

Well, I've proposed two different sources of complexity for the verbs; Mixed Ergativity, and Voice Prominence (with Applicatives and even Dative Applicatives). (Voice Prominence as proposed here is probably a bit like the "trigger systems" some Phillippine languages have.)

I've also proposed keeping everything else about the verbs simple.

Maybe people don't want two sources of complexity; maybe one is enough.

What do people think?

Oh, no, don't! Contribute, please. Aeetlrcreejlr and I don't want to "take over". There've basically just been two long posts, one from each of us. We've wanted all the short posts, including those from everyone else. For instance, does someone want to do adjectives? and/or adverbs? Which degrees of comparison do you want? Superlative, comparative, equative, and positive? Does someone want to do the "opposite" particle-or-affix? Do we want adjectives to agree with their nouns in case and/or definiteness and/or gender and/or number and/or person? How about adverbs? Do we want adpositions (postpositions and prepositions) to agree with their nouns in case, definiteness, gender, number, and/or person?

No-one has actually proposed a particular root nor a particular affix nor a particular word. Does anyone want to?

I'd like the verbs to take morphological causativization. And I'd like it to be possible to do it twice.
Suppose [mQr{t], for instance, is the verb meaning "die".
Maybe then [v{mQr{t] could be the verb "kill";
and [v{v{mQr{t] could be the verb "cause to be killed" (like "put out a hit on" or "sentenced to die").

Or, maybe [mQQr{{t] would be the verb "kill" ("cause to die") and [mQvQr{{t] could be "cause to be killed".

Some languages have the verb agree separately with the instigator (the agent of original cause) and the executor (the agent of final effect) if they are different. If causativization can happen twice, this would leave the middle agent unagreed with.

In Perfective Aspect clauses, the interesting thing about the verb is its effects, and these are located in the Patient; so these clauses tend to have Patients be Absolutive, so they tend to have Agents be Ergative. This is especially true if the clause is also Anterior (or Past) and/or Realis.

In Anterior (or Past) Tense clauses, the interesting thing about the verb is its effects, and these are located in the Patient; so these clauses tend to have Patients be Absolutive, so they tend to have Agents be Ergative. This is especially true if the clause is also Perfective and/or Realis.

In Realis Mood clauses, the interesting thing about the verb is its effects, and these are located in the Patient; so these clauses tend to have Patients be Absolutive, so they tend to have Agents be Ergative. This is especially true if the clause is also Perfective and/or Anterior (or Past).

In Imperfective Aspect clauses, the verb is still going on during the clause. The interesting thing about the verb is that the Agent spent some time doing it. So these clauses tend to have Agents be Nominative, so they tend to have Patients be Accusative. This is especially true if the clause is also Posterior (or Future) and/or Irrealis.

In Posterior (or Future) Tense clauses, the interesting thing about the verb is that the Agent is going to do it. So far all the tendency to, or preparations for, doing it, are still in the Agent. So these clauses tend to have Agents be Nominative, so they tend to have Patients be Accusative. This is especially true if the clause is also Imperfective and/or Irrealis.

In Irrealis Mood clauses, the interesting thing about the verb is that the Agent is capable of doing it. The potentiality for doing it is all in the Agent. So these clauses tend to have Agents be Nominative, so they tend to have Patients be Accusative. This is especially true if the clause is also Imperfective and/or Posterior (or Future).

Highly topical or focal or salient nouns tend to refer to things that do things -- that is, to Agents. The first and second person pronouns are likelier to be Agents than anything else. All pronouns are definite; and kinterms occupy a position between pronouns and proper nouns in definiteness. Humans are likelier to be agents than patients; humans are likelier to be agents than non-humans; and if a human is a patient this is a more remarkable fact than if the human is an agent or if the patient is a non-human. All the same is true for animate vs inanimate.

So I figured the morphologically lighter forms of pronouns, kinterms, and human proper nouns, should mean they were the Agent; and the form meaning they were the Patient should be more marked, morphologically, and contain more sounds (be more of a mouthful).

But I figured the morphologically lighter forms of inanimate common nouns should mean they were the Patient; and the form meaning they were the Agent should be more marked.

For instance, consider
"I ate the sandwich"
vs
"The sandwich ate me".

Which one is more remarkable?

In the Simultaneous or Present Tense, the Aspect and the Mood can possibly pull in opposite directions. (For instance a Perfective Irrealis clause "wants" to be Ergative because of the Perfective Aspect but "wants" to be Accusative because of the Irrealis Mood.) But the Tense doesn't settle the argument; it abstains, and doesn't vote.

I decided that a bit of the Hierarchical Alignment System could sneak in here.

In Present Perfective Irrealis or Present Imperfective Realis clauses, if one of the Subject or Object is a mid-level noun (a non-human proper noun or a non-human animate noun), but the other is a "high" term (a pronoun, kinterm, or human proper noun), then, assume the "high" one is the Agent and the mid one is the Patient, unless the "high" one is marked Accusative.

In Present Perfective Irrealis or Present Imperfective Realis clauses, if one of the Subject or Object is a mid-level noun (a non-human proper noun or a non-human animate noun), but the other is a low-level noun (an inanimate common noun), then, assume the "low" one is the Patient and the mid one is the Agent, unless the "low" one is marked Ergative.

In neither of those cases is it necessary to mark the mid-level noun.

But, if in a Present Perfective Irrealis or a Present Imperfective Realis clause, both the Subject and the Object are mid-level nouns (non-human proper nouns or non-human animate nouns), if neither of them is marked, some kind of obviation will be necessary. Do we want obviatives?

Or: They already have possible Ergative and Accusative markings available, for use in Perfective Past Realis clauses and Imperfective Future Irrealis clauses (for instance). So we could mark one of them and clear everything up. Which one do we mark?

My suggestion is that the one the speaker has greater empathy with, or the one from whose point-of-view the speaker is packaging the information, be zero-marked; and the other be marked Ergative if it is the Agent and Accusative if it is the Patient. This will be a bit of "Austronesian" or "Split-Transitive" alignment sneaking in.

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

OK, now, how about Split-Dechticaetiative?

For one thing, do the terms "Dative" and "Dechticaetiative" mean exactly the same things in the Ergative parts of the language that they mean in the Accusative parts of the language?

And supposing they do.

Are there nominal phrases, nominals, nouns, pronominal phrases, pronominals, and/or pronouns, which are likelier to be recipients than themes? or others which are likelier to be themes than receipients?

Can we arrange them in a hierarchy, such that; what's at the top of the hierarchy is likelier a recipient than a theme, and what's at the bottom is likelier a theme than a recipient? And/or, if we pick two, it's likelier that the higher is the recipient and the lower the theme, than the other way around?

If so, we might be able to have a "split-Dechticaetiative" marking based on the type of noun-phrase or pronoun involved.

OTOH are there certain kinds of clauses in which one is more interested in the theme than in the recipient, and other kinds in which one is more interested in the recipient than in the theme?

If so we might be able to have a "split-Dechticaetiative" marking based on the type of clause involved.

If we could do it, do we want to?
If we want to do it, can we?

Please, note; this use of the term "caste" is going to be language-specific to our conlang; it doesn't have the same meaning as when used by professionals when talking about Tamil, and it may have no meaning at all in other natlangs.

I'm going to call all pronouns, kinterms, and proper nouns for humans, "High-Caste Nouns". I'm going to call all inanimate common nouns "Low-Caste Nouns". I'm going to call all other nouns -- all proper nouns for non-humans (whether animate or inanimate) and all nouns for non-human animates (whether proper nouns or common nouns) "Middle-Caste Nouns". [EDIT]: Correction; All animate common nouns are Middle-Caste (even common nouns for humans). So are all non-human proper nouns (even proper nouns for inanimate objects). [/EDIT]
(Please notice that not all High-Caste "Nouns" are actually nouns; for convenience I'll still use this term even though some of them are pronouns.)

Anyway:

The zero-marked case is always used for the Subject of an Intransitive, regardless of the Caste of the noun, and regardless of the aspect, tense, or mood of the verb. (Whether this case is called Nominative or Absolutive may depend, if we want; it's the same case no matter what it's called. I think we should call it Nominative/Absolutive. Otherwise we'll call it Nominative for High-Caste "Nouns", Absolutive for Low-Caste Nouns, and have to make up our minds for Middle-Caste Nouns.)

All High-Caste "Nouns" act as if they were Nominative or Accusative no matter what clause they're in. The "zero-marked" case is used for high-caste Subjects of intransitive clauses and for high-caste Agents of transitive clauses; the marked case, Accusative, is used for high-caste Patients of transitive clauses. High-Caste "Nouns" don't have an Ergative case; they never need one.

All Low-Caste Nouns act as if they were Absolutive or Ergative no matter what clause they're in. The "zero-marked" case is used for low-caste Subjects of intransitive clauses and for low-caste Patients of transitive clauses; the marked case, Ergative, is used for low-caste Agents of transitive clauses. Low-Caste Nouns don't have an Accusative case; they never need one.

Only Middle-Caste Nouns change behavior depending on the verb.

In Perfective Past, or Perfective Realis, or Past Realis clauses, Middle-Caste Nouns act as if they were Absolutive or Ergative. In such clauses, the "zero-marked" case is used for Middle-Caste Subjects of intransitives and for Middle-Caste Patients of transitives; the marked, Ergative case is used for Middle-Caste Agents of transitives.

In Imperfective Future, or Imperfective Irrealis, or Future Irrealis clauses, Middle-Caste Nouns act as if they were Nominative or Accusative. In such clauses, the "zero-marked" case is used for Middle-Caste Subjects of intransitives and for Middle-Caste Agents of transitives; the marked, Accusative case is used for Middle-Caste Patients of transitives.

As you can see, Middle-Caste Nouns need both an Ergative and an Accusative, in addition to their zero-marked, Nominative/Absolutive case.

There are still some situations left over. What of a Middle-Caste agent or patient of a Perfective Present Irrealis clause or of an Imperfective Present Realis clause?

I proposed that if either the Agent or the Patient is either High-Caste or Low-Caste, we just leave the Middle-Caste participant unmarked (nominative or absolutive). If both participants are unmarked, the higher-caste one is the Agent and the lower-caste one is the Patient.

Now all that's left over is; What if both the Agent and the Patient of a Perfective Present Irrealis clause or an Imperfective Present Realis clause are Middle-Caste?
I proposed that in such instances we leave the one we empathize with most zero-marked, and mark the other one, Ergative if the marked one is the Agent, Accusative if the marked one is the Patient.

The question, whether this language is to be Dative or Dechticaetiative or follow some other pattern of alignment of ditransitive-to-monotransitive (what someone here called "P T R alignment", I think; anyway it was a good phrase), may not matter much if we keep the Voice3, or keep the Case part of IOAgr, or both.
If we keep Voice3 and/or the Case part of IOAgr, the alignment question boils down to "Which role is marked, and which is unmarked, for the Indirect Object? Is it marked when it's the Theme and unmarked when it's the Recipient? Or is it marked when it's the Recipient and unmarked when it's the Theme?"

But here are some ideas about Split-Dechticaetiative.

High-Caste "Nouns" (pronouns, kinterms, and proper nouns for humans) are much likelier to be Recipients than to be Themes. We could have all High-Caste "Nouns" marked as if they were Dechticaetiative; that is, High-Caste Recipients are Accusative, but High-Caste Themes are marked in a third case, called "Dechticaetiative" or "Secundative".

Low-Caste Nouns (inanimate common nouns) are much likelier to be Themes than to be Recipients. We could have all Low-Caste Nouns marked as if they were Dative; that is, Low-Caste Themes are Absolutive, but Low-Caste Recipients are marked in a third case, called "Dative".

In case the Direct Object is the Theme and the Indirect Object is the Recipient, or the Direct Object is the Recipient and the Indirect Object is the Theme, we could have Voice3 be zero (leave it out) and the Case part of IOAgr be zero. Then figuring out whether the Indirect Object is the Theme or the Recipient would depend on figuring out which the Direct Object is. If the DO is the Theme the IO must be the Recipient; if the DO is the Recipient then the IO must be the Theme.

If the DO is High-Caste or Low-Caste, its case-ending will tell whether it's Theme or Recipient. Otherwise either Voice2 or the Case part of OAgr or both may tell -- if we adopt that proposal of mine rather than another.

So if there's a mystery left, it will be when the IO is a Middle-Caste Noun, and is either the Theme or the Recipient; and the DO is neither the Theme nor the Recipient. In such instances, if the Subject happens to be the Theme we can say the IO must be the Recipient, and if the Subject happens to be the Recipient we can say the IO must be the Theme; but if the Subject is also neither the Theme nor the Recipient, we haven't yet discussed a way to tell which of them a Middle-Caste IO will be; unless we either mark it in Voice3 or in the Case part of IOAgr, or have another case-ending or two for middle-caste nouns.

But notice that having the DO be neither the Theme nor the Recipient is a marked situation anyway; that's not the usual way to present ditransitive clauses. So the problem won't come up often. Nevertheless if we can imagine that it might ever come up we should also imagine a way to handle it. Or imagine a situation where something ludicrous happens because it wasn't handled.

Our conlang has four vowel phonemes;
Close Front Unrounded (around [ i ])
Close Back Rounded (around [ u ])
Open Front Unrounded (around [ a ])
Open Back Rounded (around [ Q ])

Anything which is:
(Close or Near-Close or Close-Mid)
AND (Front or Near-Front)
AND Unrounded
should be an allophone of /i/.
This includes [ I ] and [ e ], (as well as, of course, [ i ]).

Anything which is:
(Close or Near-Close or Close-Mid)
AND (Back or Near-Back)
AND Rounded
should be an allophone of /u/.
This includes [ U ] and [ o ], (as well as, of course, [ u ]).

Anything which is:
(Open or Near-Open or Open-Mid)
AND (Front or Near-Front)
AND Unrounded
should be an allophone of /a/.
This includes [ E ] and [ { ] , (as well as, of course, [ a ]).

Anything which is:
(Open or Near-Open or Open-Mid)
AND (Back or Near-Back)
AND Rounded
should be an allophone of /Q/.
This includes [ O ], (as well as, of course, [ u ]).

Any Front or Near-Front vowel that is also Rounded should be disallowed; speakers of Speech don't know how to make those sounds, and don't recognize them as language when they hear them. These include [ y ], [ } ], [ Y ], [ 2 ], [ 8 ], [ 9 ], [ 3 ], and [ & ].

Any Back or Near-Back vowel that is also Unrounded should be disallowed; speakers of Speech don't know how to make those sounds, and don't recognize them as language when they hear them. These include [ M ], [ 1 ], [ 7 ], [ @ ], [ @ ], [ V ], [ 3 ], [ 6 ], and [ A ].

Any Central vowel should be disallowed; to speakers of Speech they sound like the speaker is mis-pronouncing a front vowel or a back vowel so badly that they can't tell which vowel was meant. These include [ 1 ], [ } ], [ @ ], [ 8 ], [ @ ], [ 3 ], [ 3 ], and [ 6 ].

Any Mid vowel should be disallowed; to speakers of Speech they sound like the speaker is mis-pronouncing a Close vowel or an Open vowel so badly that the listener can't tell which vowel was meant. These include [ @ ]; it's the only one we have an X-Sampa symbol for.

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

To sum up:

The four vowel phonemes are /i/, /u/, /a/, and /Q/.
/i/ has allophones [ i I e ]
/a/ has allophones [ a { E ]
/u/ has allophones [ u U o ]
/Q/ has allophones [ Q O ]

So far as I can remember we have not yet decided on a syllable structure for our conlang.
I am going to assume we haven't decided to have any syllables with consonants for nuclei; if we do, probably what I say below won't need to be changed, but, rather, will merely need to be added-to.

Many languages have prosodic or metrical feet, that are important in the language for some uses; and have them made up of light and heavy syllables, with weight measured in morae ("morsels" or "bits" or "bites" or "mouthfuls").
Usually those with only two different "weights" of syllables count "light" syllables as one mora and count "heavy" syllables as two morae.
Which syllables are light and which are heavy varies from language to language.
But ordinarily, if a syllable nucleus can be VV (whether VV represents a diphthong or a long vowel), the difference between a V nucleus and a VV nucleus is the biggest factor in deciding whether the syllable is light or heavy. Second to that, ordinarily, the presence of a coda, and the length of the coda (how many consonants in the coda cluster), is the second-most-important factor. Finally, the presence of an onset, and the length of the onset, is the third factor.

If we want to mess with syllable weights at all, I propose;

* We call all of the following patterns that we allow, "Light" syllables:
o V
o CV
o CCV
o VC

* We call all of the following patterns that we allow, "Heavy" syllables:
o CCCV
o CCCCV
o CVC
o CCVC
o CCCVC
o VCC
o CVCC
o VV
o CVV
o CCVV
o VVC

* If we have super-heavy syllables, I propose we call whichever of the following patterns we allow, "Super-Heavy" and say they weigh three morae;
o CCCCVC
o CCVCC
o CCCVCC
o CCCCVCC
o VCCC
o CVCCC
o CCVCCC
o VCCCC
o CCCVV
o CCCCVV
o CVVC
o CCVVC
o CCCVVC
o VVCC
o CVVCC

So I'm suggesting limits of two vowels per nucleus (or just one, if we prefer), at most four consonants per onset (or less if we prefer), and at most four consonants per coda (or less if we prefer).
Using the (C) for optional consonants and the (V) for optional vowels, I'm suggesting the following patterns (or some subset of them, or possibly some shorter versions of them).

* (C)V(V)(C)(C)
* (C)(C)(C)V(V)(C)
* (C)(C)(C)(C)V(V)
* V(C)(C)(C)(C)
* (C)(C)V(C)(C)(C)
* (C)(C)(C)(C)V(C)(C)

But I'm not recommending we allow both four-consonant onsets and four-consonant codas; I think either the onsets or the codas need to be limited to three consonants, so our word-internal clusters will be limited to seven consonants.
Of course, maybe we don't want that much complexity. But we need to decide, I think.

In Intransitive clauses, High-Caste Subjects are Nominative.
In Transtive clauses, High-Caste Agents are Nominative and High-Caste Patients are Accusative.
In Ditransitive clauses, High-Caste Donors are Nominative, High-Caste Recipients are Accusative, and High-Caste Themes are Secundative.

I'm suggesting that Low-Caste Nouns (common nouns for inanimates) have Pegative, Ergative, and Absolutive Cases, and follow the pattern listed there as "w. Ergative Directive Pegative".

That is;
In Intransitive clauses, Low-Caste Subjects are Absolutive.
In Transtive clauses, Low-Caste Agents are Ergative and Low-Caste Patients are Absolutive.
In Ditransitive clauses, Low-Caste Donors are Pegative, Low-Caste Recipients are Ergative, and Low-Caste Themes are Absolutive.

For Middle-Caste Nouns (Proper names of non-humans (animate or inanimate) and common nouns for animates (human or non-human)), I've suggested that;
in Intransitive clauses, Middle-Caste Subjects are Nominative/Absolutive.
In Monotransitive clauses, if the clause is Perfective Anterior(Past), or Perfective Realis, or Anterior(Past) Realis, Middle-Caste Agents are Ergative and Middle-Class Patients are Absolutive/Nominative.
In Monotransitive clauses, if the clause is Imperfective Posterior(Future), or Imperfective Irrealis, or Posterior(Future) Irrealis, Middle-Caste Agents are Nominative/Absolutive and Middle-Class Patients are Accusative.
In Monotransitive clauses, if the clause is Perfective Simultaneous(Present) Irrealis or Imperfective Simultaneous(Present) Realis, if the Agent is High-Caste or Low-Caste then Middle-Caste Patients are Absolutive/Nominative; if the Patient is High-Caste or Low-Caste then Middle-Caste Agents are Nominative/Absolutive; and if both the Agent and the Patient are Middle-Caste, then one of them is Nominative/Absolutive and the other one isn't. The Middle-Caste Agent is Ergative if the Middle-Caste Patient is Absolutive/Nominative; the Middle-Caste Patient is Accusative if the Middle-Caste Agent is Nominative/Absolutive.

We have yet to decide what to do with the Middle-Caste participants of a ditransitive clause.

High-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

If the ditransitive clause is Perfective Anterior(Past) or Perfective Realis or Anterior(Past) Realis,
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

Middle-Caste Donor; Ergative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Ergative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Middle-Caste Donor; Ergative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Ergative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

If the ditransitive clause is Imperfective Posterior(Future) or Imperfective Irrealis or Posterior(Future) Irrealis,
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Middle-Caste Theme; Accusative.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Middle-Caste Theme; Accusative.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Middle-Caste Theme; Accusative.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Middle-Caste Theme; Accusative.

High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Accusative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Accusative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

If the ditransitive clause is Perfective Simultaneous(Present) Irrealis or Imperfective Simultaneous(Present) Realis,
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive/Nominative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
High-Caste Donor; Nominative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive/Nominative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive/Nominative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Low-Caste Donor; Pegative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive/Nominative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

If the ditransitive clause is Perfective Anterior(Past) or Perfective Realis or Anterior(Past) Realis,
Middle-Caste Donor; Ergative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Ergative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Absolutive: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Middle-Caste Donor; Ergative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Middle-Caste Donor; Ergative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Middle-Caste Theme; Absolutive.

If the ditransitive clause is Imperfective Posterior(Future) or Imperfective Irrealis or Posterior(Future) Irrealis,
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Accusative: High-Caste Theme; Secundative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: Middle-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Low-Caste Theme; Absolutive.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: High-Caste Recipient; Accusative: Middle-Caste Theme; Accusative.
Middle-Caste Donor; Nominative: Low-Caste Recipient; Ergative: Middle-Caste Theme; Accusative.

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

I still have to figure out what to do if both the Recipient and the Theme are Middle-Caste; or if the clause is Perfective Simultaneous(Present) Irrealis or Imperfective Simultaneous(Present) Realis, and two of the participants are Middle-Caste.

Oh; and, also; I need to translate the cases I've used in these last three or so posts, into the cases Aeetlrcreejl recommended, since those are the ones we're going to use.

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

BTW as for genders; it looks like Human, Animate Non-Human, and Inanimate are the genders; is that right?

Or would we rather have Masculine, Feminine, Neuter, and Epicene? I can discuss those, at a later time.

For pronouns referring to a person (an 'I', a 'you', a 'he'
etc), since it is already definite we should move it up to the first caste. One could refer to himself using different human nouns, to another person using yet another common noun, and even yet to another person with common nouns. There should be a convention on this, IMO, so as to avoid ambiguity. Where these persons (as when they are probably the 'topic' of the sentence, they can be omitted to avoid needless redundancy)

Thus this brings me to another concern that I raise: maybe we should adopt a topic-comment structure? But this wouldn't be morphologically indicated, only by syntax alone. Perhaps also, something pro-drop, drop the 'topic' when redundant.

This comes from Japanese and Vietnamese influence, possibly also classical chinese.

Anyone like it?

*topic is distinct from 'subject' or nominative, or ergative in that the latter three are morphological/syntactic in nature. Topic is a pragmatic (it isn't thematic is it?) distinction something to do with psychology. Basically, that thing you are talking about

Here's what I was thinking about for Middle-Caste Nouns in Ditransitive Clauses.

Middle-Caste Donors are treated just like Middle-Caste Agents; (unless for some reason that doesn't settle things).
Middle-Caste Recipients and Themes are treated just like Middle-Caste Patients; (unless for some reason that doesn't settle things).

When the above don't settle things, Middle-Caste Donors are Ergative, Middle-Caste Recipients are Absolutive/Nominative, and Middle-Caste Themes are Accusative.

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

All of the rest of that complexity was about "when doesn't the above settle things?".

There are two situations;

(1) Both the Recipient and the Theme are Middle-Caste. (The Donor may also be Middle-Caste, or may not.)

(2) The Donor is Middle-Caste, and so is the Recipient or the Theme (or both), and the clause is Present Perfective Irrealis or Present Imperfective Realis.

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

Is that simple enough?

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

If it isn't, maybe we should make the "Split" in "Split-Dechticaetiative" depend only on the Caste of the noun, and not on the Aspect or Tense or Mood of the clause, nor on the Castes of the other participants.

Then we'd have simply;

In Ditransitive Clauses;

High-Caste Ds are Nominative;
High-Caste Rs are Accusative; and
High-Caste Ts are Secundative.

Low-Caste Ds are Pegative;
Low-Caste Rs are Ergative; and
Low-Caste Ts are Absolutive.

Middle-Caste Ds are Ergative;
Middle-Caste Rs are Absolutive/Nominative; and
Middle-Caste Ts are Accusative.

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

Either way Middle-Caste Nouns would have no single one of the alignment systems referred to in this thread. They'd be split between "q. Ergative Split-P" and "ae. Accusative Directive Split-P" in "the situations not settled above" in the first choice, or, in all situations in the second choice.

Most Verb-Final languages (SOV and OSV languages) have "rich case systems" -- three or more "syntactic adverbial" cases. (Cases may be "syntactic" or "semantic"; and they may be "adverbial" or "adnominal".)

Most Verb-Initial languages (VSO and VOS) have "rich agreement systems" -- the verb agrees with two or more of its participants (if it has two or more) in one or more things such as case, definiteness, gender, number, person, pragmatic status, referentiality or specificity.

Verb-medial languages are often intermediate; they may, for instance, have a four-case system such as Nominative, Accusative, Dative, and Genitive, with various adpositions "governing" some of these cases for other, "semantic" adverbial "cases" (this is called "NADG")*; and the verb may agree extensively with just one participant, the Subject, but not (or not usually) with any others.

Our language has both polypersonal agreement and a rich case system. This is an unusual combination among natlangs.

About topic-prominence; Nearly all topic-prominent languages have a First-Noun-Phrase Second-Noun-Phrase Verb layout for most of their most basic clauses; SOV or OSV or T,SV ("T" being "Topic" and "SV" being an intransitive clause). If we have topic-prominence in our language, it will be an odd fit with our OVS word-order. OTOH OVS is such a rare word-order that practically anything will be an odd fit with it.

*NADG.

* If the language is head-marking rather than dependent-marking, the language may have a special case for possessed things rather than for possessors. In that case it will have an "anti-genitive" case or "construct" case or whatever it gets called, instead of a "genitive" case.
* If the language is dechticaetiative instead of dative, it may have Primative and Secundative, or Absolutive and Secundative, or Accusative and Secundative, rather than Accusative and Dative.
* If the language is ergative rather than accusative, it may have Absolutive and Ergative, rather than Nominative and Accusative.
* If the language is split-dechticaetiative or split-O or some such, it may have Primative and Secundative, or Accusative and Dative and Secundative, or Absolutive and Dative and Secundative, instead of Accusative and Dative.
* If the language is split-S or split-transitive or split-ergative or some such, it may have Nominative and Absolutive, or Nom/Abs and Ergative and Accusative, or some such, instead of just Nominative and Dative.

One pair of "dimensions" along which locative and directional cases vary in some languages is "from-ness" and "to-ness".
[-to, -from] would mean it's just sitting there; locative or adessive case.
[-to, +from] would mean it came from there; ablative case.
[+to, -from] would mean it's going there or that way; allative case.
[+to, +from] would mean it's going along that path; perlative case.

We could use prepositions in our mostly-postpositional language to make these kinds of distinctions.

(no preposition) + stative adpositional noun (+ possibly a postposition)
to mean "it is located thusly relative to the noun"

[+to, -from] preposition + stative adpositional noun (+ possibly a postposition)
to mean "it is located in the direction of the noun"

[-to, +from] preposition + stative adpositional noun (+ possibly a postposition)
to mean "it is located away from the noun"

[+to, +from] preposition + stative adpositional noun (+ possibly a postposition)
to mean "it is located along the noun"

[+to, -from] preposition + dynamic adpositional noun (+ possibly a postposition)
to mean "it happened moving toward the noun"

[-to, +from] preposition + dynamic adpositional noun (+ possibly a postposition)
to mean "it happened moving away from the noun"

[+to, +from] preposition + dynamic adpositional noun (+ possibly a postposition)
to mean "it happened moving along the noun"

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

Another dimension locative and directional cases sometimes vary along in some languages is "degree of contact". There may be up to four of them;

1. penetration
2. adhesion
3. contact
4. vicinity

We could have adpositions for these as well. Perhaps penetration, adhesion, and contact, could each have an adposition, and vicinity not have one (be the unmarked default).
We could make these be postpositions and that first set be prepositions; or make these be prepositions and that first set be postpositions.

For instance, consider a river. Let's look at the dynamic adpositional case of a river. If the from/to adpositions were prepositions and the degree-of-contact adpositions were postpositions, we could get something like this;

[+to,-from] river-DYN.ADP penetration
"into the river" as when someone dives beneath its surface

[+to,-from] river-DYN.ADP adhesion
"into the river" as when a tributary joins a major stream

[+to,-from] river-DYN.ADP contact
"onto the river" as when you launch a raft

[+to,-from] river-DYN.ADP vicinity
"up to the river" as when you walk up to its bank

[-to,+from] river-DYN.ADP penetration
"out of the river" as when a fish jumps out of it

[-to,+from] river-DYN.ADP adhesion
"off of the river" as when you skim foam or oil or something off of it

[-to,+from] river-DYN.ADP contact
"off the river" as when you lift a canoe off of it

[-to,+from] river-DYN.ADP vicinity
"away from the river" as when you walk up from its bank

[+to,+from] river-DYN.ADP penetration
"along the river" as when you swim underwater through it a ways

[+to,+from] river-DYN.ADP adhesion
"along the river" as when some part of it, such as a patch of foam or an oil slick, travels along it for a bit

[+to,+from] river-DYN.ADP contact
"along the river" as when a boat or something else that is neither part of nor immersed in the river travels along it for a while, touching it all the way

[+to,+from] river-DYN.ADP vicinity
"along the river" as when you walk up along its bank for some distance, without getting wet.

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

The prepositions could be combined with various postpositions to make circumpositions; and the meanings of all of them -- prepositions, postpositions, or circumpositions -- could also vary somewhat with the case of the noun, whether it is static adpositional, or dynamic adpositional, or temporal.

For instance, we might have a postposition meaning "above".

[-to,-from](or no preposition) + static adpositional noun + "above"
"on top of the noun"

[+to,-from](or no preposition) + dynamic adpositional noun + "above"
"to the top of the noun"

[-to,+from](or no preposition) + dynamic adpositional noun + "above"
"from the top of the noun"

etc.

If we add in the "degree of contact",

adhesion + static adpositional noun + "above"
"the top part of the noun"

contact + static adpositional noun + "above"
"from off the top of the noun"

vicinity + static adpositional noun + "above"
"from somewhere over the noun"

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

Postpositions meaning "above", "below", "on our side of", "on my side of", "on your side of", "on the other side of", "before", "after", and so on, could be used.

Wednesday-temporal + before
"before Wednesday"

Wednesday-temporal + after
"after Wednesday"

[+to,+from] + Wednesday-temporal
"all throughout Wednesday" or "all during Wednesday".

And so on.

So, with the possibility of using both prepositions and postpositions, and with two different cases to use most of them with (static adpositional and dynamic adpositional) (but we could use many with temporal, and probably some with one or the other or both of the genitives and/or of essive or tranlative), we could really refine and pin down the semantic role of the noun with only a few adpositions in our vocabulary.

I've recommended two different sets of three adpostions to consider using as prepositions. We may not want to use both as prepositions, since chances are we'll sometimes want to use one from each set at the same time. Or we could make one of them a set of "ambipositions"; they'll be prepositions when used with other postpositions, but postpositions when one of the other set is used as a preposition.

So we'd have three to six prepositions, several (probably more than eight) postpositions, and we could make a bunch of circumpositions out of combining a prep with a postp. And the case of the noun would further modify the meaning.

What does anyone think?

Here we have a pronoun 1 (which is also a valid noun) - ma /"ma/. This 'pronoun' is used for someone or something the speaker closely identifies with (possibly himself). So for example:

ma could be used for a 'you in English' whom the speaker holds very very very dear (prob'ly a spouse or partner)

ma could be used for an 'I' since no one could identify better with the speaker than he himself

ma could not be used for an object/animal since a person cannot relate to them. There would need to be another pronoun in a lower category to express very close relationships but one where you don't have to identify with a person. eg. pet-trainer relationship, plain friendly relationships(best friend relationships would be a subset)

There would be no problem for documents, public announcements since the person being referred to could be given a 'distant relationship' pronoun

Everything relies heavily on context. But this seems philosophical lang-ish, so yuo may have to scrap this. If you decide to do so, can I use it in my conlang so I can elaborate more on it? Right now, it has a simple pronoun system.

So if
/mQz{t/ means "die",
/mQQz{t/ would mean "kill" and
/mQvQz{t/ would mean "make kill".

Ergative
Secundative
Nominative
Genitive 1
Genitive 2
Dative
Accusative
Static adpositional
Dynamic adpositional
Temporal adpositional
Essive
Translative
Instrumental

OVS

Abugida?

Random stuff copied from yonder forum.
_________________
Tiedämme missä asut.
Tamaqqut qantib.
Selæm ùthakyvl.

Tolkien_Freak · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 319 Location: Eiëra

YAY! Thank you so much! We finally have the conlang stuff here!
_________________
'We are the knights who say, "に!"'

今に遊べているゼルダー黄昏の姫君を。凄い!!

Aeetlrcreejl · Joined: 08 Jun 2007 Posts: 553 Location: Over yonder

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 569 Location: SouthEast Michigan

David · Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject:

Thanks Aeet!

yssida · Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 251 Location: sa jaan lang

Pls. put in the appropriate part of the thread. Pretty much agreed on by everyone.

Edlin's message:
I am going to recommend the following rules of prosody for our collaborative conlang. Feel free to propose alternatives or modifications; or to say "Prosody? We don't need no stinking prosody!" if that's what you think!

1) There are three levels of stress; primary stress, secondary stress, and unstressed.

2) As far as possible, except when over-ridden by the following rules, the stress pattern is:
1ary - un - 2ary - un -1ary - un - 2ary - un - ...
that is, syllables alternate between stressed and unstressed, and stressed syllables alternate between primary stress and secondary stress.

3) There are never two stressed syllables in a row without at least one unstressed syllable between them.

4) There are never two primary-stress syllables in a row without at least two unstressed-or-secondary-stressed syllables between them.

5) There are never three or more unstressed syllables in a row; any time there are three consecutive syllables in a word, one or more of them must have either primary or secondary stress.

6) There are never seven or more unstressed-or-secondary-stressed syllables in a row in a root; any time there are seven or more syllables in a root, one or more of them must have primary stress.

7) Primary stress occurs only in roots.

8) The first syllable of a root always has primary stress.

9) If more than one syllable of a root has primary stress, the last syllable of the root always has primary stress.

10) If a root has more than two syllables, but only the first syllable has primary stress, then the last syllable has secondary stress.

11) If a word has more than one syllable before the root, the first syllable of the word has secondary stress.

12) If a word has more than one syllable after the root, the last syllable of the word has secondary stress.

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

What do you think?
_________________
_________________
kasabot ka ani? aw di tingali ka bisaya mao na

my freewebs site

yssida · Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 251 Location: sa jaan lang

Which parts are still missing, looks pretty much complete?

addendum:

It is if I don't explain it right; and I have to take my suggestion back, since it really only makes sense if roots can be much longer than our language will allow them.

Maybe I should make it be "stems" instead of "roots"? A "stem" is what you get from a root after you've applied all the derivation, but before you've applied any of the inflection.

Anyway my idea was this;
Assign the stress-level to the syllables of the stem in this order (until you run out).
First syllable
Last syllable
Second syllable
Second-from-last syllable
Third syllable
Third-from-last syllable
Fourth syllable
Fourth-from-last-syllable
Fifth syllable
...
and so on.

The first syllable of the stem always has a primary stress.
If there's only one syllable you're done. V
If there's only two syllables you're done. Vv
If there's only three syllables, the last syllable has a secondary stress. VvV (Because you can't have two primary stresses with only one unstressed syllable between them.)
If there's four or more syllables the last syllable has a primary stress.
If there's only four syllables you're done. VvvV
If there's five or more syllables the third syllable gets secondary stress.
If there's only five syllables you're done. VvVvV
If there's only six syllables you're done. VvVvvV
If there's seven or more syllables the third-from-last syllable gets secondary stress.
If there's only seven syllables you're done. VvVvVvV
If there's only eight syllables you're done. VvVvvVvV
If there's nine or more syllables the fifth syllable gets primary stress.
If there's only nine syllables you're done. VvVvVvVvV
Ten VvVvVvvVvV
Eleven VvVvVvVvVvV
Twelve VvVvVvvVvVvV
Thirteen VvVvVvVvVvVvV
And I'll bet you can go on to seventeen by yourself now.

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

As for inflectional prefixes and inflectional suffixes, they'd go like this;
The first prefix would have secondary stress, provided there were at least two syllables in all the prefixes put together. Then they'd alternate secondary-stress with unstressed, until you get to the first (primary-stressed) syllable of the stem. But if that would result in a secondary-stress syllable right next to that primary-stressed first-syllable-of-the-stem, use two unstressed syllables in a row, instead.
The last suffix would have secondary stress, provided there were at least two syllables in all the suffixes put together. Then they'd alternate secondary-stress with unstressed, working backward toward the stem, until you get to the last (stressed) syllable of the stem. But if that would result in a secondary-stress syllable right next to that stressed last-syllable-of-the-stem, use two unstressed syllables in a row, instead.

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

Maybe this scheme is more ambitious than we'd ever need. We may never have any nine-syllable words; though agglutinating languages do sometimes have longish words (not as long as polysynthetic languages, though).
_________________
kasabot ka ani? aw di tingali ka bisaya mao na

my freewebs site

yssida · Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 251 Location: sa jaan lang

Sorry I was so late that Aeetl had to do the transfers....anyway, he's got everything pretty much covered. David and Serali are doing the pretty scripties
_________________
kasabot ka ani? aw di tingali ka bisaya mao na

my freewebs site

Aeetlrcreejl · Joined: 08 Jun 2007 Posts: 553 Location: Over yonder

Aeetlrcreejl · Joined: 08 Jun 2007 Posts: 553 Location: Over yonder

Could the c'llab'rativ' c'lang be a direct-inverse one?
_________________
Tiedämme missä asut.
Tamaqqut qantib.
Selæm ùthakyvl.

Serali · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:26 am Post subject:

David · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:29 am Post subject:

I've actually been working on it. Don't worry!

So far, I'm thinking that the consonants should be the big 'twirly' ones, whilst the vowels are either a line looping towards the left or right (depending on the direction the following consonant faces), with diacritics to differentiate them from one another.

Thoughts? Question? Suggestions? Wink

_________________
"The velvet blue sky glittered with all its mysteries.."

Serali · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:23 am Post subject:

That's a good idea! And.....post examples pretty please? With a boingy on top. Mr. Green

I have to go and make pretty scripties now.

YAY!

_________________

Tobo deu ne lenito sugu? - You kissed a frog?!

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 569 Location: SouthEast Michigan

Aeetlrcreejl · Joined: 08 Jun 2007 Posts: 553 Location: Over yonder

I did do that, but I still have some holes, because I couldn't remeber anything about the middle caste cases.
_________________
Tiedämme missä asut.
Tamaqqut qantib.
Selæm ùthakyvl.

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 569 Location: SouthEast Michigan