Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Grammatical Summary of Kemata

From:Rune Haugseng <haugrune@...>
Date:Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 19:14
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 15:25, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> En réponse à Rune Haugseng <haugrune@...>: > > I don't expect anyone on the list will remember me - I posted a few > > times earlier this autumn (or fall, if you prefer), but I've been > > horribly busy at school since then - no time for conlanging at > > all. Nevertheless, I've managed to write a sort of "grammatical > > summary" of my conlang Kemata. > > Well, your name looks familiar to me at least. > > > The consonants are also standard European. R is trilled. N is /N/ > > before k or g. T, p and k are aspirated at the beginning of words > > (hey, I didn't even know what aspiration was when I started this > > language - just be happy u is no longer the Norwegian half-rounded i > > > > :-) ). > > Why? it would have been funny :))) . You're sure you don't want to > reinclude it as a sixth vowel? (maybe written 'y', would be possible > :)) )
I don't think so, it's really too late to mess up the phonology. I do have another language where I could put it in, though, if I ever get round to reworking it...
> > > Class II verbs are of the form CVCV, and form the tenses by changing > > their vowels, e.g.: > > > > Stem hana, write > > Aorist hain > > Past hane, wrote > > Present hana, is writing > > Future hani, will write > > Before hena, (has written, had written) > > After hina > > Funny, for the Class I verbs the aorist is the basic form, while for the > Class II verbs it's the present. Or does it work only with this verb? > Anyway, I find it nice...
I hadn't even noticed that before. Oh well, I guess the Kematians will just have to live with it :-)
> > Verbs can also take one of six modal suffixes (I'm not at all sure > > whether > > these are actually moods.). > > Well, they actually are IMHO. I can even give them a name that will make > them look more like moods :))) .
Thanks - it's always nice to have a funny latinate word for things :-)
> > > > -ne, (want to) > > Desiderative. > > > -wi, (should) > > Subjunctive, or maybe conditional like in French. Though I'm not sure. > > > -zai, (must), used when someone has *chosen* to do something > > -hu, (must), used when someone is *forced* to do something, or there > > is no choice in the matter > > I must say I'm blocked on these ones. Necessitive? Why is "jussive" popping > up in my mind? > > > -ma, (can) > > Capacitive. > > > -koi, (hope to) > > Optative (though optative is more "I wish to").
I thought subjunctive meant "wish" and optative "hope", or the other way around.
> > > The suffix -ni makes a pronoun reflexive (or reciprocal (if that is > > actually the word that describes "each other")). > > It is.
> > This has two uses: > > - to not say something known from context > > > > A Kematian waiter might, for instance, say: > > I nul abu atnul? > > i nul a-b-u a-t-nul > > - question S-2p-? -DO-which, > > for "What would you like to order?", everything being known already > > (I don't think it would be very polite, though). > > Or maybe very polite, for a society which considers that asking people to > actually do a specific action they're expected to do is impolite (taking > your example, in a restaurant, when people have not eaten yet and stopped > reading the menus, it would be considered impolite to ask them what they > want to *order*, since they're obviously ready for it, so instead of using > the verb *order*, you use the special word instead - using the verb would > be like repeating the obvious, and it could be considered rude -).
Of course - when it comes to what is polite and what is not, there's no need for it to make any sense :-)
> > > - to indicate voice: > > > > Ankila a anerle. > > ankil-ha a aner-le > > kill-Pt - animal-DSgN > > The animal was killed. > > > > (This isn't exactly like voice, of course - you can't differentiate > > between "I killed the animal" and "The animal was killed by me".) > > Maybe it's just a kind of copula (after all, all copulae don't need to be > verbs, in some languages they are prepositions or pronouns). If you could > use it with other adjectives, it would be a good indication of that.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here: what adjective are you talking about? Also, I don't think I've quite understood what a copula is - I thought it was just something like "to be".
> > A noun (except names and such) always has an article suffixed to it. > > > > The articles are: > > Singular Plural > > Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite > > Normal form -le -ne -zu -su > > Unique form -ti -pi -la -ho > > Normal negative form -ha -no -ro -vai > > Unique negative form -wu -re -ko -li > > > > The unique articles denote that the noun as a unique specimen of its > > kind (or several of them). The unique form of a word sometimes has an > > idiomatic meaning, such as "raidole", the house, vs. "Raidoti", the > > world, or "nezerne", a lord, vs. "nezerpi", a king. > > I remembered a discussion about that a few months ago. So you see, somebody > remembered your presence :)) .
Well, that's nice :-)
> > > Beinuna kaldodaikle. > > beinun-ha kaldo-daik-le. > > man-DSgNNeg place-this-DSgN. > > The man isn't there. (The copula can usually be left out.) > > Your language could have also more than one copula: one which can usually > be left out between two nouns, and the kind of null pronoun to use between > a noun and an adjective (after all, they are two different kinds of > sentences, one definitive or spatial, and one qualificative. So it's not > strange that they would be constructed differently). What do you think of > it?
I like the term null pronoun; I think I'll steal it. The null pronoun would be used in a sentence like that, Beinuna aberis. beinun-ha a-beris. man-DSgNNeg 0-red The man isn't red. but I've no idea whether that makes it a copula. I've always thought of it as a normal sentence with some form of "dal" left out at the beginning.
> > > Possessives are formed by one of the following suffixes: > > Normal form (owner) Reverse form (owned) > > Normal possession -no -ki > > Association -ndu -wai > > "Possession" through -zik -val > > having made something > > Composition (i.e. what -nut -kar > > something is composed > > of) > > Interesting, a language which can mark both the "genitive" and the > "construct". I wonder if there are any example in real life...
Can't help you there, I'm afraid.
> > An adjective can be suffixed to its noun if it has not been > > declined; only one adjective can be suffixed per noun. Otherwise the > > adjective follows the noun. > > That is nearly the exact sentence I have to describe adjectives in > Itakian :))) .
Great minds think alike - or maybe it's not-so-great ones :-)
> > > Comparison of adjectives: > > > > Positive: keimas, many, much beris, red > > keimasin, quite a few/? berisin, a little red > > Maybe simply a few, a little, it seems to fit more with the meaning with > the adjective beris.
It was probably just a bad idea to use that adjective - it doesn't quite fit all the forms, and I couldn't come up with a good English equivalent of that one.
> > > keimasinor, quite many/much berisinor, quite red > > keimasindo, very many/much berisindo, very red > > Comparative: keimasor, more berisor, redder > > keimasorin, a little/few more berisorin, a little redder > > keimasoror, somewhat more berisoror, quite redder > > keimasorto, many more berisorto, much redder > > Superlative: keimasto, most beristo, reddest > > keimastoin, almost most beristoin, almost reddest > > keimastor, more-or-less most beristor, more-or-less > > reddest > > keimastoto, most of all beristoto, reddest of all > > ?: keimasene, too many berisene, too red > > keimasuri, not many enough berisuri, not red enough > > I've seen the term "excessive" which in my opinion gives quite the correct > meaning.
Good, I'll use that then.
> > > Some grammatical adverbs are: > > tem - begin to (incohative?) > > I think the right spelling is "inchoactive", but for the rest it's >okay.
Oh well, can't get everything right :-)
> > > a - (used to hold suffixes for aorist verbs) > > keta - if > > "if" is a "grammatical adverb"? Interesting. It reminds me of my conlang > Moten, where "if" is one of the "tenses" of the verb :))) .
> > > ze - imperative > > ra - again (repetitive) > > nul - question > > nib - present > > hew - past > > dal - future > > (The last three are usually used with verbs in the "before" and > > "after" tenses) > > Why would they be used for? The meaning of the "before" and "after" tense > (in one conlang of mine, I called them anterior and posterior) is enough, > given that the principal clause is present.
They would be used to disambiguate, if the tense wasn't clear from context. I like "anterior" and "posterior", too - you've definite given me a lot of terminology here.
> > > Conjunctions follow the verbs in their clauses (I'm actually thinking > > of making them function as grammatical adverbs): > > Well, you already did with "if" :)) .
Yeah, but that could just be a special case :-)
> > Relative clauses are indicated by putting a personal pronoun before > > the verb of the clause: > > > > Beinunle arai kenira daik > > beinun-le a-r-ai kenir-ha daik > > man-DSgN S-3p-M speak-Pt this > > The man, who said this > > IIRC, the origin of the relative pronouns in Germanic languages is > equivalent, except that they used the demonstrative pronouns. That's why > for instance in Dutch, the relative pronouns die and dat are identical to > demonstrative pronouns.
Really? You wouldn't happen to know why the German ones are almost all the same as the articles, too? ------------- Rune Haugseng

Replies

Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>