Re: A conlang is being born (long)

En réponse à Harald Stoiber :

>My happiness may extend unto you, dear friends!  :-)))
Thanks! It does! :)

>After half a dozen far-too-exotic attempts with almost meta-physical
>approaches I have finally come to a structure for my first workable
>(hopefully!!!) conlang project. Perhaps everyone has to traverse this
>initial period of wild experimentation before something meaningful can
>evolve... *g*
Sometimes, I think I've actually never got out of this initial period ;)))) .


>My creation has fairly free word order enabled by massive inflection.
>Syntax allows for serial verbs. Roots are formed of three consonantic
>parts which are linked by a vowel pattern according to the syntactical
>function of the word and its derivational disposition.
Pretty Semitic :)) .

>  Every lexical root
>is of verbal kind and can be inflected to become a noun, an attribute
>(adjective or adverb), a verb or a secondary verb (which is needed for
>serial verb constructions).
This is also quite Semitic (in Arabic, the primary meaning of a root is
most often verbal).

It's funny how the Semitic system of consonantal roots and vocalic
grammatical patterns attracts beginners. Myself, I have a "youth project"
somewhat based on this system. It was based on the idea of using the
consonants of Romance roots and Semitic vowel patterns together to make
something original. But since I actually didn't know how Semitic patterns
worked (and was not ready to try arbitrary patterns), the system I evolved
was more a system of vowel gradations, with each word having both
consonants and vowels, and the vowels going high or low depending on the
grammatical function of the word. I don't remember much of the project (and
I don't know where my notes are) but I think it was called Lin-gwe, with a
cedilla under the |e| (I had both midhigh and midlow vowels, and IIRC I
marked the midhigh ones with a dot under |e| or |o| and the midlow ones
with the cedilla under it).

>  To create nouns out of the verbal base
>concepts, every noun has an additional internal case which selects a
>case role of the verbal root. My example below will make this more
>understandable. :-)
Basically, deverbal nouns for the agent or patient of the action :))) .

>Just for the statistics department...
>With its current consonant inventory and phonotactics the language
>can have some 3500 triple-consonanctic root concepts. For the
>purpose of inflection there are 241 distinct vowel patterns which
>convey the various aspects of semantic derivation and syntactical
>disposition. 241 - that sounds like an avalanche of morphology!
>But for those who count Latin has a host of inflections, too. ;-)
True. And if you look at Basque, the numbers explode! :)) .


>Patientive case marks the passive part of a verb's action - the patient.
>Either the patient is in a steady state or he/she/it experiences a change
>of state. This can also be applied to a window that changes state from
>"intact" to "smashed". Whether a steady state or a change is expressed
>is defined by the verbal concept of the root and also by aspectual
>particles. In the example of the smashed window there is usually some
>cause for the destruction, i.e. the window does not break on its own.
>
>The causative case marks the controlling origin of a verb's action. So,
>in the sentecne "He smashes the window" the window would be in the
>patientive case whereas "he" would be in the causative case.
"Causative" normally refers to the cause of the action, not its controlling
origin. But since your cases are not exactly like usual cases, it's a bit
difficult to name them. I would use "factitive". It's somewhat related to
"causative", and fits maybe a bit better the job. Or you could even call it
"agentive", to show well the opposition with the patientive.


>There is one more case that can be considered a basic case in so far
>that each lexical root defines it according to its own verbal semantics.
>There is no common rule for what is marked by this case which I call
>"completive case". This is because it somehow completes the basic
>argument structure of the verb. In the window-smashing example the
>tool of smashing would be in the completive case. There are some
>faint notions of Rick Morneau's focus case role in my completive case.
I suppose this "completive" case would have a dative meaning for a verb
like "give" (or would it correspond then to the object given? After all,
giving something to someone alters the state of that person! :)) ).
"Completive" is a fair name I guess.

>Prepositions are formed using a kind of "anti-genitive" case together with
>the prepositional case. Whereas the genitive specifies the possessor, the
>anti-genitive denotes the possession.
I think you mean "possessee": that which is possessed. "Possession" is a
bit ambiguous here because it can refer to the concept of possessing something.

As for the "anti-genitive", you could call it "construct case", as the
"construct state" of Hebbrew which has basically the same meaning.


>"The cat sits under the table"
>=>
>"mahol jantik epason enitom"
>
>
>1) "mahol"
>The three consonants denote the concept of being a cat. The inflectional
>vowel pattern "-e-o-"
"-a-o-" you mean, I suppose :)) .

>  (dashes symbolize consonants) can be analyzed
>as "Noun, patientive case, singular, intransitive patientive internal case".
>
>"Internal case" means the respective case role within the verbal concept
>which should become the noun's meaning. For "to be a cat", intransitive,
>patientive case role: "the one who experiences the state of being a cat"...
>a cat. ;-)
OK...

>2) "jantik"
>Note, that the root concept "to be in a sitting position" applies to a
>variety of things: a doll put in a sitting position, our sitting cat, and so
>on. But the cat is not only the passive experiencer. It is sitting by its
>own influence over the situation - not because some other person has
>put the cat into its sitting position. It is "actively" sitting. Thus, the cat
>is the cause and the patientive at the same time, so we need a reflexive
>verb. The root concept "j-nt-k" is inflected by the vowel pattern "-a-i-"
>which gives us a reflexive verb.
Now *that*'s a strange use of the reflexive! :))) Especially since "to be
sitting" is quite intransitive, and normally reflexive forms can't be used
with intransitive verbs. But here it's not a case of identity of the agent
and patient, but rather that you consider that the experiencer of the state
is also the agent of this state. But why not just use the causative case in
this case? Or can it be used with "to be sitting" with a different meaning?
(now that I say it, I realise that it could refer to someone putting
something in sitting position...)


>3) "epason"
>Although I will create a short particle for this common preposition, I
>have chosen to derivate it by inflection for now - to let you see how it
>works. The root concept "p-s-n" means "to be above". But we wanted
>to say that the cat sits _below_ the table, right? Let us first analyze the
>inflectional pattern "e-a-o-" which means "Noun, anti-genitive, singular,
>intransitive patientive internal case". Aside from its syntactical function
>the word means "something which is above".
>
>Anti-genitive marks the possession. Since modifiers strictly precede the
>head, "something which is above" modifies the verb as its possession.
You contradict yourself here. You said that modifiers precede their head,
but "something which is above" modifies the verb which is before it. If
it's a modifier of the verb, it should be in front of it rather than after it.

>Thus, we can re-phrase: "the being-in-a-sitting-position that has
>something which is above". Yes, there is something above, namely the
>table! Note that we have implied that "being in a sitting position" takes
>place at a certain location because we have stated that something is
>above this verbal activity.
Apart from your little contradiction, I understand what you are leading to.

>4) "enitom"
>Being inflected by "e-i-o-" as "Noun, prepositional, singular, intransitive
>patientive internal case" this word means "something which is a table",
>thus, "table". The prepositional case immediately associates it with the
>preceding anti-genitive. The anti-genitive denotes which property or
>part of possession is addressed. The prepositional case says what this
>part actually is. We can express it like this:
>"being in a sitting position" has something above and that is a table.
>
>I could have put it another way:
>"epason enitom mahol jantik"
In this case, the modifier indeed precedes the modified part. Maybe you
should consider making your language SOV, and the contradiction will disappear.

>This time the prepositional phrase "epason enitom" modifies the cat,
>not the verb. In theory this opens semantical opportunities from the
>other dimension: The cat is under the table but it may exhibit the
>attribute "being in a sitting position" elsewhere. Out-of-body experience
>by grammar? Hm.... *gggg*
LOL.

>Sometimes such funky prepositional freedom can make sense.
>Consider myself sitting here in Vienna, being logged on to a UNIX
>machine in London where I have started an FTP client which I use to
>delete a file in Paris. To express this I would say something like
>"In Vienna-PRÄP I-CAUSATIVE in London-PRÄP delete-TRANS in
>Paris-PRÄP a file-PATIENTIVE". For sure, the everyday application
>will not require such fine-grain destinctions.
Practical for online shopping though ;))) .


>A weird language you may say - with perversely many inflections,
>bizarre cases, quasi-semitic morphology and wacky prepositions...
>*g*
It's the strange prepositional system that I find most intriguing... and
the strange use of the reflexive :)) . I was wondering whether I could
somehow use the reflexive voice for intransitive verbs in Maggel. You gave
me a source of new ideas :))) .


Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Reply