Re: New Langage "Tyl-Seok": Similar ideas? (Was: Translation pattern of `to have'?)

En réponse à Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>:

>
> Ha, yes, similar!  But I think, because you seem to have quite a
> different type of grammar structure and no particles, the overall
> structure will be quite different.
>
Indeed :) .

> Is there a more detailed description of the language somewhere?  I'm
> interested in some things a lot.  Especially the one grammar rule.
> And how a language with a Japanese style phonetics can be
> monosyllabic.  I suppose by being ambiguous?? :-) For my language, I
> decided that grammar is ambiguous enough, so the stems themselves are
> not ambiguous.
>
Well, there is no detailed description on the web, but you can search the
Conlang archives at:
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?S2=conlang&q=Notya&s=&f=&a=&b=
where you will find quite detailed descriptions of Notya that I submitted to the
list two years ago. You will understand better the grammar and the phonology of
Notya this way.

As for the Japanese-like phonology, Notya still has more different syllables, so
it is not that ambiguous. Also, there can be a few dissyllabic roots, but
usually those roots are compounded, ususally in a straightforward way.

> And how do you do relative and other references to parts of
> sub-clauses?  In Tyl-Seok, the following six sentences are the same
> (when not using disambiguation particles):
>
>  A1: I, knowing the man, drive the car.
>  A2: That I know the man drives the car. (quite unlikely...)
>  A3: The man, known by me, drives the car.
>  B3: I know the man that drives the car.
>  B4: I know that the man drives the car.
>  B5: I know the car that is driven by the man.
>  (You may substitute `the' by `a' anywhere -- it is underspecified.)
>
>  Tyl-Seok:     I     know    man          drive   car
>  Reference:    1     2       3            4       5
>  Structure A:  I.AGT know.V [man.AGT      drive.V car.PAT].PAT
>  Structure B: [I.AGT know.V  man.AGT].AGT drive.V car.PAT
>
> (,to know' uses its agent slot for the experiencer, who has potential
> control.)
>
Well, since Notya has suffixes that show the actual relationships, I think it
would disambiguate easily between all those different structures. Let's see (I
take PR for "PRocessive form", EX for "EXistential form", TE for "TErminal
function" and CO for "Conjunctive function". For the exact meaning of these
terms, look at the archives at the "Notya: a "neither-verb-nor-noun" lang?"
message thread):

A1: man-EX-CO know-PR-TE I-PR-TE car-PR-TE
A2: (what does it mean, I cannot understand the sentence there)
A3: I-PR-TE know-PR-TE man-PR-TE car-PR-TE
B3: I-PR-TE car-PR-TE man-PR-CO know-PR-TE
B4: I-PR-TE man-PR-TE car-PR-CO know-PR-TE
B5: I-PR-TE man-PR-TE car-EX-CO know-PR-TE

He he, when I told you that the rule of Notya was underspecification :) , you
don't even have a word for "drive" (since when you use a car, it's usually to
drive it, not to carry it on your head :) ). This is usual to handle things like
that in Notya (just like "I eat food" would certainly just be "I-PR-TE
food-PR-TE". "I-EX-TE food-PR-TE" would be "I am forced to swallow food" or at
least "I eat food, but not actively, not willingly", while "I-PR-TE food-EX-TE"
would be "I am food (actively)". Finally, "I-EX-TE food-EX-TE" would be used if
I suddenly see a tiger looking at me with saliva dripping out of his mouth :) ).

Well, there are other ways to handle those kinds of sentences, but the most
usual (giving that context disambiguate things) would be that. The use of a
processive or existential form depends on so many factors (among them is
personal taste :) ) that I decided to follow the usual rule of thumb of Notya,
being that you have to put as many processive forms as possible.

By the way, I may have stretched things a bit when I said that there was only
one grammar rule. In a way, you can say so, but it's easier to describe it with
two rules: one about the order between the determiner and the determinee, and
one about the order between the theme and the rheme. Still, in most cases those
two rules collapse in one :) .

> With other sentences, context may not help much, so things become
> really ambiguous and probably need disambiguation:
>
>  Tyl-Seok: Peter know Mary know John.
>
> To disambiguate this special example a bit, there also might be two
> words for `to know' (like dt: wissen, fr: savoir; dt: kennen, fr:
> connaitre).
>
I don't know about Notya. My principal weakness in conlanging is that I usually
don't work on lexicon at all :( ).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Reply