Re: Lindiga and naturalism

Herman:
<<
Are there languages without irregular verbs? Lindiga verbs are pretty
much regular so far.
 >>

Irregularity isn't so much about forms as about how they're
employed.  E.g., even though Vietnamese verbs don't inflect,
some of the ways certain of them are used are pretty irregular.

(Note: there are a small class of verbs in Turkish that conjugate
bizarrely in the aorist.  Short version: If a verb ends in a vowel,
it gets /-r/; if it ends in a consonant and is monosyllabic, it gets
/-Ar/; if it ends in a consonant and is polysyllabic, it gets /-Ir/.
There are about eight verbs, though, that end in a consonant,
are monosyllabic, and get /-Ir/ [and I have one from almost
every vowel, so it doesn't seem to have anything to do with
harmony: they're just irregular.  They are pretty common, though:
"to know", "to hit", "to come", "to die", "to think", "to be", and
some others...].)

Back to the topic...

Herman:
<<
In general, Lindiga is very regular (as originally intended). The
diminutive suffix -ka can be added to all sorts of things: suvas
"river"  -> suvaska "stream", kop "rock" -> kopka "pebble". A more
naturalistic lang might have a variety of different ways to make
diminutives. But there are some interesting complications with
Lindiga that I could build on, such as the variety of plural formations.
 >>

The form of the diminutive could vary, yes, but it need not if
irregularity is what you're looking for.  So far we have:

suvas <> suvaska
kop <> kopka

These are pretty traditional diminutives.  But, of course, as a
suffix, all it needs is to mark some semantic difference.  Aside
from traditional dimunitive meaning, here are some diminutives
in Kamakawi:

awape: alone
awapei: single (in the marital sense)
ma: mother
mai: mom (somewhat traditional diminutive, I guess)
mumu: sea otter
muimui: river otter
ikala: conversation
ikalai: phrase
uoi: to attempt
uoiki: to practice

That in addition to things like /pa/ "bowl" and /pai/ "small
bowl".  Once you have something like "conversation" <>
"phrase", if the understanding is several phrases make up
a conversation (these aren't linguists coming up with the
terms, remember, but ordinary users of the language), then
the diminutive can be reinterpreted as a part-to-whole suffix
(actually, you could get that from stream and river too).
Now you have a suffix which doesn't simply *mean* "diminutive",
and which is, in its use, irregular, even if its phonology is
regular.

This same process can be applied to pretty much anything--
especially when you're dealing with special verbs that don't
seem to take the usual agent/patient roles.

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/