 |
Vreleksá
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kiri
Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:36 am Post subject: TC: If it's needed (1S.IMP anyone?) |
 |
|
A little something of my own 
Latviešu:
Ja vajag - uzbrukt.
Ja vajag - bēgt.
Bet neizdegt.
Ja vajag - lidot.
Ja vajag - krist.
Bet neizdzist.
if need.3 = attack.INF
if need.3 = flee.INF
but N-SUF-burn.INF
if need.3 = fly.INF
if need.3 = fall.INF
but N-SUF-fade.INF
Just for fun, you can hear me saying it in latvian here: ja vajag.wav
In English it doesn't sound as effective with verbs in the infinitive, so I'll use imperative instead  In the original meaning it is something one would say to oneself, not to someone other, so, if your language has first person imperatives, or if it uses infinitive as a self-instruction (not necessarily imperative), use that
English:
If needed - attack!
If needed - flee!
But don't burn out.
If needed - fly!
If needed - fall!
But don't fade away.
Francais: (attempt, please correct me)
S'il le faut - attaquer.
S'il le faut - fuir.
Mais n'incindier pas.
S'il le faut - voler.
S'il le faut - tomber.
Mais ne s'éteindre pas.
(There is no way I would attempt to gloss French, even as simple as this  )
I'd like to see your nat- and con-lang translations |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tolkien_Freak
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 1231
Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JPN:
必要なら － 攻撃！
hitsuyou nara - kougeki!
必要なら － 逃げる！
hitsuyou nara - nigeru!
しかし、燃え尽きるのはダメ。
shikashi, moetsukiru no wa dame.
必要なら － 飛ぶ！
hitsuyou nara - tobu!
必要なら － 落ちる！
hitsuyou nara - ochiru!
しかし、消えるのはダメ。
shikashi, kieru no wa dame.
| Quote: | | In English it doesn't sound as effective with verbs in the infinitive, so I'll use imperative instead In the original meaning it is something one would say to oneself, not to someone other, so, if your language has first person imperatives, or if it uses infinitive as a self-instruction (not necessarily imperative), use that |
Heh, I read this after I chose to translate it with the plain shuushikei.
EMI:
Yaranuzave - makho!
Yaranuzave - isakatjaru!
Venjariuzathüvö.
Yaranuzave - seva!
Yaranuzave - dura!
Kuyuthüvö.
do-PASS-NECESS-if - attack
do-PASS-NECESS-if - run.away
burn.out-NEG-but
do-PASS-NECESS-if - fly
do-PASS-NECESS-if - fall
fade-NEG-but
(since necessity is marked as a verb affix in Emitare, I translated 'if necessary' as 'if it must be done'.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am afraid I do not get the first-person singular imperative.
Does it occur in any natlangs? If so, can you tell me how many? And/or, can you name some of them?
Can you show how it is used in some of those natlangs?
| Wikipedia wrote: | | Irish has imperative forms in all three persons and both numbers, although the first person singular is most commonly found in the negative (e.g. ná cloisim sin arís "let me not hear that again"). |
But | http://www.latvianstuff.com/Verbs11.html wrote: | | It is not possible to have a first person singular imperative form --- semantically it doesn't really make sense for the speaker to command him- or her- -self. |
And | http://wals.info/feature/description/72 wrote: | Note that in terms of grammaticalizability, grammatical persons are not equal. Cross-linguistically, the most pervasively grammaticalized imperative-hortative is the imperative second singular, the order or request to just one addressee. The imperative-hortative that is least easily grammaticalized is the hortative first singular, the ‘let me’ meaning with which a speaker exhorts himself.
...
The first type shown on the map includes languages with a maximal system and no minimal one . An example is Hungarian. A so-called “indefinite” paradigm for the verb vár ‘wait’ is shown in (6).
(6) Hungarian (Kenesei et al. 1998: 311)
| Code: | singular plural
1 várjunk
2 várj(ál) várjatok
3 várjon várjanak |
Here there is complete homogeneity: all of the morphology is suffixal and none is fully dedicated, for the forms also have a subordinate subjunctive use. Note that the slot for the first singular remains empty. In fact, there is a first singular, and it is used with a hortative meaning, but then it is obligatorily accompanied by hadd , a particle meaning ‘let’. This particle is optional for the other persons. So one could say that Hungarian even has two maximal imperative-hortative systems: one with hadd for all six persons, and one without hadd for all but the first singular. |
| http://www.turkishlanguage.co.uk/imperative.htm wrote: | The First Person
The Imperative in the first person singular adds the suffix - (y)ayım/-(y)eyim, - as examples - alayım - let me buy, bekleyeyim - let me wait. The first person plural adds - (y)alım/-(y)elim,
•alayım - let me buy/take
•bekleyelim - let us wait.
•bakayım - let me look.
•görelim - let's see.
These forms are not considered true imperatives by the grammar experts , they categorise them elsewhere, but I include them here as they are heavily used in daily speech |
But I still do not understand how it is used, or what it means, in Irish or Hungarian or Turkisn.
If you can't illustrate its use with examples from any natlangs, can you more clearly illustrate its use in your conlang(s)?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kyonides
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 301
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
In Spanish the first person imperative is the same as the first person subjunctive mood. Sometimes there are a few exceptions Spanish speakers make, i.e.
Cantemos + nos > Cantémonos (not *Cantémosnos)
(to sing PRES-SUBJ + we ("shorthand"))
Digamos + se + lo> Digámoselo (not *Digámosselo)
(to say PRES-SUBJ + pronoun + pronoun)
_________________
Seos nivo adgene Kizne tikelke
The Internet might be either your best friend or your worst enemy. It just depends on whether or not she has a bad hair day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tolkien_Freak
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 1231
Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Overall, it seems like a 'first person singular imperative' would most simply be second person in form, with the hearer being a metaphorical 'oneself' rather than an actual other person - indeed, it seems that whenever anyone talks to themself (themselves? if it's singular, do you use a plural form for the other half?) they think of it as a conversation that is not fundamentally different from talking to someone other than themself. It does seem odd that any language would use a separate form for this situation, since the speakers wouldn't think of it as a truly separate situation.
I would think that the two options of meaning for the verbs in this example would be either as a command (to yourself, but still sufficiently second person) or as a statement of intent (i.e. 1sg(-FUT), for IE langs).
@Kyonides: Those kind of look like phonetic assimilation, rather than different grammatical forms. Are there forms that don't undergo that assimilation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kyonides
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 301
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cantemos + le > Cantémosle
_________________
Seos nivo adgene Kizne tikelke
The Internet might be either your best friend or your worst enemy. It just depends on whether or not she has a bad hair day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kyonides wrote: | In Spanish the first person imperative is the same as the first person subjunctive mood. Sometimes there are a few exceptions Spanish speakers make, i.e.
Cantemos + nos > Cantémonos (not *Cantémosnos)
(to sing PRES-SUBJ + we ("shorthand"))
Digamos + se + lo> Digámoselo (not *Digámosselo)
(to say PRES-SUBJ + pronoun + pronoun) |
Maybe I'm wrong, kyonides, but aren't those all 1st-PLURAL, rather than 1st-SINGULAR?
It's the 1SING.IMPER I don't understand; the "Let's sing!" hortative or 1stPerson-Plural-Imperative I do understand.
| Tolkien_Freak wrote: | | Overall, it seems like a 'first person singular imperative' would most simply be second person in form, with the hearer being a metaphorical 'oneself' rather than an actual other person - indeed, it seems that whenever anyone talks to themself (themselves? if it's singular, do you use a plural form for the other half?) they think of it as a conversation that is not fundamentally different from talking to someone other than themself. It does seem odd that any language would use a separate form for this situation, since the speakers wouldn't think of it as a truly separate situation. |
What you said; but apparently there are languages that do have 1stSingImper forms distinct from 1stPlurImper and from 2ndSingImper.
I was hoping someone could explain.
Apparently in Irish something like "Let me never hear that again!" is in 1st Singular Imperative (or, maybe, Prohibitive).
The 3rd person imperative is another question.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kyonides
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 301
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I only provided examples for the first person plural. That's what you'd commonly hear while walking on the streets. I just forgot to mention it there (ouch), but there are people who actually use it (while talking to themselves) in first person singular. Anyway, that's not a common thing and people tend to use the subjunctive mood instead, they start the sentence with some "que" followed by the any verb or they just use the infinitive in some cases just like wikipedia Spanish states.
_________________
Seos nivo adgene Kizne tikelke
The Internet might be either your best friend or your worst enemy. It just depends on whether or not she has a bad hair day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiri
Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it makes sense to me to have a 1S.IMP, though I can't explain it. Maybe I just don't like empty spaces in conjugational charts
On the other hand, Latvian has 3.IMP, if that's interesting or revelant to anyone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tolkien_Freak
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 1231
Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's kinda weird, sure. Do non-IE langs have 3.IMP? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kyonides wrote: | | I only provided examples for the first person plural. That's what you'd commonly hear while walking on the streets. I just forgot to mention it there (ouch), but there are people who actually use it (while talking to themselves) in first person singular. Anyway, that's not a common thing and people tend to use the subjunctive mood instead, they start the sentence with some "que" followed by the any verb or they just use the infinitive in some cases just like wikipedia Spanish states. |
Thanks.
| Kiri wrote: | | Well, it makes sense to me to have a 1S.IMP, though I can't explain it. Maybe I just don't like empty spaces in conjugational charts |
It is my opinion and recommendation that if you want your conlang to be realistic and naturalistic and human-spoken, you should avoid filling in empty cells in paradigms (such as verbs' conjugations and nouns' declensions) just because they're empty; instead you should first come up with a couple of example sentences that need such a form.
(E.g. Maybe some verbs need a 1st-Singular-Imperative and some don't.)
Likewise, if there are two different cells in a paradigm you should avoid the temptation to fill them in with different morphology/phonology just because the cells are different; instead, come up with a couple of pairs of sentences that differ minimally in that the root word in question is in one cell of the paradigm in one member of the pair and in the other cell in the other member, and the meanings of the two paired sentences are possibly-significantly different, and there's no other way to tell which meaning is meant unless the word in question is inflected differently for one cell than for the other.
(E.g. maybe some verbs need their 1st-Singular-Imperative and their 1st-Plural-Imperative to be different, and other verbs don't. Or some need their 1st-Sing-Imperat and their 1st-Sing-Subjunct to be different and others don't. Or maybe some verbs need 1st-Sing-Imperat, 2nd-Sing-Imperat, and 3rd-Sing-Imperat to be mutually distinct and other verbs can get away with having them all be the same.)
Of course anyone's welcome to ignore that advice; or to go against it on purpose just to see what happens. Especially if you don't have realism or naturalism as a design-goal, or don't intend your con-speakers to be humans.
| Kiri wrote: | | On the other hand, Latvian has 3.IMP, if that's interesting or revelant to anyone |
I've already expressed interest; I'd better let someone else judge relevance.
Are 3.SG.IMP and 3.PL.IMP different in Latvian?
| Tolkien_Freak wrote: | | It's kinda weird, sure. Do non-IE langs have 3.IMP? |
Yes, some oceanic languages do.
The terms "hortative", "imperative", and "jussive" refer to related ideas; I'm not sure there's a theory-independent cross-linguistic description of the differences and similarities in their meanings. But, apparently, IIRC and AIUI, for at least some linguists and at least some languages, "imperative" means "2nd person imperative", "hortative" means "1st person imperative", and "jussive" means "3rd person imperative".
An example was given somewhere (I'm sorry my memory for sources isn't as good as I want it to be) of a clause either in Maori or in some other Pacific language that meant "The teacher must be followed" or "Let the teacher be followed" or something like that. It was 3rd-person passive imperative.
I also read an example in Homeric Greek of a 3rd-person imperative, in which the subject was inanimate; it meant something like "Let the sails be set". But it wasn't in the passive voice.
Bambara, Birom, Bukusu, Cebuano, Fijian, Hausa, Kera, Koromfe, Koyraboro Senni, Kpelle, Lingala, Mende, Mooré, Mumuye, Mwotlap, Nkore-Kiga, Nyanga, Sango, Susu, Tetela, and Yakoma, are languages WALS.info says have both maximal and minimal imperative-hortative systems. (WALS.info counts 3rd person "imperatives" as hortatives, along with 1st person "imperatives").
Note that their definitions of "maximal" vs "minimal" is sensitive to the second and third persons in both numbers, and the plural number in all three persons, but is not sensitive to the 1st person singular imperative.
Also, | WALS.info wrote: | 3. Theoretical issues
There are two main problems. One is how to distinguish between imperatives, hortatives, optatives, jussives, subjunctives, irrealis and still other categories. Recent work includes Xrakovskij (2001) and Ammann and van der Auwera (in press). The other problem concerns the demarcation of imperative-hortatives from deontic modality. Some ideas can be found in Palmer (1986) and in Hengeveld (in press). |
------------------------------------------------------
According to WALS.info, another distinction that some languages draw and others don't, is between the command to do something and the command to desist and refrain from doing something. A "negative imperative" is called a "prohibitive"; in some languages one says this with imperative morphology combined with negative morphology, while in other languages prohibitive morphology is just plain different from imperative morphology.
See
http://wals.info/feature/description/70
http://wals.info/feature/description/71
http://wals.info/feature/description/72
Also look up "hortative", "imperative", "jussive", and related terms in Wikipedia.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiri
Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eldin raigmore wrote: |
| Kiri wrote: | | On the other hand, Latvian has 3.IMP, if that's interesting or revelant to anyone |
I've already expressed interest; I'd better let someone else judge relevance.
Are 3.SG.IMP and 3.PL.IMP different in Latvian?
|
1PL.IMP has two forms (which double as 1.PRS.IND and 1.FUT.IND respectively)
2S.IMP is the same as indicative, whereas 2PL.IMP is a completely different form and gets mixed up with 2PL.PRS.IND quite a lot, by the way.
3S.IMP and 3PL.IMP is the same, they get used very extensively and, I assume, sometimes aren't really decipherable and distinguishable of a certain subclause, since the form is the same ("lai" + "3.PRS.IND"). In these cases, I guess, the difference would be semantic, not sintactic. (I really hope, I'm using all the terms right ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kiri wrote: | | eldin raigmore wrote: | | Are 3.SG.IMP and 3.PL.IMP different in Latvian? |
1PL.IMP has two forms (which double as 1.PRS.IND and 1.FUT.IND respectively)
2S.IMP is the same as indicative, whereas 2PL.IMP is a completely different form and gets mixed up with 2PL.PRS.IND quite a lot, by the way.
3S.IMP and 3PL.IMP is the same, they get used very extensively and, I assume, sometimes aren't really decipherable and distinguishable of a certain subclause, since the form is the same ("lai" + "3.PRS.IND"). |
Thanks!
| Kiri wrote: | | In these cases, I guess, the difference would be semantic, not sintactic. (I really hope, I'm using all the terms right ) |
You used "semantic" right -- it refers to a difference in meaning.
You misspelled "syntactic".
My guess is that you may (or may not) have also misused it; that depends on whether "lai" is an independent word or is a prefix.
"Syntax" is about how complete words, that are independent of each other morphologically, are tied together into a phrase or clause.
"Morphology" OTOH is about how words are changed to communicate grammatical information; this may be by ablaut or mutation, or by adding morphemes, possibly among other means.
If I understand right the "lai + "3.PRSNT.INDIC" is all one word? If so, you meant "semantic, not morphological".
But if "lai" is an auxiliary word, not a prefix, then you really did mean "semantic, not syntactic".
Could you enlighten me?
Thanks.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiri
Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, the misspellings...
"lai" is an auxiliary, so I guess I used the terms correctly Or not
Lai viņš raksta!
Let him write! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kiri wrote: | "lai" is an auxiliary, so I guess I used the terms correctly :) Or not :D
Lai viņš raksta!
Let him write! |
Looks like you did mean "syntactically" rather than "morphologically"; so, it looks like you did use the terms correctly.
BTW being able to tell us what your language actually does is more important than using the "right" terms to call what it does. It's just that the "right terms" often help or speed up that telling. (But sometimes they don't, if the language is too weird for the commonly-used terminology; which could be a good thing, if that's what you wanted.)
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeetlrcreejl
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 839
Location: Over yonder
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe Azeri has a 3rd person imperative.
_________________
Iwocwá ĵọṭăsák.
/iwotSwa_H d`Z`Ot`~asa_Hk/
[iocwa_H d`Z`Ot`_h~a_Hk] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LingoDingo
Admin
Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 102
Location: Eastern US
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aalmok:
.reenarai;kareu.
.reenarai;žeteu.
.a hežafeu mo.
.reenarai;šuumeu.
.reenarai;yusteu.
.a hesoňkeu mo.
to.need-HYP-3.SG.PRS to.attack-1S.IMP
to.need-HYP-3.SG.PRS to.flee-1S.IMP
but PFV-to.burn-1S.IMP NEG
to.need-HYP-3.SG.PRS to.fly-1S.IMP
to.need-HYP-3.SG.PRS to.fall-1S.IMP
but PFV-to.fade-1S.IMP NEG
Yes, Aalmok does have a first-person singular imperative. I admit that I speak to myself in a complicated enough fashion that that form would actually make sense (to distinguish imaginary audiences from actually talking to self). But this and the first-person plural exclusive commands serve a different purpose in conversation as a sort of disparaging way to show that you wont talk to someone. E.g. if you were mad at someone you could say “iħseu” as meaning something along the lines “I'm just going to leave now”. They same concept applies to the first-person plural exclusive imperative.
Another thing about the phrasing of the above sentence. In Aalmok, for if-then clauses, one simply neglects both if and then and shows the implication of the clauses by using the hypothetical mood for the protasis and the indicative mood for the apodosis. I don't know why I had done that the first time. But I liked it, so I stuck with it.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, Japanese, German
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese
Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu
.aď sodai peťâs sokâs na asnâ;šustâs buntai mokâ aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiri
Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kiri wrote: | | eldin raigmore wrote: |
| Kiri wrote: | | On the other hand, Latvian has 3.IMP, if that's interesting or revelant to anyone |
I've already expressed interest; I'd better let someone else judge relevance.
Are 3.SG.IMP and 3.PL.IMP different in Latvian?
|
3S.IMP and 3PL.IMP is the same |
I know it's necromancing, but I think I never said it clearly that in Latvian 3S and 3PL is always the same, there is no grammatical distinction between the two, as far as the verb goes.
And, so that this is not just spam, the same thing in Italian (however crappy):
Italian
Se bisogna – attaccare.
Se bisogna – fuggire.
Ma non bruciare.
Se bisogna – volare.
Se bisogna – cadere.
Ma non spegnersi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
