Re: A Conlang, created by the group?

1. Regarding classifiers and genders :

Anything is OK to me.

Please just make sure we can guess the class or gender from some feature or meaning
or sound of the word itself (please no 'to-learn-by-heart' genders if possible
- if not, it's ok though : i'll do my best).

I don't ask for 'thought/material/etc.' classification. It was only a
suggestion. I withdraw it : it's not 'arty' enough.

2. Regarding affixes and -positions :

OK for anything mentioned.

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 :-)

I give you an example and you'll understand what I mean right away :

'I see the boy whose parents run'

Japanese-like translation with your ergative system (or close to it) would read :

me-AGE/ERG-(TOP) parents-ABS run-PRE-(CON) boy-ABS to-be-seen-PRE

where : TOP = topic; PRE = predicate and CON = connective

Where do you stick 'whose' therein ? :-) In Japanese you don't !

Another example :

'the town from which I come'

= me-ABS come-PRE-(CON) town

Where do you stick 'from' therein ? In Japanese you don't.

That's why I wish I had a separable prefix on which I could put the case tag of the
connective phrase in Japanese. As you know Basque has such 'articles' : they
are pronouns put at the end of the connective (the way round) like in the main
phrases. They are considered an oddity by linguists because the SOV system
should require them in front of the connective as I mentionned.

I mean : I don't ASK for 'articles' tagging speech parts. It's just that even if
we don't want these separable articles now, I'm affraid we'll have to create
special pronouns instead later on, like Japanese use demonstratives to refer to
parts of speech.

I wouldn't mind actually :-) Adventure !!!

3. Regarding phonology :

Whatever you say, except 'kzrtplaouievbnx'. :-)

4. Regarding cases :

I'm OK with any cases, especially the way you mention them (ergative = yummy !).
I'm quite happy if you decide them without me.

HOWEVER :

You speak of 'EXPERIMENTING', 'ERGATIVE' and 'VERBS=NOUNS' so I'd just like to say
a few words about all three COMBINED, because this may help you VERY MUCH
experimenting what is not yet done in natlangs in this respect :-)

This is my ONLY message regarding cases :

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'.

In English, the verb 'to wound' derives from the noun of result 'the wound'.
The verb 'to cover' derives from the noun of instrument 'the cover'
The verb 'to prey' derives from the noun of patient 'the prey'
The verb 'to ape' derives from the noun of agent 'the ape'.

Therefore please let me have you forget about ergative/absolutive for a few minutes to
focus on the HIDDEN SEMANTIC RELATION between the words of the sentence :

Now if in this language the verb 'to wound' derives from the patient 'the one
wounded', then you have :

'I wound him'

= 'me-CAUS he-EQU the-one-wounded-PRE

(I'm making him someone wounded)

Think of English 'to prey him' = 'I transform him into a prey'

PRE = predicate

EQU = equative ('he IS')

However, let's say that the verb derives from the result of process 'the wound', like
in English. Then you have :

'I wound him'

= me-FAC he-ATT wound-PRE

Think of English 'to wound him' = 'I make a wound of/on him'

FAC = factitive (I MAKE a wound)

ATT = attributive (OF him)

Now let's imagine that the noun 'wounding stick' (like 'a club' in English) is the
root of the verb :

'I wound him'

= me-APP he-PAT woundingstick-PRE

Think of English 'to cover, to club him' = 'I apply club on him'

APP = applicative (to USE the stick the way it's made for)

PAT = patientive (to BE APPLIED a stick)


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.

Of course this does not take into account situatives and latives.

If you do so, this language will be able to derive more verbs from nouns than English does.

4.3. If you don't want to go that far, I'll agree with anything you will decide.

SOV, Ergative system is OK to me : I like Sumerian very much.

5. Vocabulary :

Yes. That's a good idea. Who volunteers ? [:-{

Why not Charles ? He's stuck his finger in the hinge, now he must pay to get free :-)

I only have my essential vocabulary list of 1150 roots partly drawn from
Japanese kanjis. But there are no verbs (one verb is 'represented' by only one
agent, patient, result or instrument) and no opposites. Maybe it could help.
Maybe not.


Mathias


-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17089
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/