 |
Vreleksá
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: Postpositions' meanings to translate. |
 |
|
P above
P across
P after
P around
P at *
P before (in front of)
P before (prior to)
P behind
P between
P beyond
P during
P for (in exchange for)
P for (to benefit; for the purpose of)
P from *
P in *
P instead
P like
P near
P of (belonging to) *
P on
P outside of
P than
P through
P to *
P under
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have offered to handle these. Just in case that is accepted, I have a few questions: Is there a set syllable structure? Should I make one? What do all the asterisks* mean? Should all of these be used? Can new ones be added?
Just checking so I don't make any huge mistakes. I probably won't get around to this until the orthography is worked out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
We do have a set syllable structure (see the lang info).
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| langover94 wrote: | | We do have a set syllable structure (see the lang info). |
OK. I think that was mentioned as a verb structure, so I wasn't sure if it applied to adpositionals. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | langover94 wrote: | | We do have a set syllable structure (see the lang info). |
OK. I think that was mentioned as a verb structure, so I wasn't sure if it applied to adpositionals. Thanks. |
We have a noun structure (But it doesn't seem to be posted! Aeetlrcreejl, can you post the noun structure?), a verb structure | Quote: | 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). |
, a root structure | Quote: | | (C)V(C)(V)(C) roots |
, and a syllable structure (Uh-oh! Also not posted! If I recall correctly, though, it was only moderately complicated; maybe it was just (C)V or (C)(C)V or (C)V(C); or maybe (C)(C)V(C) or (C)V(C)(C) or (C)V(V)(C) or (C)(V)V(C) or something).
The nouns' structure and the verbs' structure are fairly complicated.
Each incorporates a root, so the root-structure is part of the noun-structure and the verb-structure.
The root structure is basically "triconsonantal". It probably applies to adjectives, and maybe also adverbs, as well as to nouns and verbs, but probably doesn't apply to other parts-of-speech.
Then there's the syllable structure, which applies to all words. The root-structure conforms to it, but roots can contain more than one syllable.
Pronouns, adpositions (prepositions, postpositions, "ambipositions", and "circumpositions"), conjunctions, and maybe adverbs, don't have to conform to the "root structure", but do to the "syllable structure". Interjections probably don't have to conform even to the "syllable structure".
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | I have offered to handle these. Just in case that is accepted, |
Well, I vote "yes".
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | I have a few questions: |
Here are remarks concerning some of more important questions, among them some you didn't ask.
The language is mostly postpositional; it has more postpositions than any other kind of adposition. But it also has cases, and prepositions, and circumpositions.
| Quote: | | Do we want adpositions (postpositions and prepositions) to agree with their nouns in case, definiteness, gender, number, and/or person? |
| Quote: | 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? |
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | Is there a set syllable structure? |
Yes; or at least one was discussed | Quote: | 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. |
. Unfortunately that discussion doesn't appear to have been copied over to this board, or at least the poll and results don't seem to have been.
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | Should I make one? |
Probably not, unless the discussion didn't lead to a clear decision; in which case, probably so, but not without discussing it with the rest of us.
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | What do all the asterisks* mean? |
I forgot. I'll try to find out.
Perhaps they came from the list this was copied from.
Perhaps they mean these need special handling.
Other than these few "postpositional meanings", the only other asterisk is with the verb "be" on the "verb meaning" list.
I think what this means is that these meanings are going to be shown in ways that differ a little more from other words on the list than they differ from each other.
For instance the asterisked "postpositional meanings" are those that will be shown by case instead of by a postposition, or by a preposition instead of a postposition, or will be used in combination with another postposition to make a finer shade of meaning, or that you may need more than one conlangish translation for, or something.
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | Should all of these be used? |
Up to you. You need to be able to say anything that English would use these for, but you needn't be able to say it in one word, nor using prepositions.
Note that most of these are going to be translated as postpositions, rather than as prepositions, in the conlang. Also note that some might be translated as a pair or trio, of a postposition + a case, or a postposition + a preposition, or a postposition + a case + a preposition. That is, the same postposition in the conlang might have two different translations in English depending on the case of the conlangish noun to which it is postposed; or, one conlanging postposition might have two different English translations depending on which conlangish preposition is preposed on the other side of its object noun-phrase. Also, the same conlangish adposition might have two different meanings, depending on whether it is preposed to its object noun-phrase, or postposed to it. (Some of our postpositions may also be usable as prepositions. Look up what was said about "ambipositions" and "circumpositions".)
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | Can new ones be added? |
Up to you. Any new ones should probably be postpositions instead of prepositions; also, before you add a new one, check to see whether the meaning couldn't be conveyed using an old one with a particular case of noun, or with a particular preposition in a "circumposition pair" (a preposition with a postposition).
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | Just checking so I don't make any huge mistakes. |
While it's nice to limit both the number and the hugeness of your mistakes, please don't be afraid to make a few small mistakes or one medium-big one.
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | I probably won't get around to this until the orthography[*] is worked out. |
Well, you can tell by my blazing speed with the verbs that I'm about to leave you in the dust.
  (No I'm not.)
[*] I bet (and hope) you mean "romanization", not "orthography". "Orthography" is the conscript. I hope you're not waiting on the conscript; but I also don't see why you need to wait on the romanization, since you could go ahead and start it in X-SAMPA (or Z-SAMPA or CXS), and we could go back and redo it in our adopted romanization(s) when we had decided on them (which will be soon, I expect).
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:12 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: Syllable Structure |
|
|
The allowed syllable structures consistent with the root structure seem to be:
(C)V(C)(C)
(C)(C)V(C)
and
(C)V(V)(C).
In the latter, VV can be either a long monophthong, or a diphthong.
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's what I have so far:
above Bim
across Ka
after Anu
around Upo
at Ši
before (in front of) Iþa
before (prior to) Puv
behind Ožu
between Šog
beyond Ðuvit
during Kmok
for (in exchange for) Qid
for (to benefit; for the purpose of) Zan
from Af
in Hih
instead So
of (belonging to) Uk
to Gon
like Nuh
near Fnad
on Him
outside of Iþuþ
than Quk
under Uht |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eldin raigmore wrote: | | This is more progress than we've seen in a few months and I got excited.) |
I fixed your sentence.
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a question: Were we still going with that tri-consonental root system?
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeetlrcreejl
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Location: Over yonder
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CVCVC root system, and postpositions don't have t'follow't.
_________________
Tiedämme missä asut.
Tamaqqut qantib.
Selæm ùthakyvl.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Exactly. If I made the postpositions triconsonantal, they'd all be at least 2 syllables long. Adpositionals are very basic words, so you want at least some of them to be monosyllabic. Otherwise, words and sentences get too long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hemicomputer wrote: | Here's what I have so far:
above Bim
across Ka
after Anu
around Upo
at Ši
before (in front of) Iþa
before (prior to) Puv
behind Ožu
between Šog
beyond Ðuvit
during Kmok
for (in exchange for) Qid
for (to benefit; for the purpose of) Zan
from Af
in Hih
instead So
of (belonging to) Uk
to Gon
like Nuh
near Fnad
on Him
outside of Iþuþ
than Quk
under Uht |
Whoever "fixed my sentence" accidentally edited out all of my questions.
I pointed out that the meanings that were "* asterisked" in the original list were particularly good to answer the following questions about.
I had asked something like the following:
* Which ones are postpositions (follow their object noun-phrase)? I assume most of them are.
* Which ones are prepositions (precede their object noun-phrase)? I assume two to four, or at any rate not more than eight, are.
* Which ones are "ambipostions", that is, follow the noun phrase when used alone or with a preposition, but precede the noun phrase when used with a postposition? I assume not more than four, or at any rate not more than eight, are.
* Have we decided, or do we want to decide, whether or not one can use two ambipositions together on the same noun phrase? If one can do so, what happens? Do we know which one goes "pre" and which one goes "post"? Does it ever change depending on the meaning? (I had "sort of assumed" you couldn't ever use two "ambipositions" together.)
* How does each adposition interact with each of Aeetlrcreejl's cases for nouns?
I expect each case can be used with more than one adposition with different meanings, but no case can be used with all adpositions; and each adposition can be used with more than one case with different meanings, but no adposition can be used with every case.
| langover94 wrote: | | Just a question: Were we still going with that tri-consonental root system? |
| Aeetlrcreejl wrote: | | CVCVC root system, and postpositions don't have t'follow't. |
Right. Except I said maybe (C)(V)(C)V(C) roots. (Or (C)V(C)(V)(C) roots.) (The difference is that some of the sounds may be optional.)
Verbs, nouns, and adjectives have to follow that root system, which will be very much like a "triconsonantal root system" (especially for verbs). There won't be a big distinction between verb-roots and noun-roots; a root is just a root, and only after some inflection or derivation is added is it clear what part of speech it will be.
Adverbs may also follow the root system, as do adjectives; or they may be somewhat free of it, as are adpositions.
Adpositions, pronouns, and conjunctions don't have to follow the root system.
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:42 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| @elden: I haven't yet decided which are prepositions and which are postpositions. I think I'll have most of the post, while "anu" "puv" "kmok" "quk" "so" "nuh" and "zan" are pre, since these relate to more abstract things like time and purpose. I'll have some stuff on the cases soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeetlrcreejl wrote: | | CVCVC root system, and postpositions don't have t'follow't. |
Got it.
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
As for ambipositions, both Puv and Anu can be combined with Kmok to create degrees.
Eg: anu-x=after x, kmok-x-anu=a short time after x.
Similar rules are applied to Fnad(near) and Ino(far):
x-fnad=near to x
ino-x-fnad=slightly near to x
fnad-x-ino=slightly far from x |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hemicomputer wrote: | As for ambipositions, both Puv and Anu can be combined with Kmok to create degrees.
Eg: anu-x=after x, kmok-x-anu=a short time after x.
Similar rules are applied to Fnad(near) and Ino(far):
x-fnad=near to x
ino-x-fnad=slightly near to x
fnad-x-ino=slightly far from x |
Thanks!
I need to think about these. (I also need to get cracking on the verbs.)
I'd like to see what's happened to the nouns so far; it would help me with the verbs.
Who, if anyone, is working on the adjectives and adverbs? Did anyone volunteer yet?
We haven't asked for volunteers for pronouns or conjunctions, have we?
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eldin raigmore wrote: |
Thanks!
I need to think about these. (I also need to get cracking on the verbs.) |
You're quite welcome. Please do get a start on those verbs.
| eldin raigmore wrote: | | Who, if anyone, is working on the adjectives and adverbs? Did anyone volunteer yet? |
Nobody has so far.
| eldin raigmore wrote: | | We haven't asked for volunteers for pronouns or conjunctions, have we? |
Again, no. I'd be willing to pop in a few of these. Adpositionals are a fairly small domain, so I've got room for other stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I'll volunteer to do the adjectives/adverbs. A couple questions though:
1. Just to make sure, are the adjectives/adverbs triconsonental?
2. Can someone link me to the page where it explains how adjectives/adverbs work?
And one general question:
3. Does the lang use articles?
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| langover94 wrote: | | I think I'll volunteer to do the adjectives/adverbs. |
Wonderful! Thanks.
| langover94 wrote: | A couple questions though:
1. Just to make sure, are the adjectives/adverbs triconsonantal? |
To be technical, my correct answer should be "I don't know".
But our root-system is (C)V(C)(V)(C) or (C)(V)(C)V(C).
If we had one set of noun-roots and a different set of verb-roots, possibly we would also have a separate set of adjective-roots (or adjective-and-adverb roots).
But if I understand correctly, we decided not to be able to tell part-of-speech at the "root" level.
That means that the (C)V(C)(V)(C) or (C)(V)(C)V(C) patterns just apply to "roots".
So any adjective or adverb that's part of a paradigm that has a root, should have a (C)V(C)(V)(C) or (C)(V)(C)V(C) root.
It seems to me that would mean all adjectives have such roots.
But I think some adverbs will have such roots and some won't.
If an adverb isn't part of a paradigm (a conjugation or declension or what-have-you), or if its paradigm is smallish enough to contain no other parts-of-speech (e.g. no adjectives or verbs or nouns), then why need it have such a root? (That is, why need it have a (C)V(C)(V)(C) or (C)(V)(C)V(C) root?
You should examine the meaning -- the semantics -- of each adverb as you create its gloss, to decide whether it should be part of a paradigm that includes another part of speech -- for instance, is it derived from an adjective or a noun or a verb? -- or not. In the latter instance, just create the adverb, and maybe its positive, equative, comparative, and superlative degrees, and its opposite, and its opposite's comparative and superlative degrees. (e.g. "well", "as well as", "betterly", "bestly", "worsely", "worstly", if all those words actually existed in English).
That's IMO.
Anyone else want to oppose, tweak, or add to that?
| langover94 wrote: | | 2. Can someone link me to the page where it explains how adjectives/adverbs work? |
AFAICR there may not be one. If there isn't then no-one can link you to it. If there is it has probably been copied to this forum; search this forum for those words, "adjective" and "adverb". What you get is all there is AFAIK.
Anyone else know different?
| langover94 wrote: | And one general question:
3. Does the lang use articles? |
Again, to be technical, I don't know.
That may be up to you, since if there are articles, they could be counted as "adjectives"; definite articles are like demonstratives, and indefinite articles are like numerals. OTOH demonstratives are kind of like pronouns, too, so talk to the pronoun-volunteer and agree with each other. (And some pronouns are like numerals; the same numerals that indefinite articles are like.)
The verb's morphology, however, is very, very sensitive to the pragmatic status of the participants. It cares whether each of the participants with which it agrees is definite: or non-specific/non-referential; or specific/referential but indefinite.
(Possibly the "case" markings can fuse the "case" with the "pragmatic status"? Aeetlrcreejl could tell you.)
It may not be necessary to have articles for the major syntactic adverbial cases; it may be possible to pick up the pragmatic status of nouns in one of the top three cases from the verb (and possibly also the "gender" of the noun.)
The morphosyntactic alignment "cares about" the (nominal or noun or pronominal or pronoun or (nominal or noun or pronominal or pronoun) phrase)'s animacy, humanness, and pragmatic status.
There are nine different categories. Each NP can be either definite (and specific/referential); or non-specific/non-referential (and indefinite); or indefinite but specific/referential. Independently, each NP can be either human (and animate); or inanimate (and non-human); or non-human animate.
Pronouns are always definite.
Kinterms are somewhere between pronouns and human proper nouns.
The pragmatic status is also related to the "quality" of the noun; that is, proper noun vs common noun. Proper nouns are ordinarily definite (much, much more often than not), and always (or very nearly almost always) specific/referential.
Anyone else have a better answer?
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hemicomputer wrote: |
| eldin raigmore wrote: | | We haven't asked for volunteers for pronouns or conjunctions, have we? |
Again, no. I'd be willing to pop in a few of these. Adpositionals are a fairly small domain, so I've got room for other stuff. |
A few questions for pronouns:
How many persons? (I'm assuming the standard 1st, 2nd, and 3rd)
How many numbers? (I believe it was mentioned somewhere that we had singular, dual, and plural)
Do we distinguish between subject and object pronouns?
Do we distinguish between direct and indirect object pronouns?
Do we have separate pronouns for when the subject and object are the same person? (Eg: myself, yourself, himself, herself)
Do we distinguish gender in pronouns?
If so, how many genders? |
|
| 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
