Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
Date:Monday, March 26, 2001, 6:54
> 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 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."