Re: New Language Sketch (was Re: Conlang Gender)

Grandsire, C.A. wrote:
>
> nicole perrin wrote:
> >
> > One of my less developed conlangs (I don't even think it has a name) has
> > elaborate gender distinctions.  And this thread has just inspired me to
> > post a sketch of it.  So here goes: (mind, this is soooo incomplete)
> >
> > Phonology:
> >
> > p t k f s S h r l w j n m all as in IPA  (I'm way too lazy to try and do
> > a table of them)
> >
> > a - /a/
> > e - /E/
> > i - /i/
> > y - /I/
> > u - /u/
> > o - /o/
> >
> > Other stuff:
> >
> > OK, I am so unfamiliar with ergative and active systems, and I'm sure
> > what I'm trying to do here has a name but since I don't know what I'm
> > talking about I'll just describe it.
> >
> > I want to have cases to mark the following things:
> >
> > agent/instrument (a)
> > patient/object (p) (the patient would be the subject in a passive
> > sentence, of course)
> > other (o)
> >
>
>         It looks like a kind of ergative system, maybe a mix between ergative
> and active system). I would go for something like
> Ergative-Absolutive-Oblique, with cases marking semantic role rather
> than grammatical role (like in Tokana). I like it already :) .
mm, yes, I sort of thought that's what the names of the cases should be.


>
> > and genders as follows, in order of hierarchy:
> >
> > abstract concepts, men, women, children, animals, other living things,
> > fantasy-type creatures/things, inanimate objects
> >
>
>         I like very much this hierarchy. It could be the language of a humble
> people who recognize that there are things that exceed them. Keep it
> like that, even if it's true that generally abstract concepts are low in
> the hierarchy of most natlangs.
Yes!  Thank you!

>
> > If, according to the hierarchy, a > p > o, there is no marking needed on
> > these nouns, the role is assumed.  So, if you have
> >
> > The man saw a unicorn.
> >
> > No marking is needed.  But
> >
> > The unicorn saw a man.
> >
> > Marking is needed on both the man and the unicorn.
> >
> > Each gender has different case suffixes.
> >
>
>         That's very interesting, and it seems to me very naturalistic. I think
> it must be actually used in some natlang, but I know no example. What I
> know about languages with such a hierarchy, but without case marking, is
> the use of the active form of the verb when the hierarchy is respected,
> but a change of voice (passive, antipassive, whatever you like) when the
> hierarchy would be violated. Example:
>
> The man saw a unicorn
>
> would be in active voice, whereas to say "the unicorn saw a man" you
> would be obliged to say:
>
> A man was seen by the unicorn.
>
>         Anyway, I like also your method. It's just another idea if you want to
> add voices :) .
I was thinking of adding some sort of marking on the verb for something
like that, but I'm not sure what kind yet.  I was thinking that I would
mark on the verb what was supposed to be the subject, because otherwise
only aspect, tense, and mood are marked (see below) and so yeah, that
would be a lot like marking voice.  I'll have to think about it some
more and decide for sure.


>
> > Aspect, tense and mood are marked on a special auxiliary verb, which is
> > ALWAYS used (it's always the same auxiliary, and the auxiliary has no
> > real meaning in English) and the "real" verb is always used as an
> > infinitive/dictionary form.  so word order would be
> >
> > SVOA  where A is the auxiliary.
> >
>
>         That is a feature I like very much. I remember using it in one of my
> old languages that I created when I was in high school. I partly re-used
> it for Chasma"o"cho. The word order with the auxiliary completely
> seperated from the verb and at the end of the sentence I like also very
> much. You could also have VSOA, and thus have clauses perfectly
> delimited simply by the main verb and the auxiliary, something very
> interesting for subclauses and especially relatives. Why not using VSOA
> for subclauses?
mm, maybe, I always like using a different word order for subclauses,
and that would make it really simple.  good idea!

>
> > Comments?  Especially about the case marking stuff, I really want to
> > know what I was trying to do so I can clarify it in my own mind - these
> > notes are pretty old and illegible.
> >
>
>         Hope my comments will help :) . I know what it is to be confused, it's
> my normal state :) .
Thanks so much, you really helped me out - and reassured me that what I
was trying to do wasn't so weird - or soooo un-naturalistic

Nicole