Conlang: Re: NGL:vtense#11 (Gerald Koenig, Nov 10 '98, 8:03)

Re: NGL:vtense#11

From:	Gerald Koenig <jlk@...>
Date:	Tuesday, November 10, 1998, 8:03

From:

Gerald Koenig <jlk@...>

Date:

Tuesday, November 10, 1998, 8:03

> >On Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:05:24 -0800 (PST), Gerald Koenig ><jlk@...> wrote:

Stephen, Thanks for the translations! Your fluency is amazing. My comments are interspersed.

>Here is my translations of the given examples. > >General Vocabulary Proposals: > >felis N - cat > >>Ex 1. ROR >> >>a. indicative: >>"If the cat is here, I don't see her." This leaves open the possibilty >>that the cat is here somewhere. >> >>b. subjunctive: >>1. "If the cat were here, I would see her". This means that it is >>contrary to fact, irrealis, that the cat is here. >> >>1'. "ROR the cat is here, I don't see her". This is the VTT form. > >Ror q felis te ecoigje, mi no te otaw zai'.

First off I need to correct the error in my post, I may not have sent the correction to both lists. 1' shouldn't have a negative in it, the "don't" should be deleted.

> >NOTE: I used the (under the proposed general vocab system provisional) >{otaw}, see, because I feel the sense of this sentence requires that >the mode of sensing be explicitly specified. In this sentence, {te} is >the vector prestent tense morpheme. I'm not certain how it's supposed >to work, but I elected not to inflect verbs for person and number >since Nilhnga seems to require the use of its pronoun set, which makes >the inflections redundant.

On "see" I agree, because "perceive" is so vague as to lose meaning. Definitely I think we should have the five senses verbed. The nilenga pronouns do work with tense through contractions and inflections are redundant. However as a matter of mixing systems, They can be used alone and the tense shifted to the verb inflection. That would't be VTT though. Also as a matter of style, the tense can be redundantly repeated on the verb, if it is a truly matching tense. The pronouns can also be used with PVS. {Mi} and {zai'} are Nilhnga pronouns.

>{Zai'} is my proposed accusative form of {za}, "she."

I know I said I liked your diphthongized forms for the accusatives, but as I went to type them up I realized the list you posted lacked (or at least my system missed) the final glottal stop (') that is on the above "zai'"; and that was going to be another sylable or at least a silent letter h. So after agonizing for some time I came up with more regular and in some cases shorter forms for the accusatives and also the dative. They are simply formed by prefixing "i" for the accusatives and "u" for the datives to the nominative forms. Then the final vowel can be omitted in many cases to give a one syllable form. In this I am trying to emulate the evolution of English which went to shorter forms, such as "us". I want to be clear that I don't think an entire language should use the shortest words possible. It's the grammar words where I strive for this because I think it's a natural language tendency. According to the new paradigm, the accusative of "za" (she) is "iza", which can be further contracted to "iz". So far I am allowing either form because I think there may be speech rhythm reasons for it. The latest forms are posted at the end of this post. Jerry, what is

>your preference on inflecting verbs for person and number?

My personal preference is to use the plain infinitive. English has only two inflections left, I think, and coming from the logical language side as I do I don't see the need for them. But I realize others like to carry on the tradition of inflections which after all have been around since the dawn of language, so I think both options should be kept open. I have an intuition that a mixed system might be best, and I don't want to close the door on inflections.

>Also note >that what I am refering to when I say "Nilhnga" is that "flavour" or >dialect of the NGL language that uses VTT. Referring to the current >dialects of the language that use the three different proposed verb >systems with the proposed name for the language proposed by that verb >system's proposer is not meant to be a reflection of the ultimate >shape of the language; for example, after the votes are in, the >language could end up being called Nilhnga while using traditonal >verbs. However, it is a convenient form to refer to a current de facto >reality.

I finally see your point here and actually found myself using nilenga in place of vtt, so let nilenga be the handle for VTT flavor NGL.

> >Also: is my use of a grave accent on {Nilhnga} correct/acceptible?

That's the way I hear it, with the accent on the next-to-last sylable as is usual in Spanish and French. I don't know the accent rules for NGl that well, what is acute or grave, or where it goes,so I can't say.

> >[...] >>Ex. 2: INRO >> >>1."If lightspeed were 2c, Einstein would turn over in his grave." >>1' "INRO lightspeed is 2c, [si] Einstein is turning over in his grave." > >Inro vonici xui' te 2c-je, si Einstein te su'it pazrur u' has biuna >hapxui'. > >NOTE: {pazrur} is a vector word meaning (I intend it to mean, anyway) >"turning around." It is used in an almost purely emphatic sense, as >{su'it} already has most of this sense; the main reason I chose to use >it was to practice using the vector morpheme.

This usage looks good to me. {Biuna hapxui'}, "hole

>of sleep," is being used as a euphemism for "grave." {Has} is a part >of the VTT pronoun declension, which includes a genitive case. Unlike >in the rest of the NGL language as it currently stands (where one >marks a noun as _possessed_ rather than possessive and then shows the >possessor by modifying it with the possessed as with an adjective - >i.e., {Stephen felise} is "Stephen's cat"), VTT pronouns have, *I >gather*, I may be mistaken, an actual genitive case. I base this on >observation of Carlos's composition in Nilhnga. This is the way I'm >assuming these genitives go (please correct where I am mistaken, >Jerry, I am making guesses here):

These are the usages I had in mind. Something to think about, and I would welcome your proposals on this, is a further subdivision of the simple possesives (genitives), perhaps by modifications on the present set of genitives, to expand the semantics of the possesives. Like the english "if" there are perhaps too many senses to the possesives.

> >GEN: > >Mis my Nis our+addressee > Gus our-addressee >Vus your Kus your-p >Wos his/her/its Sus their >Zas her Zases ellas (their) >Has his Hases ellos (their) > >Note that this guess gives {zas} and {has}, "her" and "his" genitive >the same form as {zas} and {has}, "ellas" and "ellos" nominative. If >this is a problem, I suggest changing the masculine and feminine >genitives to {hase} and {zase}. I assumed {-es} endings on the plurals >already ending in -s.

It's a BIG problem, thanks for finding it. Here's the fix: GENITIVES: Zas goes to Zais (her) Has goes to Hais (his) This adapts your dipthonization idea to a different use. I feel there's a better chance of these being one sylable. They also maintain the "s" ending found on the other genitives. I'm also adopting your ellas, ellos forms: Zazas goes to zazes Hasas goes to hases I just like the sound and feel of them better than mine. Thanks so very much. ------------------------------------------- Original post to Carlos: OK, here are some freshly minted possessive pronouns that are a new part of VTT. They are very simply formed from the regular VTT pronouns by adding an s. The exceptions are "zas" and "has" which repeat the first consonant to make "zazas" and "hasas". ---------------------------------------

>>2. "If 2+2 were equal to 7, Peano would rise from the dead." >>2' "INRO 2=2 equals 7, Peano si rise from the dead" >>si means concurrently. > >Inro 2+2 je 7, si Peano te behtibe ` saseci. > >NOTE: Literally: "INRO 2+2 is 7, [si] Peano comes back from death." > >[...] >>Ex. 3: ROS >>[Below is a much edited recent quote from our esteemed moderator, DGD] >> >>1. "If Mark were lurking, he would help. If you're lurking, hi Mark!" >> >>Taking these two perfectly good English sentences together, it is clear >>that the sense is that it is not entirely contrary to fact that Mark is >>lurking, as the surface subjunctive form of the first one suggests. >>This sentence is rendered with ROS: >> >>1'." ROS Mark lurks, he will help" > >Ros Mark te :lurk:, ha fu vo. 'If vut :lurk:, he Mark! > >NOTE: {vut} is an attempt on my part to use a contraction of vu + te.

That's a perfectly valid contraction, any pronoun combines with any tensor, and (I believe) yields a unique contraction. Besides using te as the present tense marker, it can be omitted if desired as it is the default tense. Also, the vtt tense diagram is identical for present tense and present progressive tense, so, we could also say "vu em :lurk:" or "vem :lurk" for you're lurking. The am,em,um tensors combine by using the first letter of each nominative pronoun. That's why the pronouns start with different consonants. Zas and Has are exceptions and can't be combined.

>Note that for the second sentence I elected to use {'if} + indicative. >I wasn't sure if I should use the subjunctive here or not.

Hmm.. I don't think it would be correct to put it in the English style subjunctive as that would suggest that it is contrary to fact or impossible ("or at best highly unlikely") that Mark is lurking, and David seems to want to keep open a good possibility that Mark is there. 'if=rof?

> >[...] >>Suppose the sense of the example were, that David imagines that Mark >>will help, but he won't even though he is lurking. Then >> >>1'' " ROS Mark lurks, ROR he will help" > >Ros Mark te :lurk:, ror haf vo. > >>says that Mark may be lurking, and whether he is or not, David only >>imagines that he will help. >[...] > >Stephen