Re: A Conlang, created by the group?

Pablo wrote :

Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
>
> >Prepare now solutions with connectives in SOV structure if you don't separate cases from tags of
> >noun/adj/adv/verb : there are no connectives to nouns in Japanese. I wouldn't like us to have
> >to start
> >again all from scratch 2 weeks later from now :-)
>
> Let's use the vocabulary I just made up, plus:
>
> duj- "see"
> pik- (connective)
> zu-  (theme case prefix)
>
> _asi afraro pesi dikjakul zupiko diduje_
>
> a-si a-fraro pe-si di-kjak-ul     zu-piko    diduj-e
> ag-I ag-dog  pat-I pred-bite-past theme-[it] pred-see-present
>
> I [the dog bit me] it see
(where is patientive 'me' in this sentence ?)
zu- is actually here like a resumptive pronoun in Basque or Sumerian, not quite a
theme. This is perfect :-)

This is my favorite structure in natlangs, even better since case is prefixed (it's
easier to me) :-))))) I discuss it below.

>
> "I see the dog that bit me"
>
> That's what you mean by "connective"?
Yes, you're perfectly right. In spoken Japanese (you won't find that in books, only
speaking with people) you need to use usual demonstrative or trivial phrase
endings in a specific way to refer to :

the latter phrase : '-tte iu koto', 'datte', 'sore wa (ne?)'

the next phrase : 'nan'desu ga...', 'are wa (ne?)'

the latter word : 'kore wa (ne ?)' 'sono' (genitive)

example : Nihon to sono shizen ('Japan and its nature')

There are many others like 'are/ano' for the latter thing/person whom the person you
discuss with doesn't know, 'kare/sore' for something/body you already
mentionned (= 'the former one') etc.

It's difficult because these demonstratives are usual spacial ones, yet used with a
very specific, non-spatial meaning in this case so you need guess when they're
used like that. I often get it wrong. But you badly need them to express
yourself correctly.


>
> Another way, using the case prefix as a separate word:
>
> _zu afraro pesi dikjakul, asi zupiko diduje_
> "The dog that bit me, I see it"
>
> Or even another way:
>
> _asi zupiko diduje, afraro pesi dikjakul zupiko_
> "I see it, the dog that bit me"
I'm OK with any solution. Actually I'm sure you could find a way to allow all of
them like that one :

Just mind that in one case 'it' is 'the latter one', in the other 'it' means 'the next one'

May I suggest :

the former one

the latter one

the next one

the former phrase

the latter phrase

the next phrase

 It's like in the English sentences :

I see her, which I like
(which = the latter phrase)

I see her whom I like
(whom = the latter one)

I see these whom I like
(these = the next one)

I see that he comes
(that = the next phrase)

I know it's a lot, but I think it's of great help to separate or resume connective phrases.

It helps getting free of a strict SOV structure by cross-referencing like you did
in these examples.

I'm sure you've already parallelled that with Swahili class pronouns :-))

I've experienced that 'the former' is mainly used to refer to the topic of the
latter phrase, exactly like you've done with 'zupiko' in your first example :

 a-si a-fraro pe-si di-kjak-ul     zu-piko    diduj-e

>
> >I'm OK with any cases, especially the way you mention them (ergative = yummy !).
> >I'm quite happy if
> >you decide them without me.
>
> ergative = agent as for now.
>
>
> >4.1. Nouns as sole verb roots : what does this imply ?
> >
> >Ergative system may make a difference between 'to run' and to 'be beaten'. You'll say
> >it's a question
> >of 'control'. Yes. But this further means that ergative takes into account the very practical
> >EXPERIENCE you have of both situations.
> >
> >Ergative system looks each action or state from the viewpoint of a different agent
> >depending on what
> >the action or state means in terms of human experience.
> >
> >To make it short, 'verbs' in ergative system usually (but not only) derive from NOUNS.
> >
> >In other words :
> >
> >The verb 'to wound' may be derived from nouns like 'the state of suffering a
> >wound' but also 'the one
> >wounded', 'the one wounding', ''the weapon to wound' or 'the wound'.
>
> I see what your concern is about. I guess we'll have to live with that.
Ok.

> I have proposed that we have inherently verbal and inherently nominal roots.
Ok. I've said why in another post already.

> Otherwise this lack of distinction may cause a real mess.
I don't say it's for sure, but experience tells me so although I would like it
were not like Carlos does (I like deriving verbs from nouns)

 We should decide
> carefully how are we going to define each word. If there can be a pair
> of meanings, one verbal and one nominal, let's clarify both. For example:
>
> "to bite / the act of biting" (not the mark of the dog's teeth and so on)
> "to be red / the colour red" (not "redness" or "a reddening")
Exactly what I think. It has to do with perfective :
Biting does not necessarily make a mark on your leg.

Ideally, you should have two roots :

1. one noun root for perfective action of 'making a bite of biting'.

Imperfective means then : 'to do so as to make a biting'

2. one verbal root for 'biting' OR a noun root for 'action of biting'.

'biting mark' was a noun of result.

In the same way with a tool like 'mill' you have :

imperfective noun root : 'mill' > verb = 'to grind (as a mill)'

perfective noun root of result : 'ground grist'

perfect/imperfect verb root : 'to mill'

>
> If we carefully develop a set of derivational inflections, these problems
> should not arise... and if they do, let's let context do its job ;)
Yes, Sir.:-)

Although I think 'context' is an easy way for linguists to obliviate 'common
experience' and 'meaning' which are the primary instruments to communicate
(syntax is a secondary medium).

> >4.2. So if you really want "not to distinguish verbs from nouns" in this language
> >according to your
> >own words, you may need to go beyond the words 'ergative' and 'absolutive' to understand what is
> >actually the rtle of the each agent regarding each other.
> >
> >The predicate is nothing but one of these agents picked as the one from whose
> >viewpoint you view the
> >action and the other agents. The PREDICATE is a bit in the same situation as the
> >TOPIC in SOV system.
> >
> >If you want to go that far, you need as many cases as there are relations
> >between agents, patients,
> >unergative and results via one of them taken as predicate.
> >
> >I mentioned 6 of them (causative, equative, factitive, attributive,
> >applicative, patientive) but there
> >are about 10 cases I think. It's easy to list these cases but it's very
> >'experimental' as you call it.
> >
> >No natlang actually works like that because there are verb roots in any languages, even in the
> >ergative languages.
> >
> >If you want to derive all verbs from any nouns, you'll need all 10 cases, otherwise you'll need
> >'verbal roots' like in purely ergative languages.
>
> That's why I want to do -- some pure verbal roots. And I guess the others
> would agree to that? Otherwise the case system will have to be redefined.
> We don't want that, do we?
Like Carlos I don't want it, but I think we can't avoid it. We could try not use
verbal roots, but they would appear by themselves, except if we cheat by making
action and state nouns like 'the running', 'the eating', etc.

I mean : we would cheat then, because noun roots must show a specific agent to
be derived : does 'eating' show the one eating or the food ?

>
> If we have, say, _kjak-_ "bite", we could have
>
> kjako      "a biting" (the action, default noun meaning)
> kjakailo   "a bit" (the mark of the dog's teeth, a derivative meaning "result")
> kjakango   "biter" (i. e. the dog)
> kjakes-    "(be) bitten" (new stem)
> kjakeso    "a being bitten" (the action from the point of view of the patient)
If you do that systematically, you'll realize you need as many suffixes as case
prefixes (around ten) you would need in the all-noun system I mentionned above
:-)))

Why not use the same suffixes as cases prefixes when available ?

Example :

me-ERG be-bitten-PRED

= a-xxx dikjak > kjak-a-zzz

> --Pablo Flores
>
>
NOTA

You and Carlos understand everything I write and give solutions much quicker than
I myself can do with your own posts.

I have now to answer to Carlos.

Could you give me just until tomorrow morning to do that ? I promise I do as quick as I can. Thanks

Mathias



-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17113
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/