Vreleksá

[StrangeMagic]

Okay, thank you for the commentary, I had already put the 'hopeful' mood/tense into the Mood section of my grammar. But not the 'mystic'.

[Aeetlrcreejl]

[Tolkien_Freak]

Raitoliste makes no distinction between 'this' and 'that'.

[eldin raigmore]

[Tolkien_Freak]

Actually, it (they, really, there's a separate one for each root) is a pronoun that can be used as a demonstrative adjective - you can say 'this thing' by saying either 'reike' or 'reiki ke' (or 'there' by 'reime' or 'reimi me', etc).

[eldin raigmore]

[Tolkien_Freak]

'That there post' seems like it.

[Hemicomputer]

Holxûs has:
A first person inclusive that represents multiple people being one.
An "Always" tense (is that uncommon?).
A /Z/ and no /z/
A /D/ and /t/ but no /d/

It also uses the word for zero as a negative prefix and has no word for "to remember" or "to realize". "I remember it" is said as "my brain sees it".
_________________
Bakram uso, mi abila, / del us bakrat, dahud bakrita!

[eldin raigmore]

[eldin raigmore]

[Hemicomputer]

[dusepo]

[eldin raigmore]

[Hemicomputer]

[Vortex]

Hásu Khómiyo has 30 suffixes that can be used to show clause chaining.
It has 17 pronouns
It has no definite and indefinite articles.
Definiteness is only shown in pronouns, personal suffixes of verbs and possessor suffixes.
Verbs can take take personal suffixes for the Agent, patient, receiver/benefactor, and instrument/comiative.
There are two derivational prefixes to show a persons attitude's towards the situation.
The same thing can be shown on adjectives. (The neutral attitude for both the adjective and the verb are shown with a zero marker)
There are two realis moods: indicative and generic
There are two copulas for predicate nominals for equation and proper inclusion predicate nominals. These copulas are both on average omitted.
The copulas are also only conjugated for different aspects and tenses.
There are 5 tenses: distant past, near past, present, near future, and distant future.
There are seven moods.
There are 4 forms of verb negation depending on whether the clause contains a motion verb, the clause is locative/existential/possessive clause, contains a non-motion verb, or is a predicate nominal.
There are 4 ways to say "to be able to" depending whether the verb is a motion verb, stationary verb, sensory/thought process, miscellaneous class verb.

EDIT: There are also 4 types of evidentiality.

[Hemicomputer]

Revised version, since Holxws's most recent changes
Holxws has:
•/Z/, but no /z/
•Only two stops: /t k/, also /d/ but only as an allophone of /D/.
•1st person inclusive
•A pronoun used only for referring to God, which can be used as either 1st, 2nd or 3rd person.
•Tense marked separately from the verb. (I don't know if this is quite uncommon, I know of no natlangs that use this, except possibly Swahili)
•Formal, Informal, and Extremely Informal forms of you (See above, I know no natlangs with this except for Hindi)

In the writing system, only consonants are usually written (as in an abjad) but, unlike most abjads, there is no "'aleph"/"'alif" character. Instead, initial vowels are denoted with a separate character (as in an alphabet).

[eldin raigmore]

Adpihi's "consecutive clauses" -- those in a clause-chain other than the "initial clause" (which, in Adpihi, is the anchor of the chain) -- have their verbs marked by "same/different subject" and "same/different object" and "same/different location" markers.

I haven't worked out the "same-location vs different-location markers" yet, so this won't talk about them.

But here's how the "same/different subject" and "same/different object" markers work.

The clause on whose verb the marker goes, is called "the marked clause"; the marker tells the relationship of the marked clause's subject or object(s) to the core arguments (subject and object(s)) of a picked other clause, called "the referenced clause".

Adpihi clauses' core participants come in four varieties; depending on whether or not they are the most saliently agentive or most agentively salient argument, and also on whether or not they are the most patientively salient or the most saliently patientive argument.

("Agentive" could mean volitional, controlling, performing, effecting, or instigating the action; and/or perhaps other meanings.)
("Patientive" could mean affected, located, or moved; and/or perhaps other meanings.)
("Salient" could mean topical, or focal; and/or perhaps other meanings.)

The Actor is the most saliently agentive, or the most agentively salient, argument; provided it isn't also the most patientively salient, or most saliently patientive, argument.

The Undergoer is the most saliently patientive, or the most patientively salient, argument; provided it isn't also the most agentively salient or the most saliently agentive argument.

The S-argument is both the most saliently agentive or most agentively salient, and the most saliently patientive or most patientively salient.

The Extra argument(s) is/are neither the most saliently agentive nor the most saliently patientive nor the most agentively salient nor the most patientively salient.

Every clause that has an argument has either an S or an A argument.

Every clause that has an argument has either an S or a U argument.

If a clause has exactly one argument, that argument is its S argument.

A clause with an S can't have an A; a clause with an A can't have an S.

A clause with an S can't have a U; a clause with a U can't have an S.

A clause with an A has to have a U; a clause with a U has to have an A.

No clause can have more than one S.
No clause can have more than one A.
No clause can have more than one U.

Nearly all of Adpihi's clauses come in one of the following four varieties;
S
A U
S E
A U E

The difference between SE clauses and AU clauses becomes morphosyntactically important in the same/different argument marking.

All monovalent clauses -- clauses with just one argument -- are S clauses.

The AU clauses are the traditional monotransitive clauses.

SE clauses may be thought of as "bivalent intransitive" clauses; they have two arguments, the S and the E, but the E is not a direct object; it might be called "an indirect object" (or not). The S participant is both the one most in control and the one most affected. The E participant is somehow the focus of the activity -- the thing toward which the activity is directedf -- but it neither controls it nor is affected by it.

AUE clauses are the traditional ditransitive clauses.

The "Same/Different Subject Marker" actually tracks Actors or Agents more than it tracks Subjects.
It has four values (five, including "zero").
If the S or A participant of the marked clause is identical to the S or A participant of the referenced clause (usually, the last previous clause in the chain), it takes the first value.
Otherwise, if the S or A participant of the marked clause is identical to the U or E participant of the referenced clause, it takes the second value.
Otherwise, if the S or A participant of the marked clause properly contains, or is properly contained in, the S or A participant of the referenced clause, it takes the third value.
Otherwise, if the S or A participant of the marked clause properly contains, or is properly contained in, the U or E participant of the referenced clause, it takes the fourth value.
Otherwise, it takes the no value; that is, it takes the "zero" value, and is not pronounced.

The "Same/Different Object Marker" actually tracks Undergoers or Patients more than it tracks Objects.
It has four values (five, including "zero").
If the S or U participant of the marked clause is identical to the S or U participant of the referenced clause (usually, the last previous clause in the chain), it takes the first value.
Otherwise, if the S or U participant of the marked clause is identical to the A or E participant of the referenced clause, it takes the second value.
Otherwise, if the S or U participant of the marked clause properly contains, or is properly contained in, the S or U participant of the referenced clause, it takes the third value.
Otherwise, if the S or U participant of the marked clause properly contains, or is properly contained in, the A or E participant of the referenced clause, it takes the fourth value.
Otherwise, it takes the no value; that is, it takes the "zero" value, and is not pronounced.

As you can see, if the "marked" clause is an AU clause, it may be marked if either of its core arguments (A or U) is related somehow to an argument of the previous clause; but if the "marked" clause is an SE clause, it will be marked only if its S argument is related to some argument of the previous clause.

Also, if the "referenced" clause is an AUE clause, the "Same/Different Subject" marker may mark a relationship to either its U or its E participant, not distinguishing between them; and the "Same/Different Object" marker may mark a relationship to either its A or its E participant, not distinguishing between them.

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

About the "properly contains or is properly contained in".

This could well be disambiguated by grammatical number.

Suppose the marker says the S of the marked clause either properly contains, or is properly contained in, the S of the reference clause.

If the S of the marked clause is singular and the S of the reference clause is non-singular, it must be that the S of the marked clause is a member of the group which is the S of the reference clause; but if the S of the marked clause is non-singular and the S of the reference clause is singular, it must be that the S of the marked clause is a group which contains, as a member, the S of the reference clause.

Similarly, if one of them is plural and the other is non-plural, the non-plural one must be properly contained in the plural one.

It could also be disambiguated by person/clusivity. If one of them is inclusive and the other is exclusive, it must be that the exclusive one is contained in the inclusive one.

It could also be disambiguated by gender. If one of them is a common or epicene or mixed gender and the other is a "pure" gender, it must be that the "pure" one is properly contained in the "mixed" one.

Still, it may not be disambiguated by any means internal to the clause-chain; they may both be, for instance, 1st-person-inclusive paucal; or 3rd-person paucal epicene; or something like that. Then it may require common sense, or reference to the environment, or a question from the addressee to the speaker, or something like that, to decide which one properly contained the other.

And it may not be important enough to disambiguate.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission

[langover94]

My Slavic-based conlang has a peculiarity concerning imparatives. It has 2nd person, 2nd person plural, and 3rd person masculine, feminine, and neuter imparatives.
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!)

[Aert]

My (very incomplete) conlang has a few aspects to it that I think qualify as peculaiar.

It is synthetic (poly-?) but has no cases (so doesn't distinguish between I, me, etc) but it does have possessive forms of pronouns.

Similar to Spanish, I think, when there are multiple verbs in a row (eg I have to decide to wear either the blue or red shirt) the time aspect is preserved in all the verbs, but the aspect/mood is only added to the first verb (unless one of the later verbs has a different aspect - not infinitive or the same as the first etc).

There are two words for 'be' but they aren't really verbs. They are prefixes that attach themselves to the verb they're talking about, and the tense/mood etc is the suffix attached to the verb at the end.

The numbers system is base 25, rather than base 10, and to make things easy, the first 24 numbers are the 24 consonant sounds in alphabetic order.

I imagine as the language is developed more wierdness will be revealed

[eldin raigmore]