|From:||Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 1:29|
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:46:37 -0500, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> wrote:
>>For my next conlang I've toyed with the idea of making
>>attitudinality a mandatory inflectional category rather
>>than an optional derivation method. ANADEW?
> Not ANADEW but I did have one never-very-developed sketch that did that,
> Vladician (after a high-school friend, and I forget what he did to merit
> this particular feature in his language). Verbs had three degrees of
> attitudinality, approbative/neutral/despective; nouns had two, lacking the
> neutral degree. Moreover, in a great swath of the nouns and a few of the
> verbs, attitudinality was suppletive; and positive and negative variants
> didn't always line up one-to-one (e.g. I think that the approbative degree
> had only a single word "creepy-crawly" to set alongside several despective
> words for kinds of bugs and worms).
I think this conlang, if I ever get around to developing it fully,
will have more degrees and kinds of attitudinality than gjâ-zym-byn
(which has five); exactly what I'm not sure yet. Maybe in addition
to the positive respect / affection distinction, there would be a
negative fear / contempt distinction, and an "interest" or "amusement"
category in addition to gzb's "surprise" and "ambivalence".
And yes, I reckon there would be a certain amount of suppletion,
and defective paradigms where certain irregular nouns lack
forms for certain attitudes.
I'm still figuring out what other inflectional categories would go
well with this one, or what other nebulous conlanging ideas
in my files it could go with to form a coherent language.