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

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 :) .

> 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.

> 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 :) .

> 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?

> 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 :) .

> Nicole
--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com