Re: A Conlang, created by the group?

Pablo Flores wrote:

> Could we have English examples of those, please?
> I have an idea about this too, tho only for nouns: a mixed ergative
> system:
>
>  . ergative: a subject controlling an action (THE DOG bit me)
>  . unergative: a subject causing a state or not controlling its own act=
ions
>   (THE STOPPED CAR is blocking the highway) but partly responsible
>  . absolutive: a subject not doing anything to an object, or an object
>   not receiving an action or entering a state (THE DOG sleeps, I read T=
HE BOOK)
>  . accusative: an object receiving an action or changing its state
>   (I burned THE BOOK)
>  . copulative: an object or subject being equated, compared or directly
>   modified by another thing (THE DOG is BROWN, HE got TIRED)
Although I have yet to post about this directly, I really like this idea.=
As the idea of
just a plain ol' ergative system is kinda clich=E9 now,
I like the more exotic one here (especially "unergative";  could we
call this "pseudoergative" or "metaergative" or something like that?
I think those might express the concept better).

> * Number: how many of them? Any of them, or just separate words like "m=
any",
> "various" or numerals?
I vote for having no fixed number per se; I mean, we shouldhave some affi=
xes, but the use
of them should, at least at first while
we're getting things going, be more or less optional.

> * Word order: SOV seems to be ahead so far, provided some Japanese-like
> syntax and suspensive verbs. Agent-Patient-Theme-Predicate, Modifier-Ma=
in
> proposed. Also a quite interesting free order scheme (see Mathias's pos=
t).

SOV is typologically very good, but that also means it's very common.But =
note that when
you're talking about free order, only very rarely does
one actually mean a totally free word order.  Usually, it just means that
there is _general freedom_, though for neutral sentences, one syntactic
form will tend to dominate (for example, Latin was _normally_ SOV in
neutral constructions, but it could change order very easily for emphatic
purposes).

> * Mixing speech parts:
> >A way of mixing them?
> >Tense could be used in either nominal phrases (Agent, Patient, etc) or
> >predicates.
> >Aspect: perfect aspect mark =3D definite article mark?, how about othe=
r
> >aspects?
I think I like the idea of just indicating aspect rather than tense.  It =
seemsto be more
interesting, to me at least, and I think it would be more typologically
appealing to most people around the world, anyways (I don't think any of
us wants another Euroclone, do we?).

Proto-Indo-European didn't have tense, btw;  it had these three aspectual
forms:

(1) Stative - things were viewed as being in a state, rather than some so=
rt
of evolutionary thing.  Roughly, the something like "The ball is hit"
( =3D Ger. "Der Ball ist geschlagen", NOT "Der Ball wird geschlagen")
(2) Presential - roughly analogous to the Mod. Eng. progressive forms,
where action is seen as ongoing.  "He hits the ball [often/repeatedly]" /
"He is hitting the ball"
(3) Aorist - action begins and then ends quickly:  "He hit the ball [and =
stopped
after that]"

> >Gender: animate/inanimate gender =3D dinamic/static predicates?
>
> I agree with the idea of perfect (verb) =3D definite (noun). It's origi=
nal
> and sounds excellent. I don't like that gender idea...
> We could have tense markers on nouns.
As I said, I think aspect would be more interesting, but, hey, it's agrou=
p decision. :)

> * Adjectives: the only proposal so far is to have them behave like verb=
s,
> which also gets rid of copulative "to be" and allows many derivations.
> I agree on the proposal.
>
> * Tone, stress, length: tone is difficult (we could use pitch, but
> that would definitely make this a Japanese clone ;). Vowel length is
> easy for me. For English speakers, we could certainly allow variants
> such as long /e:/ being both [e:] and [eI]. Someone proposes stress
> rules? Possible ones are: final-syllable, first-syllable, Latin-style
> (before penult if short syllables, penult otherwise), irregular (more
> difficult to remember, but could be used to mark roots or to make
> grammatical distinctions). Votes?
For me, the idea of phonemic length is the least intuitive.  But I wouldn=
'tbe averse to
having it.  As most of the group here is natively English
speaking, maybe we should consider that. Or not.  Whatever.

> * Grammatical gender: none, logical, or arbitrary? Proposals:
> 1. masculine, feminine, neuter (extensible)
> 2. north, south, east, west
I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Do you mean what physicalorientation=
 a person or
thing has with respect to the earth?  If so,
are you talking about absolute or magnetic directions? That could
make a difference.

> 3. thought, feeling, material phenomenon, action, physical state, yello=
w
> strawberry, conlanger (*very* extensible ;)
I think I really like this idea of thought, but it itself has given meano=
ther idea:  we
could base it on metaphysical realities of the
world! A while back, I talked about how John Locke in his
_Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ talks about several
categories of existence.  Now it makes me think that these might
be useful genders, to wit:

(a) ideas -  more or less, anything that we might call cognitive
processes would be grouped here.
(b) perception - sensory data, like things that have been
touched, or things that have been seen, so forth
(c) substance - well, substances. :)
(d) identity - not sure how this would fit yet; will get to it.
(e) action - actions, duh. :)
(f) language - speech acts, communication, perhaps even
(g) knowledge - the external correlates of ideas in the world
outside the mind.

Some of these "genders" could overlap in some respects:  that which
is perceived could also be a substance, and which we would use would
be more or less what we are thinking of it at that moment.  "X in its
capacity as Y", sorta.

> * Gender agreement: where do we mark gender? Possible ones:
> 1. nouns
> 2. nouns and adjectives (whatever they are)
> 3. nouns and verbs
I think I'd vote for numero tres here.

> 4. everything modifying a noun
> Rhyme, rhythm and alliteration are easier with agreement.
> This is important for me -- I like singy-songy sentences and
> spontaneous (as well as planned) rhyme. Do we have a poet in
> this group by any chance?
WELLLL, you might call me one, but I'm not very good at it. I might
be able to help you here.

> * Harmony: nobody mentioned vowel harmony so far. I mentioned nasal
> harmony (for consonants, not for vowels), i. e. some affixes could
> have two allophones, one nasal and one oral (for example -pi and -mi)
> according to the neighbouring consonants.
I don't like the idea of too much harmony of stuff going on.  It seemsto =
me that for most
people these represent those capricious
irregularities they hate so much (like German final devoicing and stuff).

> 1. Vowels: i y e a o u (agreed so far I think)
Sounds good to me, but what about diphthongs?

> 2. Consonants:
> stops   p b t d k  g  q qg
I think that rather than having uvular stops like this (arethey that? mis=
sed the previous
posts), we might want to
think about having an aspirated stop series, or maybe
even a glottalized one.  That would make it really cool, I think.

> frics   f v s z kh gh       h
> nasals  m   n   ng
> approx  w   j
Purely orthographically, I like <y> for  [j] better, but we can do whatev=
erwe want, I
suppose.

> others      l r
>
> where <qg> =3D /G"/ (voiced uvular stop) (my transliteration). /q/ and =
/G"/ can be
> left out if someone really can't manage to pronounce them (speak now or=
 forever
> hold your complaints :). Clusters /tj/, /sj/ also [tS], [S]. /h/ is inc=
onsistent
> with the rest, I think. <r> pronounced trilled, flapped, retroflex or w=
hatever
> you please.
Well, I think we need to settle on something.  The best compromise might =
bethat it's
normally a flap (which any American can certainly pronounce), while
under certain conditions (say, intervocalically) it becomes a trill.

> * Syllable structure: C[w, y, r]V[V][F], where [F] =3D a generic nasal,=
 a fricative,
> or /l/ or /r/. A generic nasal should assimilate to the next place of a=
rticulation,
> thus /m/ before a labial, /N/ <ng> before a velar, /n/ otherwise.
Looks fine to me.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Why should men quarrel here, where all possess /
as much as they can hope for by success?"
 - Quivera, _The Indian Queen_ by Henry Purcell
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=0D