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  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Conlangs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
eldin raigmore
Admin


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

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTW earlier you asked for bivalent and/or trivalent words-that-aren't-verbs.
For instance, "between" is a bivalent preposition in English.
You can't be "between" something; you have to be "between" one thing and another thing.
"What's the difference between a duck?" is a nonsense-question. (Answer: "one of its legs is both the same": a nonsense-answer.)
_________________
"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
eldin raigmore
Admin


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

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aert wrote:
No grade yet - just handed it in on Wednesday (the due date was extended).
There was another person in the class with a few similar features to mine (VSO, /a i u/ with length distinction), and one person had a language with a phonology involving coughs and whistles due to a completely different mouth structure on the aliens speaking the language!
Most of them did a lot more work on the sociocultural background of the language than I did.
Other than that, it was a really small class and unfortunately the day we presented our language, half of our members were out sick...


Are there any news?
_________________
"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: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apologies for the lapse of activity; after reading some interesting papers on evidentiality and other pragmatic information marking (details about how the information being communicated is known, and etc), I've decided to add evidentiality at least. Pragmatic marking is uncertain as yet, especially since I don't yet fully understand how the system works.

An interesting effect is that, as a 'case marker' any evidential marker can be used on basic nouns and verbs, such that you can have phrases like:
FOOD.HEARSAY 'so-called food'
FOOD.INFER 'by logical deduction it should/must be food'
FOOD.REPORT 'a trustworthy source says it is food'
FOOD.DIRECT 'something that is definitely food (because I can taste it)'
FOOD.ATTEST 'something that looks like food'
should be fun!

Also to be more true to the natural languages I've been studying recently, the agreement order is now AgrO-AgrS-VERB Subj Obj, so that normal sentences would be something like:

2SG-1SG-like "I like you" (no overt subject/object required due to agreement marking)
PAST 3SG.M-1SG-bake cake "I baked him a cake/I baked a cake for him"

With non-pronominal examples being:

PAST 3SG.M-3SG.F-sing.COM Sarah.NOM Jack.ACC "Sarah sang (along) with Jack"
PAST 2SG-3SG.M-sing.TR Jack "Jack sang to you" [TR=transitivizer]

Speaking of which, I've separated the attributes of ATTR into a transitivizer (to allow extra objects to a verb), and the ATTR that relates a lexical item to another (which still also contains the meaning of the copula)).

Updated morphological template:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8456998393/in/photostream
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really, really, really like your last post! Very Happy Cool

What languages are you studying that have VSO word-order but put the OAgr and SAgr morphemes as prefixes on the verb with the OAgr coming first?

And yay! evidentials on nouns!
What about moods on nouns (possible food, etc.)? tenses on nouns (future wife, ex-wife, etc.)?
_________________
"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: Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks eldin!

Well the great thing about the 'cases' is that Almost all of them can be used on any fundamental root, or derivative thereof, so long as it makes some kind of sense.

This includes tense marking, which (on nouns) take on the meaning ex-/pre-, and future-/post-.

Aspect as well, eg project.PERF 'the completed project' (used especially when it was long and it's very good to have it done: the 'done' part is semantically very important, and so is being highlighted.
The opposite of this might be project.DUR 'the ongoing/incomplete project.'


I've been studying Tlicho Yatii (Dene, SOV), Squamish (Salish, VSO), and Nxa'amxcin (Interior Salish, VOS), but I forgot the order of argument marking (at least in Tlicho Yatii, and probably in others) is actually AgrS-AgrO-Verb. Most languages put object agreement nearer to the verb root than subject agreement, if I recall correctly...

However it looks like Navajo allows AgrO-AgrS-verb ("Arguments and Agreement" by Ackema et al, 2006, p273)

The main point is to not have the agreement markers on either side of the verb, since my conlang is head-final (all the inflection/etc goes on the left side of the root).

So that might change, but I'm not quite sure at the moment. I kind of like the asymmetry of arguments when it's all laid out: AgrO-AgrS-Verb-Subj-Obj.

On the other hand, if I switch the order I can have agreement markers combining, eg. 'I-to-him' in a more salient way to speakers (rather than 'to him from me' which sounds a bit more awkward).

EDIT: due to the difficulty of finding a syntactic structure that would work with the order listed above, it has been changed to verb-AgrS-AgrO-Subj-Obj. This will make the pronoun dropping more salient when the agreement marking carries the same semantic information, and the agreement markings don't get in between the tense and lexical aspect, which are semantically linked.


Last edited by Aert on Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also just a heads-up, I found another conlanger at UVic, and we're going to compare notes this coming week.

His conlang is based on Algonqian languages, while mine is most similar to Salishan (and somewhat Dene) languages.

This should probably spur some interesting discussion/work, and if he's still active I'll suggest he come hang out here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aert wrote:
Thanks eldin!
You're welcome! and I appreciate your thanks.


Aert wrote:
.... the great thing about the 'cases' is that almost all of them can be used on any fundamental root, or derivative thereof, so long as it makes some kind of sense.
This includes tense marking, which (on nouns) take on the meaning ex-/pre-, and future-/post-.
Aspect as well, eg project.PERF 'the completed project' (used especially when it was long and it's very good to have it done: the 'done' part is semantically very important, and so is being highlighted).
The opposite of this might be project.DUR 'the ongoing/incomplete project.'

So, verbal accidents (such as tense and aspect) can apply to nominal stems, and nominal accidents (such as case) can apply to verbal stems.
Can modifier accidents (such as degree-of-comparison) apply to nominal and/or verbal stems? How about to adpositions (in, inner, inmost, just-as-in)?
Can verbal and/or nominal accidents apply to modifiers (adjectives and adverbs)? How about to adpositions?



Quote:
I've been studying Tlicho Yatii (Dene, SOV), Squamish (Salish, VSO), and Nxa'amxcin (Interior Salish, VOS), but I forgot the order of argument marking (at least in Tlicho Yatii, and probably in others) is actually AgrS-AgrO-Verb. Most languages put object agreement nearer to the verb root than subject agreement, if I recall correctly...
However it looks like Navajo allows AgrO-AgrS-verb ("Arguments and Agreement" by Ackema et al, 2006, p273)

Thanks for telling us which languages you were talking about.
Many Bantu languages, among them Swahili, have AgrS-Tense-AgrO-Verb for the verb's morphology. (AgrS and AgrO are agreement in at least noun-class and number, perhaps also other nominal accidents. Tense may include other verbal accidents.) And unless I misremember, many of them, Swahili among them IIRC, are SVO.


Quote:
The main point is to not have the agreement markers on either side of the verb, since my conlang is head-final (all the inflection/etc goes on the left side of the root).

"Head-final" usually applies where the head-word goes in phrases rather than to where the root or stem goes in words; in other words it's a syntactic term rather than a morphological term.
What you're saying is that your language is prefixal rather than suffixal. That's rather unusual. Even verb-first languages tend to be about half-prefixal and half-suffixal. Verb-in-the-middle languages tend to prefer suffixes about 2 to one if I remember correctly; and verb-last languages tend to prefer suffixes massively, something like five-to-one IIRC.

Also remember that, even when talking about syntax and where the head-word goes in phrases, there are more categories than just "head-first and head-last". There's "'ameliorated' head-first" and "'ameliorated' head-last" and "hasn't made up its mind".

Some linguists believe, or at least used to hypothesize, that languages tended to not put stuff between the V and the O.
So some of them thought(think?) VO languages tended to have noun-phrases that were head-first but verb-phrases (not in the sense of "the whole predicate including the object" but in the sense of "the verb and its auxiliaries and adverbs") that were head-last. And some of them thought/think that verbs in VO languages tend to accumulate prefixes while nouns in those languages tend to accumulate suffixes.
By the same token, some think or thought that in OV languages noun-phrases tend/tended to be head-last while verb-phrases tend/tended to be head-first; and some think/thought that in OV languages nouns tend/tended to accumulate prefixes but verbs tend or tended to accumulate suffixes.



Quote:
So that might change, but I'm not quite sure at the moment. I kind of like the asymmetry of arguments when it's all laid out: AgrO-AgrS-Verb-Subj-Obj.

So do I.

you wrote:
On the other hand, if I switch the order I can have agreement markers combining, eg. 'I-to-him' in a more salient way to speakers (rather than 'to him from me' which sounds a bit more awkward).
EDIT: due to the difficulty of finding a syntactic structure that would work with the order listed above, it has been changed to verb-AgrS-AgrO-Subj-Obj. This will make the pronoun dropping more salient when the agreement marking carries the same semantic information, and the agreement markings don't get in between the tense and lexical aspect, which are semantically linked.

I didn't understand all that. Oh well.
BTW what about intransitive verbs and clauses?
Is your language even more polysynthetic than most polysynthetic languages? That is: Do verbs tend to incorporate both subjects and objects, even when they're specific and referential, and when they're nominal rather than pronominal?


Aert wrote:
Also just a heads-up, I found another conlanger at UVic, and we're going to compare notes this coming week.
His conlang is based on Algonqian languages, while mine is most similar to Salishan (and somewhat Dene) languages.
This should probably spur some interesting discussion/work, and if he's still active I'll suggest he come hang out here!

Cool How very, very cool! Cool
_________________
"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 Feb 11, 2013 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, lots to think about!

Quote:
So, verbal accidents (such as tense and aspect) can apply to nominal stems, and nominal accidents (such as case) can apply to verbal stems.
Can modifier accidents (such as degree-of-comparison) apply to nominal and/or verbal stems? How about to adpositions (in, inner, inmost, just-as-in)?
Can verbal and/or nominal accidents apply to modifiers (adjectives and adverbs)? How about to adpositions?


Yes, tense/aspect can apply to nouns;
Only some verbal cases can apply to nouns (eg. inchoative 'starting');
But nominal cases (NOM/ACC/etc) cannot apply to verbs.

Adjectival case markings (comparative, superlative, equative, etc) can apply to nouns; when applied to verbs the connotation changes: rather than 'the best X' (noun), the meaning is 'the best type of X' (verb), with the meaning taking on the verbal aspects as opposed to the noun form.

Compare:

RUN.N.SUPER ... 'the best run...' eg. a race
RUN.V.SUPER ... 'the best running' emphasis on the form/manner of running.

LOVE.SUPER 'the best love' (an abstract notion)
LOVE.V.SUPER 'the best kind of loving' (eg currently ongoing/experiencing)

---

Adjectives and adverbs are almost always derived phrasally. Adjectives can't take nominal cases; adverbs are often derived via nominal cases (eg KNOW.N.COM 'with knowledge; knowingly'), and I can't think of any time when they would combine with either nominal or verbal cases.

And adpositions are marked by locative and motion case markings themselves, but these can be marked with both nominal and verbal cases due to their flexible nature:

ABL 'motion away (from)'
ABL.COM 'to go (away) with'
ABL.ELA 'to go away from; exit; leave'
ABL.VIAL 'to go by way of X'
ABL.FUT 'to go after(wards); follow'

---

Thanks for the clarification on 'heads' - I'm not very familiar with them yet...
Interesting details about word order with relation to headedness!

---

Regarding the order of Agreement marking, I was thinking that if the language is S-O ordered, then S-O ordered agreement would be easier to parse for speakers, rather than having a different order.

I haven't fully decided on the extent that the role of incorporation will have on the language yet, but it definitely allows nominal as well as pronominal (=agreement) incorporation.

For example:
PAST INST [CHOP-INSTR-AXE-3SG.M] John.NOM tree.ACC 'John chopped the tree with an axe'
PAST INST [FIND-TR-Tom-3SG.M] John.NOM MAP.INSTR 'John found Tom with a map'
both of these examples could be expressed without incorporation, as well (but it's less interesting).

For right now, noun incorporation has only been object incorporation, but I'm working on figuring out the rules and circumstances where incorporation will be especially used/useful in this language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Updated morphological template:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8469727822/in/photostream
(TAM AgrS-AgrO-verb Subject Object)

Updated syntactic template:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28228492@N05/8469727826/in/photostream/
(inclusion of Finite Phrase so that the overt order listed in the morphological template can occur within bounds of expected syntactic structure)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to modify my previous response slightly:

It seems that nominal cases can be used on verbs in certain circumstances, eg:

Instrumental nominalization: a verb becomes a noun that does/is used for this
[wash.floor.INSTR.N -> mop, etc; speak.INSTR.N -> language; write.INSTR.N -> pen, pencil, etc]

Agentive nominalization: a verb becomes an agentive noun that does this
[bake -> baker, etc]

Locative nominalization: a verb becomes a place noun at which the action is done
[sleep -> bedroom, pray -> church]

The comitative and privative cases can also be used on occasion, but although the usage is still derivational, the meaning doesn't change nearly as much as the above nominalizers:
[go -> go with, fight -> fight without (eg. for karate: fight without weapons)]

EDIT: there are a few other nominal cases which can produce verbs by derivation, eg. INSTR, and possibly AGENT:
INSTR.taxi 'with a taxi' vs. canoe.INSTR.V 'to taxi/go by way of a taxi'
AGENT.father 'with father' (the person) vs. father.AGENT.V 'to father (a child)'

------

And the name of the language has changed slightly, as I really wasn't sure what the attributive marker was in the middle for... (was Śae-i-Ḱu, now is just Śe'Ḱu = Шэ'Ќу]

I'm afraid I haven't been doing much work on the unabridged grammar of late though, but I'm getting lots of interesting ideas from my readings and research!

Currently reading a grammar of Nxa'amxcin which has been extremely interesting; it's a PhD thesis so it should be generally available:
"A Grammatical Sketch of Nxa'amxcin (Moses-Columbia Salish)" by Marie Louise Willet, 2003, University of Victoria
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So as a result of studying Nxa'amxcin lexical suffixes (word-like suffixes that aren't quite words in and of themselves), I'll be doing some more work specifically to make this language more polysynthetic in form.

Specifically, I recently read an article by Wiltschko (2007) "Root Incorporation - Evidence from Lexical Suffixes in Halkomelem Salish" that outlines a formal model of word derivation by incorporating roots into other roots, which she argues is the system found in some Salish languages. This just happens to be what I've been trying to do with my conlang, so I'll be adopting the model and see where it takes me Smile

The result should be a drastic reduction in the number of fundamental roots required for the language, due to the overwhelming variety and range of word-formation strategies allowed in these types of languages.

This week is really hectic for me but I'll try to post something concrete on Friday or so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for all your February posts so far this month.
_________________
"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: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've uploaded a teaser of the manuscript, with the contents and a few words of introduction.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_8UOanEoO5GWXYyUUVDTVNZSUE/edit

This will be one of my summer projects, and I will upload specific sections as they are drafted. Once it is finished, it too will be uploaded.

Wish me luck!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lots of interesting details have come up as a result of doing that term paper on Nxa'amxcin lexical suffixes:

I'll be using the framework discussed in that paper which is incorporation of roots instead of full nouns, and one of the incorporation types (which is used in my language for 'compounding' combines roots into a root-root compound, which still has the properties of a root, and can thus be incorporated!)

These can occur in referential (taking up an argument of the verb) form:
run-school = RUN-[LEARN-LOC.N] "run to school"

and also non-referential form:
house-build.material = HOUSE-[BUILD.INSTR.N] "house-building materials"

However, incorporation cannot occur on anything but these roots/root compounds, so inflected (full-form) lexemes can't be incorporated:
NIGHT-ANIMAL but *NIGHT-[PL.ANIMAL]

inflectional marking must occur on the periphery of the structure:
PL-[NIGHT-ANIMAL] "nocturnal animals"


As a result of this style of incorporation, multiple incorporation is allowed (and permits Agentive and Benefactive thematic readings for the secondary incorporated roots):
PAST run-school-child "the child ran to school"
PAST pay-dinner-3SG.F "pay for her dinner"

At the moment it looks like Agent and Benefactive thematic roles can only occur in these secondary positions, but I'm not sure yet (the source of my framework says they should be allowed).

So I should go back to studying... but I'm having too much fun with this!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


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

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aert wrote:
I've uploaded a teaser of the manuscript, with the contents and a few words of introduction.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_8UOanEoO5GWXYyUUVDTVNZSUE/edit
This will be one of my summer projects, and I will upload specific sections as they are drafted. Once it is finished, it too will be uploaded.
Wish me luck!


It looks great.
I do wish you luck. I want to see it. I eagerly anticipate summer.
_________________
"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
eldin raigmore
Admin


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

PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2013 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it summer yet?
_________________
"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: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My apologies - it is, isn't it?

I've been preoccupied with a family history project, but am now returning to conlanging as I've hit multiple dead ends.

Although I'm still in the very first rough drafts, the introductory section is going well, and I hope to upload it within a week or two.

The later sections, especially those in morphosyntax and syntax, will take a bit longer to write as the details required will need to be very carefully examined to make sure the systems are internally consistent.

Cheers!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I look forward to it, and I bet we all do.
If you haven't posted about it again by June 21st, I'll try to "bug" you about it again.
_________________
"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: Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't worry, it's actually coming along quite nicely now that I'm refocused on it. Of course what I'll be putting up will be rough drafts, and likely much shorter than the final copy.

Of course I would appreciate any and all comments and criticisms, as I am going for a quality end product Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update: 8000 words (though I admit I've been working on three different chapters).

Chapter 0 (Introduction) is about half done.
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  Next
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 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