prepositions, -e, etc. Oh, and Hadwan noun declensions & spelling

> From:    Aidan Grey <frterminus@...>
> Subject: Re: Prepositional phrases
>
>   I'm working on Aelya prepositional phrases at the
> moment, and I wondered how you folks handle them in
> your language? In particular, do you have creative
> ways for handling the same sort of situation as my
> Aelya examples show?
>
>   To the forest: tauran
>                  forest-ALL
>   From the forest: tauro
>                    forest-ABL
>   In the forest: tauras
>                  forest-LOC
>   Into the forest: min    daure
>                    in-ALL forest-OBL
>   Out of the forest: my     thaure
>                      in-ABL forest-OBL
>   Outside the forest: os      taure
>                       out-LOC forest-OBL
>
>   Problem here is that it feels like it gets
> needlessly complex. Note the need for a different
> preposition in saying 'out of' or 'outside'. Through
> gets even weirder:
>
>    Through the forest: trea      mei    dauren
>                        thru-PERL in-OBL forest-GEN
Hmmm..  Hadwan does it 'Latinately' as you put it.
Supposing I temporarily borrow 'tauros' as 'forest' (not up to looking up
what it'd be about now--but phonologically 'tauros' is very visibly a
non-Hadwan word) they'd look (tentatively) like this in Hadwan:

    taúron     az
    forest-ACC to
    "to the forest"

    tauróz     afo
    forest-ABL from
    "from the forest"

    taurí:     in
    forest-LOC in
    "in the forest"

    taúron     in
    forest-ACC in
    "into the forest"

    tauróz     iš
    forest-ABL out
    "out of the forest"

    taurí:     iš
    forest-LOC out
    "outside of the forest"

    taúron     fir
    forest-ACC through
    "through the forest"

(We haven't got a definite article, but if it's *the* forest, just prefix
'ha:-' to all the taurwords.  š = /S/, z = /dz/, o = /U/, i = /I/...)

Basically the postposition has a basic sense, and the status of that
direction is in the case of the noun:  accusative for towards that
direction, ablative for from that direction, locative for.. eh, 'stative'
does just fine.


>   But in this case, what use is ablative? All I need
> is just stative or dynamic cases (here with locative
> or allative).
Probably depends on the kinds/variety of preposition you have.

With just 'stative' and 'dynamic' (where dynamic='allative') what do you do
when/if you need dynamic in an opposite direction?   With Hadwan one *could*
get by with just 'in' for 'inside of' [in+LOC], 'into'[in+ACC], and 'out of'
[in+ABL] (technically 'from inside').  [Well, okay, not always, considering
sometimes the endings are homophonous.  But you'd probably still get by on
context.]

A tactic to reduce the number of separate adposition words.

[btw, wouldn't one expect *apposition instead of ?adposition, or am I
getting my assimilation rules mixed?  And 'adposition' isn't in the OED.
Rrr..]

> From:    Aidan Grey <frterminus@...>
> Subject: Re: derivations in Aelya (long)
>
> Hi folks,
>
>    sorry to be asking you all these questions, but I
> made a huge amount of headway tonight, as far as
> grammar goes (vocab isn't that hard, but I kept
> changing grammar every week.)
I have the exact opposite problem.
I think Hadwan's had the same fundamental grammar since I first thought of
it [well, yes, there's the bits that haven't been _done_ yet; they don't
count], but I find it impossible to stick to a set of words after they've
been made...

> From:    jesse stephen bangs <jaspax@...>
> Subject: Re: derivations in Aelya (long)
>
> >   Static should result in -e (I know that's the right
> > ending) but I can't figure out how it would have
> > developed and remained. Loss of final vowels is
> > common, and I'm trying to avoid conflict with the
> > passive case in the personal pronouns.
> > [snip]
> >
> >  So how can I derive something that will provide me
> > with -e on most nouns, but that won't clash with all
> > the rest of my personal pronoun declensions? Or should
> > I just let them clash? Would the clash be likely to
> > cause a totally new form to arise, leaving the -e
> > everywhere else, but a totally new form in the
> > personal poronouns? Still, how would the -e begin for
> > common nouns?
>
> I would suggest forming some ending that will yeild final -e but that was
> originally quite different.  (Gee, that's brilliant.)  For example, let's
> say that the original was something like -E3E, which reduced -E3E > eje >
> ej > e.  I don't know if this would actually work since I don't know your
> sound changes, but I'm sure some equivalent process is possible.
Or possibly have a change by analogy.
Say you have monosyllables that retain a stative in -e, which is generalized
to longer words that would 'naturally' lose it.

[I have to do something similar for that, in Hadwan unstressed final
short -i drops, which means the loc.sg. for the third declension disappears
entirely... but quickly replaced by /i:/... And I leave that to Hadwan
conphonologists to decide whether that's hypercorrection, analogy by
monosyllables in -i, or borrowing of the same ending in the second
declension...]

***

OK, Hadwan noun declension in basic:

Three declensions in total: o-stems, â-stems, and everything else (a *fun*
and *exciting* collection of *horrors*).

Two numbers:  singular, plural.  I think some broken dual forms remain for
paired body parts.

Six cases.  The names are basically historical, and probably aren't properly
descriptive any longer.  Hoohay.
    Nominative  [Agent of transitive verb]
    Accusative  [Patient of transitive verb]
    Genitive
    Ablative
    Dative      [Direct Object... also Subject of intransitive verb]
    Locative

(Yes, that last use of the dative is weird.  But verbs conjugate differently
in the intransitive than the transitive too...)

"o-stem" endings (using circumflex for macron...):
        sg        pl
nom   -os/-on   -i:/-â
acc    -on      -ôs/-â
gen    -ôšo      -ôn
abl    -oz       -ôis
dat    -i:       -ôis
loc    -i:       -oro

"â-stem" endings
        sg        pl
nom    -â        -âis
acc    -ân       -âs
gen    -âs       -âon
abl    -âz       -âos
dat    -â        -âos
loc    -â        -âro

"third declension"
        sg        pl
nom    -s        -is
acc    -en       -îs
gen    -os       -ôn
abl    -iz       -vos
dat    -ai       -vos
loc    -î        -so

Oh... spellings vary widely (there being no dictionaries and very few fully
literate Hadwan speakers two thousand years ago), especially as 'wâ' (a
Hadwan letter, /U/) and omicron (borrowed Greek, /o/) aren't differentiated,
and <â> curiously seems to have the phonetic value [aw] itself...

[Working it out earlier today, I find that /w/ can get spelled with wa or
bic ([B]), /U/ with wa or omicron, and long /U/ with any combination of
those two, or omega...]

(Horribly inconsistent spellings are something I have to put up with even in
my own notes.  Would 'huius' be a transliteration of /hU.jUs/ or /hwI.jUs/
?)

I need a good standard standard, and ... it'll probably end up with some
Hadwanite using wâ (or possibly bic) for /w/ and omicron for /U/.  Hmm.. and
just omega for long /U/, whatever that be phonetically (it'll end up as /u/
or /vu/ in the end, depending...)

'd better quit before I bore myself to death

     *Muke!
--
"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names."