CHAT: Sakatda Ka Kadomo (was: CHAT: Anglicisms)

Barry Garcia wrote:
BTW, Barry, you're new on the list, right? If so, welcome aboard!

>i was amazed too when i saw you had created a conlang also based
>off of the focus system (i thought i was like the only conlanger
>who thought of doing that! =) ).
I don't think we're the only ones. Others on the list have
experimented with such systems too.

>My relatives are from the Visayas (Aklan and Capiz).
My mother is from the colder, more wind beaten, north. She and the
rest of my relatives on my mother's side are all Ilocanos (north
Luzon). I'm currently doing some "field-work" to sketch a grammar of
Ilocano with my mother as the informant. 8)

>Anyway i think i got the focus system correct. I added a few more
>focuses in than i found in my Tagalog language book. Anyway its
>still rough (i'm restructuring things).
I have posted about my own theory and understanding of the focus
system several times before. But here it is again, and how it
applies to Boreanesian, in case it may interest you.

It is based on the premise that all the focus affixes in
Austronesian trigger languages are, or at least were once, just
ordinary verbal nominalizers. I have taken this understanding to the
extreme such that only predicate nominal sentence structures exist
in Boreanesian. That is, the predicate in many ways resembles a
noun. Thus, the concept of subject/object cannot apply, and there is
only one core argument.

If we have a look at the focus patterns in Boreanesian predicates,
you might see what I mean. Consider the verb <qenengh> "eating".
When used in a sentence, the verb nominalizes into one of four
possible ways:

AGENT
     <nh + uwh + qengenengh>
     animate  bound:exocentric  eat:volitional
     "the/that eater"

PATIENT
     <nh + uwh + qelenengh>
     animate  bound:exocentric  eat:non-volitional
     "the/that eaten (entity)" or "the/that food"

INSTRUMENT
     <th + uwh + qengenengh>
     inanimate  bound:exocentric  eat:volitional
     "the/that eating-utensil"

LOCATION
     <th + uwh + qelenengh>
     inanimate  bound:exocentric  eat:non-volitional
     "the eating-place"

These nominalized verbs are then used as part of the nominal
predicate construction to identify the semantic role of the focus.
For instance, if I wanted to say, "The man ate chicken", I would
have two options. One option focuses "the man" who is semantically
the most agent-like argument in this clause. Another option focuses
"the chicken" which is the most patient-like argument in this
clause. In other words, when using the verb for "eating" in such a
sentence, we could be talking of the agent ("the eater", or the
patient ("the food"). The examples below demonstrate how a
Boreanesian would use the nominalized verb to translate "The man ate
a chicken" depending on what the focus was suppose to be:

Focus = AGENT
     <nhuwhqengenengh nemenuwq nhuwhqekayq>
     lit.: that-eater of-a-chicken that-man
     "the man, he ate a chicken"

Focus = PATIENT
     <nhuwhqelenengh nuwhqekayq nhemenuwq>
     lit.: that-food of-that-man a-chicken
     "a chicken, the man ate some"

So what do you think? Its different from Tagalog in many ways, yet
similar at the same time. I intended Boreanesian to be completely
unrelated from Tagalog and other Austronesian languages even though
they both have trigger/focus systems.

>But you can have a look at it at:
>http://student.monterey.edu/dh/garciabarryjames/world/Conlang.html
>
>heres a small sample:
>
>I ate yesterday. - Yankait ko kaabo.
>
>Yesterday, the mango was eaten by me - Kaabo, gankait ko ng manga.
>
>I ate at the mall - Jankait ko ng "mall"
>
>
>some things in Sakatda Ka Kadomo are directly taken from Tagalog.
>But most of the words i changed the sounds so they werent too
>obvious.
When I glanced at your page, it looked pretty much like it could
have been a description of some language from the Philippines. Some
words were exactly the same as in Tagalog, some not. So a Filipino
might see it and say, "If its not Tagalog, well then it must be some
other 'dialect'." Well, that's my impression anyways... 8)

What's the conculture like? I'm imagining a tiny group of isolated
negritos in Luzon's Sierra Madre just east of Manila (therefore the
numerous Tagalog loanwords).

-kristian- 8)