Re: My conlang: opinions welcome

> Gregory Gadow li toki e ni:
>
>> I've taken my conlang, Glörsa, out of the box where it's been living for
>> a
>
>> http://www.gregory-gadow.info/conlangs/glorsa/Introduction.asp
>
>> There is still some work to do, of course (is a conlang ever really
>> finished?) Right now, I'd like some feed back on the structure and
>> whether
>
>>2.1.3 Associative / dölha averze
>
> From your description, it sounds like what is usually called the
> concomitative.
I'm not familiar with that case.

>>2.1.4 Locative / dölha dünis
>
>>This case is often used idiomatically to show "where."
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
As in one of the examples I gave with that case (2.1.3):

  klarü pilta' xhünï-tav "Clara writes with Hawk."

In formal grammar, _xhünï-tav_ (the name Hawk with the associative
modifier) would end with the postposition _aven_, "with", and the whole
phrase would be moved to the other side of the verb so as to become a
modifier to the noun phrase _klarü_:

  klarü xhünï-tav aven pilta'

This is because postpositional phrases must modify a noun phrase (2.9 in
the reference), and because rules regarding transitivity are pretty rigid
(part of the grammar I'm still getting on to the web.) Idiomatically, in
less formal speech, the postpositional usually gets dropped and the phrase
gets moved to the other side of the verb to become, in effect, the object
of that verb.

>>The objects of most postpositional and all actional phrases take the
>> locative.
>
> Does the locative with no postposition have a generic meaning of "at" or
> "in"?
I've never tried that; it sounds worth exploring.

>>2.1.5 Collective / dölha aderas
>>The collective case is used when the noun represents, not a particular
>>item, but an entire category of that noun.
>
>>2.1.6 Intimate / dölha benye
>>The intimate case shows that the noun has an intimate relationship with
>> another noun.
>
> Interesting.  Normally cases show the role a noun has in a sentence, and
> are mutually exclusive, but you note that a noun can be in both the
> associative and intimate cases at once, and I expect the collective case
> would often combine with some other case marker as well.  What about the
> distribution of these latter two suffixes led you to describe them as
> cases rather than as a quantitative suffix and attitudinal suffix
> respectively?
The word _dölha_, which I translate as "case", is a type of modifier
(_ande·is_) that is physically attached to the noun. Other types of
modifiers -- the number of a noun and all the modifiers for verbs -- are
not attached to the word they modify. I use "case" to make that
distinction, although someone pointed out that "gender" would be more
accurate from a linguistic point, with what I'm now calling "gender" using
some other lexical name.

> Can the collective case be combined with any of the quantitative suffixes,
> while the quantitative suffixes cannot combine with each other?
As others have pointed out to me at some length, I've not been terribly
clear in distinguishing the collective case from the quantitatives :-P
Here is an example that might illustrate that difference:

  fandin ïdiv deralüvel -> pastry part-of made-of-peach
  "a slice of peach pastry"

  fandin-adris ïdiv deralüvel -> pastry-in-general part-of made-of-peach
  lit. "pastry in general, the subset made of peaches"

The second sentence is a wordy but grammatically sensible way of saying,
"peach pastries." More commonly (and a bit less pompously), you would drop
the number and use just

  fandin-adris deralüvel -> pastry-in-general made-of-peach

This is different from _fandin deralüvel_, which refers to a *specific*
peach pastry.

> Are there other cases that can combine with each other?
I never thought to ask myself that question.

I would say that, as the language exists today, a noun can have up to
three case words: intimate, collective and either the locative,
associative or instrumental (or nominal, but that's probably splitting
hairs.) I will have to give that some more thought.

> Interesting, too, how your set of declensions is orthogonal
> to the set of genders.
I studied mathematics in college. I don't think what I understand as
orthogonal is the same as you mean.

>>Except for names, declension shift is considered improper.
>
> Do you mean improper as in "indecent" or as in "substandard"?
As in, "a sign of being an uneducated hick." :-P

>>2.6 Constructed nouns / dröve düvelze
>
> This would be clearer with an example or two.
I will put some in.

>>The concluding word may be a specific number,
>>a demonstrative indicator, a posessive or genetive noun
>>or a postposition.
>
> Is this list supposed to be exclusive - one and only one of
> these can come after the noun and its case and quantity suffixes?
> How would you translate "between three trees"?
> Wouldn't it be something like:
>
> [tree] [nïlis-quantifier] [number three] [posposition between]
A concluding word is mandatory, even when there is no information to be
given (thus, the option of last resort, _mla_.) If there is a word from
this list already in the phrase conveying information, _mla_ is dropped
and that word takes its place. If there are two or more, one of them is
used to conclude the phrase. For a postpositional or actional phrase, the
postposition *must* serve as the concluding word. Otherwise, any of them
may serve. Except for postpositions, words are generally placed in
decreasing importance away from the noun.

This is simplified somewhat in that if you give an explicit number, you do
not need to use a generic quantifier.


>>genetive
> genitive
Oops.

>>2.9 Postpositional phrase / kinwes dröve nyömïshwa
>>A postpositional phrase is a special noun phrase that expresses
>>a spacial relation between two objects. It is formed by putting the
>>noun into the locative case (with some postpositions, the associative
>> case)
>>and using a postposition as a concluding word. It is placed immediately
>>after the noun phrase to which it is related and serves, in effect,
>>as a qualitative on the entire phrase.
>
>>2.10 Actional phrase / kinwes dröve lakaze
>
> Generally, languages that use postpositions tend to put postpositional
> phrases _before_ the words they modify - just as English, French and other
> prepositional languages usually put prepositional phrases after the words
> they modify.  I vaguely remember that I read this in Greenberg's book
> on universals of language, but I can't remember the title.
Very likely, I'm misusing the terminology. I describe them as
postpositions because A) the word indicating the spacial relationship
concludes the phrase rather than introduces it, and B) the phrase itself
is placed after the phrase it is modifying. I'm open to changing the way
this relationship is described.

-snip-

>>3.2 Case / dölha
>
> I like the extra suffixes used only for pronouns -- though,
> again, I'm not sure "case" is the right word.
>
>> [Pronouns] can also be used as qualitatives, conveying self-reflection,
>> honor or insult from the pronoun to the noun.
>
> This is a cool feature!
>
> More comments later, maybe.
Thanks :-) I look forward to hearing them.

Gregg

Reply