Re: LONG: Latest Wenetaic Stuff
| From: | Grandsire, C.A. <grandsir@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 26, 1999, 7:44 |
|---|
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'?
>
> >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?
> o turned-script-a
>
> /* The above description of the vowels is a guesstimate from someone
> who has never officially studied phonetics. Audio files of the whole
> phoneme inventory _WILL_ be posted on the Web, I promise. */
>
> >Consonant Clusters
> Two rules are present which seem to make most consonant clusters
> pronounceable. /* These are thanks to comments made by Nik Taylor on
> the CONLANG mailing list about clusters like /et_hke/ being hard to
> pronounce */
>
> 1. Post-stop nasals are realised as voiced stops at their original
> POA, ie {etnge} -> [etge]
>
> 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).
> These rules apply (in that order) when going from {...} to [...], ie
> {ethnge} -> [eTge]
>
So you can have clusters of different voicing? interesting...
> These are the only circumstances where the abovementioned phones are
> produced. Where the cluster is still "awkward" a minimal euphonic [@]
> is inserted.
>
> 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.
> 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?
> In word-final or word-initial position, the flexion -k- may be elided
> in colloquial speech. In medial position, it is always used.
>
> Positionals
>
> -a- Near
> -o- Far
> -u- Apparent
> -k- Obscure
> -e- Probable/Believed
> -i- Improbable/Disbelieved
>
> The positional -a- is used when no positional is required (thanks to
> context, or for cases where position is irrelevant), and is elided in
> non-formal texts (both verbal and written). If any other positional
> used is completely obvious from context, it too may be elided in
> colloquial texts.
>
> Note:- except when they occur as positionals, vowels are not normally
> elided.
>
> 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?
> >Attributive
> ta - absolute attributive (used to form similes, metaphors, and so
> forth)
> re - relative attributive (marks the noun which is being compared
>
> against. "x y-arek" means "as x as y", "x y-orek" means "x-er than y")
> /* the above is misleading gibberish, please see below */
>
> The relative attributive <re> takes the -k- gender as agent, and
> attaches to the attribute to form the superlative.
>
> 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... :(
> >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"?
> >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.
> /* 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?
> >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 :)
> >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... :)
--
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