Vreleksá

eldin raigmore

While we were working on our collaborative conlang, I suggested that the Morphosyntactic Alignment be split-ergative and split-dechticaetiative, based both on the noun and on the verb.

I originally proposed that verbs come in three "wings";
Left-wing verbs were future imperfective, or future irrealis, or imperfective irrealis;
Right-wing verbs were past perfective, or past realis, or perfective realis;
Center-wing verbs were imperfective present realis or irrealis perfective present.

I originally proposed that "nouns" come in three "castes";
High-caste "nouns" would consist of all pronouns, all kinterms, and all proper nouns for humans;
Middle-caste nouns would consist of all animate common nouns, all animate nonhumans, and all nonhuman proper nouns;
Low-caste nouns would consist only of all common inanimate nouns.

The ideas were that:
(*) In left-wing verbs the Agent and Donor would be unmarked, like the Sole particpant of an intransitive verb; while in left-wing verbs the Patient, the Recipient, and the Theme, would all be marked.

(*) In right-wing verbs the Patient, the Recipient, and the Theme, would all be unmarked, like the Sole particpant of an intransitive verb; while in right-wing verbs the Agent and Donor would be marked.

(*) High-caste Agents, Donors, and Recipients would be unmarked, like the Sole particpant of an intransitive verb; while high-caste Patients and Themes would be marked.

(*) Low-caste Patients and Themes would be unmarked, like the Sole particpant of an intransitive verb; while low-caste Agents and Donors would be marked.

_____________________________________________________________

Well, I wasn't able to get that to work.

The problem was with the Center-Wing Verbs and the Middle-Caste Nouns.

However; if there are only two wings (left and right) of verbs and only two castes (high and low) of nouns, I can make it work.

Let there be a morpheme, I'll call it the suffix /-a/, that marks the Patients, Recipients, and Themes of left-wing verbs.

Let there be a different morpheme, I'll call it the suffix /-b/, that marks the Agents and Donors of right-wing verbs.

Let there be yet a third morpheme, I'll call it the suffix /-c/, that marks high-caste Patients and Themes.

Finally, let there be a fourth morpheme, I'll call it the suffix /-d/, that marks low-caste Agents, Donors, and Recipients.

OK, then;
In a left-wing verb, a high-caste Agent or Donor will be unmarked, like the Sole participant of an intransitive verb. A high-caste Recipient will end with /-a/. A high-caste Patient or Theme will end with /-a-c/.

In a left-wing verb, a low-caste Agent or Donor will end with /-d/. A low-caste Recipient will end with /-a-d/. A low-caste Patient or Theme will end with /-a/.

In a right-wing verb, a high-caste Agent or Donor will end with /-b/. A high-caste Recipient will be unmarked, like the Sole participant of an intransitive verb. A high-caste Patient or Theme will end with /-c/.

In a right-wing verb, a low-caste Agent or Donor will end with /-b-d/. A low-caste Recipient will end with /-d/. A low-caste Patient or Theme will be unmarked, like the Sole participant of an intransitive clause.

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

So, for high-caste nouns in left-wing verbs,
S=A=D=-0,
P=T=/-a-c/,
R=/-a/ (has a third marking)
so they're Accusative/Dative.

For low-caste nouns in left-wing verbs,
S=-0,
P=T=/-a/,
A=D=/-d/,
R=/-a-d/ (has a fourth marking)
so they're Tripartite/Dative.

For high-caste nouns in right-wing verbs,
S=R=-0,
A=D=/-b/,
P=T=/-c/,
so they're Tripartite/Dechticaetiative, or something; I'm not sure what to call it.

For low-caste nouns in right-wing verbs,
S=P=T=-0,
A=D=/-b-d/,
R=/-d/ (has a third marking)
so they're Ergative/Dative.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission

Kiri · Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Latvia/Italy

Are left-wing verbs in any way more egalitarian or social change oriented than right-wing verbs?
Also, could it be that the reason it didn't work with middle-caste nouns is because they couldn't decide if they should agree with the royalists or the republicans?

eldin raigmore · Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:37 pm Post subject:

(P.S. Oh ha ha! ) Very Happy

Naa.

Possibly the left-wing ones are more oriented to intended or potential change or future change or ongoing change, while the right-wing ones are more oriented to the effects of completed change.

I found out that traditional grammarians of some Indian languages (Dravidian and Indo-Iranian etc.) divided nouns into "castes" to settle questions of split-ergativity etc. (morphosyntactic alignment, in other words).

Others are split-ergative languages in which the split depends on something about the verb, instead of something about the noun.

"Left-wing" verbs are likelier to be future-tense and less likely to be past-tense;
"Right-wing" verbs are likelier to be past-tense and less likely to be future-tense.

"Left-wing" verbs are likelier to be irrealis-mood and less likely to be realis-mood;
"Right-wing" verbs are likelier to be realis-mood and less likely to be irrealis-mood.

"Left-wing" verbs are likelier to be imperfective-aspect and less likely to be perfective-aspect;
"Right-wing" verbs are likelier to be perfective-aspect and less likely to be irrealis-aspect.

_____________________________________________________________

The ideas involved are these.

As far as "Caste" goes; "High-caste" nouns are likelier to be Agents or Donors or Recipients, and less likely to be Patients or Themes. So they should be marked when they are Patients or Themes, and if unmarked should be reasonably guessed to be Donors or Recipients or Patients.

OTOH "Low-caste" nouns are likelier to be Patients or Themes, and less likely to be Agents or Donors or Recipients. So they should be marked when they are Agents or Donors or Recipients, and if unmarked should be reasonably guessed to be Patients or Themes.

As far as "Wing" goes:
In "Left-wing" verbs, the "action" is likely to (still) "reside" in the Agent or Donor.
For instance for a future-tense clause the "action" is something the Agent or Donor will do; it hasn't yet had any effect on the Patient or Recipient or Theme.
For another, in an irrealis-mood clause the "action" is something the Agent or Donor intends to do or might do; the clause doesn't really say much about the Patient or Theme or Recipient.
For a third, in an imperfective-aspect clause the "action" is something the Agent or Donor is still in the process of doing; it hasn't finished affecting the Patient or Theme or Recipient.

Therefore, for "Left-wing" verbs, Donors and Agents are the unmarked participant-roles, and Patient, Theme, and Recipient are the marked ones.

But, in "Right-wing" verbs, the "action" is likely to already "reside" entirely or mostly in the Patient or in the Theme and Recipient.
For instance for a past-tense clause the "action" is something the Agent or Donor has finished doing; what's now important is the affect it has had on the Patient, or the Theme and the Recipient.
For another, in a realis-mood clause the "action" is something that actually has taken place or is actually taking place; chances are at least some affect on the Patient or Theme or Recipient is already evident.
For a third, in a perfective-aspect clause the "action" is something complete, looked at as a fait accompli rather than as an ongoing process. It's no more about the Agent or Donor than it is about the Patient or Theme or Recipient.

Therefore, for "Right-wing" verbs, Patients, Themes, and Recipients are the unmarked participant-roles, and Agent and Donor are the marked ones.

_____________________________________________________________

Now, if a verb's tense is Present, but its mood is Realis, and its aspect is Imperfective, is it Left-wing or Right-wing?

And, if a verb's tense is Present, but its mood is Irrealis, and its aspect is Perfective, is it Left-wing or Right-wing?

Maybe it depends.

Originally I solved it by making those be "Center-wing verbs".

But I decided Past Perfective and Past Realis and Perfective Realis verbs would all be Right-wing; even Irrealis Past Perfective, and Imperfective Past Realis, and Future Perfective Realis.

And I decided Future Imerfective and Future Irrealis and Imperfective Irrealis verbs would all be Left-wing; even Future Imperfective Realis, and Future Perfective Irrealis, and Past Imperfective Irrealis.

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

The problem with Middle-Caste Nouns is that knowing whether the verb is Left-Wing or Right-Wing doesn't completely settle the question of which participant-roles should be marked and which should be unmarked, if the role is filled by a Middle-Caste participant.

The problem with Center-Wing Verbs is that knowing whether the noun is High-Caste or Low-Caste doesn't completely settle the question of which participant-roles should be marked and which should be unmarked in a Center-Wing clause.

Originally I thought I could settle those problems, but I always knew that I didn't really know how to handle Middle-Caste nouns in Center-Wing verbs.

However, I have noticed that if the verbs are Left-Wing or Right-Wing, and the nouns are High-Caste or Low-Caste, the participant-roles are all marked differently from each other (counting "unmarked" as a kind of marking, to wit "zero-marked"), in each single clause.
There need be only four markings; one goes on High-Caste Patients and Themes, one goes on Low-Caste Agents and Donors and Recipients, one goes on Patients and Themes and Recipients in Left-Wing clauses, and one goes on Agents and Donors in Right-Wing clauses.
A High-Caste Patient or Theme in a Left-Wing clause, will get two marks; so will a Low-Caste Agent or Donor in a Right-Wing clause.

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

If you want to, give it your own attempt.

I originally had High-Caste Nouns include all pronouns and all kinterms and all proper nouns for humans; Low-Caste Nouns include all common nouns for inanimate beings; and Middle-Caste Nouns were proper nouns for non-humans, common nouns for animates, and all nouns for non-human animates.

But if I leave out the middle caste, High-Caste should include proper nouns for animates and common nouns for humans, and Low-Caste should include all nouns for inanimates and all common nouns for non-humans.

You might reasonably find some other way to divide the nouns into two or three (or more?) "Castes".
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission