Re: Difficult language ideas

Ooh, Quechua. Ooh Sumerian. Ooh ooh Kwakw'ala. :-)

The conlang that's wandering around my head is going to borrow very  
heavily from Salish, I think - the same ungodly assortment of  
consonants as Kwakw'ala has, although I'll probably limit consonant  
clusters to two, just to be slightly merciful. Definitely going to  
work in the Salish full-control/lack-of-control distinction in  
transitives, though I'm not sure quite how as yet...

Salish also has noun incorporation - wonder if it's an areal feature?  
I speak (a little) Halkomelem - mostly Downriver/Musqueam and a  
little Cowichan/Island. Haven't dared Upriver as yet - the notion of  
a Salish language with tone is just terrifying. :-D

Doug

Glóir nan cairdean as milse na mhil. The praise of friends is sweeter  
than honey. (Gaelic proverb)

On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Patrick Littell wrote:

> Hi, Leigh.
>
> I speak a little Quechua, and the most difficult syntactic thing for
> me is probably placement of the evidential clitics -- the "migratory
> suffixes" that indicate whether you know the information by witness,
> hearsay, or conjecture.  I know the basic rule, but there are
> apparently complications when the topic marker -qa is introduced.
>
> For a learner more advanced than I, I've gathered that a more
> difficult problem is that certain suffix combinations have
> idiosyncratic meanings that wouldn't be deduced from their parts.
> (I've found the morphology to be pretty regular, but I'm a beginner
> and won't have come in contact with the more advanced stuff.)  This
> goes along with your goal "that guessing something new from what you
> already know will rarely work."
>
> ----------
>
> Other difficult stuff: Search the archives for Suffixaufnahme and
> Suffixhäufung, both of which could add significant complication to a
> very suffixing language of the Andean sort.
>
> I'm putting together a presentation in which one of the examples is
> Sumerian, so I can give an example of Suffixhäufung off the top of my
> head:
>
> é         shesh lugal-ak-ak-a
> house brother king-of-of-in
> "In the house of the brother of the king."
>
> The genitive suffix -ak (really a clitic, in my analysis) is
> "postponed" until the final word of the phrase... and when you have
> nested genitives they will all "stack up" on the end.
>
> Also, Eldin and I, and some others, had a discussion awhile back about
> the Kwak'wala (Kwakiutl) and Heiltsuk, both Northern Wakashan
> languages, in which case and possession aren't marked on the word they
> modify, but on the *previous* word of the sentence, due again to
> clitic phenomena.
>
> While we're at it, you could put in some lexical suffixes from
> Wakashan, too.  They're suffixes that add meanings that in other
> languages would be the domain of roots.  So, in Nuuchahnulth (Nootka):
>
> hiy'aktliqs?i
> hilh       -'aktli                  -aqs                  -?i
> be.there-being.at.the.rear-being.in.a.canoe-DEF
> "the stern"
>
> tl'utl'uqyimlh
> tl'uq -yimlh
> wide-being.at.the.shoulder
> "wide shoulder"
>
> These, incidentally, also show migratory behavior, showing up
> elsewhere than where you might expect them:
>
> ?iiw'aap?ish yacyut shuuwis
> ?iihw -'aap     -?is    yacyut shuuwis
> large -buying -IND.3 worn    shoes
> "He bought big used shoes."
>
> Anyway, any combination of these phenomena would lead to some
> fantastically complicated grammar.  You could also search here for
> noun incorporation, which we discuss fairly frequently; it's not
> characteristic of Andean languages but appears in many neighboring
> regions.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Pat
>
> On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <palomaverde@...> wrote:
>> Hi all, I'm Leigh. I've lurked for a while, but I haven't posted  
>> before.
>> I've toyed with a few conlangs over the years, and now I'm  
>> brainstorming on
>> a language for a conworld of mine.
>>
>> Design goals:
>> 1. As unambiguous as possible, especially in full sentences; it's  
>> easy to
>> clarify any ambiguities.
>> 2. Hard to learn, and easy to say the wrong thing. Small and  
>> subtle changes
>> have a large impact on the meaning, and it's unpredictable in that  
>> guessing
>> something new from what you already know will rarely work.
>>
>>  It is a status language of sorts and effectively a conlang  
>> itself, so it
>> isn't meant to be simple or naturalistic. It can change, but it  
>> takes a
>> concerted effort by the speakers because outside forces keep it from
>> changing otherwise.
>>
>> I don't know a lot about the normal languages of the area, but I  
>> think
>> they'll be similar to the Andean languages.
>>
>> I have a few ideas, but my knowledge of linguistics is fairly  
>> limited. So
>> I'd like your input.
>>
>> Suggestions? Things to include? Things to avoid?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leigh
>>
>>