Re: LONG: Latest Wenetaic Stuff

Christophe writes:
>>>>>>
Paul Bennett wrote:
>
> Phonology
>
> /4/ is something like /t/, /d/, /r/ and /l/ all rolled into one.
> Several English dialects use this consonant between unstressed vowels
> as an allophone of /t/ and /d/.
>
        Is it an alveolar flap? Or the Japanese 'r'?
<<<<<<

I had thought it was the latter, but a tangential conversation with Fabian (in
London) convinced me it's the former.

>>>>>>
> >Vowels
>
> Doubled vowels are Long, marked (L) in the table above.  Here is /* a guess at
> */ a list of appropriate IPA values.
>
> i    smallcap-i
> e    turned-smallcap-3
> a    turned-a
> u    turned-smallcap-omega
> e"   schwa
        So there can be a long schwa? Is there a natlang precedent?
<<<<<<

Sinhalese has a long schwa.  In Sinhala, schwa exists as an allophone of <a> in
all kinds of situations, most of which can be intuited as something to do with
stress, but which have been analysed in far greater depth (I forget the
reference).  It makes learning the spoken language occasionally inconvenient.
Sinhala has romanised <a> and <aa>, which generally realise as /@/ and
/{script-a}/, but not always.  The phones /@:/ and /{script-a}:/ are possible.

>>>>>>
[snip]
> 2. Pre-stop aspirated consonants are realised as fricatives near
> their original POA, ie {ethke} -> [eTke]
> The actual fricatives they become are:
>   {ph} -> [f]
>   {th} -> [T]
>   {kh} -> [C](SAMPA) the sound in German "ich"
>
        Personnally I'd better see {ph}->[P] (unvoiced bilabial fricative),
{th}->[T] and {kh}->[x] (invoiced velar fricative) to keep the PoAs of
the original phonemes (and it's more common to represent [P] by {ph} and
[x] by {kh} then the sounds you proposed).
<<<<<<

Nik said something like that.  I'd tend to agree, except those phones are what I
instinctively produced when I was trying different readings of my examples.  I
may or may not comply.

>>>>>>
> These rules apply (in that order) when going from {...} to [...], ie
> {ethnge} -> [eTge]
>
        So you can have clusters of different voicing? interesting...
<<<<<<

There are precedents, and I had a good reason for doing it.  I just don't recall
exactly what at the moment.  It's an artlang, and therefore as long as it's
pronounceable, I don't see why any culture wouldn't come up with it.

>>>>>>
> Root Formation
>
> There are four different syllable structures for roots, refered to as
> minimal, reduced, regular and extended.  The following should serve as
> an explanation of their formation.
>
> Basic root (conceptually) : C1 V1 C2 V2
> NS: The same
> NP: C1 V1 C1 C2 V2
> VI: C1 V1 C2 C1 V2
> VC: C1 V1 C2 V1 C1 V2
>
> For minimal roots, C2 and V2 are omitted from the NS form, and C2 is
> omitted in the NP form.  The Lexicon form is always "C1V1(C2V2)"
>
> Reduced roots work in essentially the same way as Regular roots, except
> the initial C1 is ommited.  The Lexicon form is always "V1C2V2(C1)"
>
> Regular roots are as above.  The Lexicon form is always "C1V1C2V2"
>
> Extended roots follow the same pattern, except non-initial C1 is
> replaced by a "C3".  The Lexicon form is C1V1C2V2(C3)
>
> >Basic Paradigm  /*There's a touch of Arabic in here, but it started
> life as a PIE e-stem vs o-stem thing*/
>
>          NS   NP      VI      VC       LX
> Minimal  so   sosu    sorsu   sorosu   so(ru)
> Reduced  ame  arme    amre    amare    ame(r)
> Regular  taki tatki   takti   takati   taki
> Extended moru motru   mortu   morotu   moru(t)
>
> NS - Noun Singular
> NP - Noun Plural
> VI - Verb Instant (or complete)
> VC - Verb Continous
> LX - The way the root is presented in the lexicon.
>
        Oh! I see now what you mean. Is there examples of roots used in a
different way for related concepts, that's to say, for example 'so(ru)'
and 'soru' having related meaning? That could make 4 roots per
conceptual root.
<<<<<<

I haven't made enough Lexicon.  The trouble with doing as you suggest is that
'so(ru)' and 'soru' would only be distinguishable as nouns, the verbal forms
would be the same.  I'm not sure I like this.

>>>>>>
> Affixes and Word Order
>
>
> Flexions are used to represent either or both of the person and/or
> gender of a word.  They are also referred to as Genders.  Where the
> mark .g<x>. (ie .g1. .g2.) occurs (often in interlinears) it refers
> to a flexion, the number used refers to the position of the gender
> in the following list.
>
> 1 Speaker   -m-
> 2 Adressee  -s-
> 3 Human     -t-
> 4 Animal    -r-
> 5 Inanimate -p-
> 6 Abstract  -k-
>
> In effect, there's a two-way branching going on, where one leg of the
> branch leads to a Flexion, the other leads to another branch.  Each
> level of the tree represents a state of Animacy/Person that is more and
> more similar to the Speaker.
>
> ?-Abstract (k)
>  \
>   (Concrete)--Inanimate (p)
>             \
>              (Animate)--Animal (r)
>                       \
>                        (Human)--Somebody Else (t)
>                               \
>                                (Me & You)--You (s)
>                                          \
>                                           Me (m)
>
> E.g., moru.p is "a corpse", moru.k is "a death", moru.t.s'e.k is "his
> death", mortu.k is the infinitive "to die", and morotu.s is "you are
> dying".
>
        So what is 'moru.m'? "my death"? Is it possible to do that?
<<<<<<
Kinda.  "my death" would be "moru.m.s'e.k" (an abstract verb belonging to me),
"morum" would be used if the first person was dead.  Odd, but technically
possible within both the language and its metaphysics.

>>>>>>
[snip]
> Cases (used in forming particles)
>
> >Gene(ra)tive (these all take the -a- Positional, almost always elided)
> s'e - possessive (normal genetive, something which is possessed)
> ya  - trapping (an habitual or essential possession)
> pa  - familial (technically used for a family member, also extended to
> very close friends.  When used to or of people and things outside the
> previous definition, it implies a sense of "solidarity" or
> "cameraderie").
>
> tuu - partative (a section of an uncountable substance, or made of
> something)
> ce  - component (a distinguishable, seperate part of an object, or
> member of a countable group)
>
> so  - produced (that which is made by something)
> nu  - productive (that which forms something)
>
        I like all those different kinds of genitives. But they seem to be put
on the possessed noun instead of the possessive noun. Am I right?
<<<<<<
Kinda.  <kuni.r yonu.r.s'e.t> (dog.g4 john.g4.POSS.g3) is <John's dog>.  Note
the .g4.'s for concord.

>>>>>>
> Examples of Attributives:
> (ap) makhetap - (it is) big
> (ap) makhetap Yonutrek - (it is) as big as John
> (ap) makhetap Yonutorek - (it is) bigger than John
> (ap) makhekrep - (it is) the biggest of its kind
> (ap) makheprep - (it is) about average size compared to an anaphoric set
> (ap) makheporep - (it is) the biggest of an anaphoric set
>
> /* "Ar makhertar Yonutcerorek" could be used as a very personal compliment,
> though one that would probably cause mixed emotions <GGG> */
>
        Well, this is even more difficult to understand than my intensive and
absolute in Chasma"o"cho, so I think I missed the joke... :(
<<<<<<

It translates literally as "It's bigger than John's (one)."

>>>>>>
> >Essive /*provisional term, the first term from Trask that I used*/
> taa - Essive
>
> Wenetaic is essentially zero-copula; <taa> is used to make some forms
> that take copula in other languages and that aren't marked in any
> other way in Wenetaic.  In the translation of the English <being tired,
> he slept> (meaning <he slept because he was tired>), <being tired>
> is formed using the essive, and could be translated back to english as
> <the tired (one) slept>.  The essive marks forms sometimes translated
> by verbal nouns and nominal verbs, or by adjective/adverbial
> constructions.  The essive is also used to form group nouns from plural
> nouns, for example <mamnu.r> (the men) vs <mamnu.taa.r> (men in general).
>
        I like it. Is it a kind of suffixed "to be" kind of "verb"?
<<<<<<

Kinda.  Ish.  The example Trask give is that in "as a boy, I used to read a
lot", <as a boy> is the Essive of <boy>.  I guess I've extended the usage a bit,
but tried to do it fairly intuitively and consistently.

>>>>>>
> >Tense
> ngkk - past tense
> ngoo - future tense
>
> When combined with positionals, the following specific meanings result:
>  angkk, angoo - as in English "recent past", "near future".
>  ongkk, ongoo - as in English "ancient past", "distant future".
>  kngkk, kngoo - "mythical" past, "prophetic" future
>  ungkk, ungoo - "obvious", "well known" past and future
>  engkk, engoo - something like "IMHO", or "IIRC"
>  ingkk, ingoo - yet to be fully deciphered, often used when describing
> enemy propoganda and non-orthodox religious beliefs
>
> Tenses can be compounded infinitely, each tense mark being taken as
> reletive to its antecedent.  For example <takti.m.yi.t.k.ngkk.t.a.ngoo.t>
> {VI.{G1.ACC}.{G3.OBS.PAST}.{G3.NEAR.FUT}.G3} means literally "in the near
> future of the mythical past, he touches me", but translates as "in the
> mythical past, he was about to touch me".
>
        I like this feature, even if it can be very confusing.
<<<<<<
To me, it feels like the most logical, beautiful and consistent way to notate
time.  Compounded tenses kick ass! <G>


>>>>>>
> /* It strikes me that, as tenses may take independant flexions, Wenetaic
> may well work nicely as a lang for time-travellers.  Hmmm...  Now I think
> about it, this actually ties in well with other features of the lang... */
>
        What do you know about the people who speak Wenetaic by the way?
<<<<<<

Their latest incarnation is as Hunter/Gatherers sharing pre-IE north-western
europe with two of my other concultures.  The Wewnetaar have indeed moved all
over conspace and contime in my attempt to find them a suitable homeland, so I
suppose it wouldn't take much more than a cognitive "leap of faith" on my part
to put their history into their conhistory.  Hmmm....


>>>>>>
> >Location /*long and complex history, basically inspired by hearing about a
> similar feature in some North American natlangs*/
> yi  - directional (roughly equivalent to Dative Case)
> ru  - locational (roughly equivalent to Accusative Case)
>
> These combine with Positionals in obvious ways, except for -e- and -i-, about
> which more research is required.  Available informants (and attested texts)
show
> these forms to be very rare, and give a large range of inconsistent meanings
to
> them.
>
        I'd like to know more about them, as soon as you can decipher something
from them :)
<<<<<<

Well, I'll throw it to the floor for open discussion:

What could the forms -iyi-, -eyi-, -iru- and -eru- possibly mean?

I think I may need more cases in this "subset".  Cases meaning "in", "on", and
other postpositions would really help.


>>>>>>
> >Truth Value /* check the CONLANG list archives towards the end of 1998 for a
> list of contributors, mengkkmakhkk this thread ran and ran */
> khu - definately true
> khk - seemingly/probably/partly true
> yk  - indeterminate truth/falsehood
> thk - seemingly/probably/partly false
> thu - definately false
>
> Positionals are used with the above to show evidentiality, ie how/why one
> knows/thinks that this is the truth value.
>
>  akhu, akhk, etc - personal experience
>  okhu, okhk, etc - reported experience, imparted knowledge
>  ukhu, ukhk, etc - deduced from plentiful evidence
>  kkhu, kkhk, etc - implied from scant evidence
>  ekhu, ekhk, etc - taken on faith, generally accepted
>  ikhu, ikhk, etc - generally accepted, but disputed "here & now"
>
> >Volitional - /*thanks for insipration to Sally Caves, Matt Pearson and Larry
> Schelin, all on the CONLANG list*/
> wk - deals with the desire to do/be something in various ways
>
>  awk - want to
>  owk - fail to
>  uwk - appear to
>  kwk - pretend not to / secretively
>  ewk - "because it's the right/expected/honorable thing to do"
>  iwk - "for no particular/discernable reason", spontaneously
>
        Wow! Those three things promise a great many shadings possible. It
promises very hot religious and philisophical debates when someone makes
a mistake in them... :)
<<<<<<

Thanks to the "<a> elision" rule, 90% of colloquial usage only distinguishes
<(a)khu> from <(a)thu> and <awe"> from <{absence of we"}>.  All these markers
(like all the others) are completely optional.  Philosophical discourse is a
popular activity among teens and adults, and (equivalently) riddle-telling is
very popular among teens and pre-teens.






*************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender. This footnote also confirms that this email message
has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
*************************************************************