Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: MNCL5 really long

From:Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
Date:Sunday, December 30, 2007, 14:04
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:01:30 +0100, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-
conlang@...> wrote:
> >* Jeffrey Jones said on 2007-12-26 13:36:53 +0100 >> * On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:59:12 +0100, taliesin wrote: >> > * Jeffrey Jones said on 2007-12-25 09:54:33 +0100 >> > > Note: "medial" is my term for "non-final suffix". >> > >> > > 2. Argument Structure Conflicts >> > Dos 5 allow implicit default (fallback) objects, like: (3rd >> > person) animate for this set of verbs, (3rd person) >> > inanimate for this other set? >> >> I'm not sure what the question is. In most constructions, >> optionally omitted arguments are indefinite. Some are likely >> to be animate while others are likely to be inanimate. Does >> this help? > >Part way. You could add more information than definiteness, then >you'd have an implicit object.
I suppose so, but so far I don't see the need to, other than the characteristics aleady implied by the verb. Am I missing something? I still have the vague feeling we're talking past each other here.
>Hmpf, what a typo... "dos" indeed, maybe time to reinstall :)
Reinstall DOS 5? Ah, the good old days! Limited internet access, I think. I had planned to do something like that so I could continue programming (even thought that's now completely useless) but I have only one completely working computer.
>> > > 3. Trivalent Imperatives >> > > (a) a new medial (like the grammatical voice medials, but >> > > used on -u forms instead of non-verb forms) such as -s- >> > > for the 2nd translation of each pair, with the unmarked >> > > form used for the 1st translation, and (b) allow the >> > > existing grammatical voice medial -m- to be used on -u >> > > forms to indicate the 1st translation, with the unmarked >> > > form used for the 2nd translation. >> > >> > Or c), inject something from natural languages (trivalent >> > verbs are rare) and have each verb has a preferred >> > imperative that fits with that verb's meaning, and an >> > inverse marker if you want to preserve the oppsite >> > possibility. >> >> I thought that was what I was doing in (a) and (b). Either >> I've misunderstood or what I wrote wasn't clear. > >I meant: treating each trivalent verb as an exception and >tailoring stuff for each of them, not as a group.
For 5, I'd much rather treat them as a group, where possible.
>> > > 5. Conatives
I'll have to continue this part later.
>> > > 7. Tetravalent Verbs >> > > Obviously, I'll have to use an adverbial or secondary >> > > predicate final (-i or -in) for the 4th argument. The main >> > > question is which? >> > >> > "bet" is 5-valent, which 4-valent verbs are there in 5? >> >> It is? > >I.1 bet you.2 five_dollars.3 on_Daily_Arabian_4 to_win_5 > >and maybe even add a sixth "by a whole yard.6" > >1 to 4 need to be explicit and it, gah, English fails me, it is >debatable whether 4, 5 (and 6) really are a broken complent >sentence ("Daily Arabian will win by a whole yard" -> "I bet you >five dollars that Daily Arabian will win by a whole yard" but >then the 6 looks even more like an adjunct...) and so not proper >etc. etc. but there are so few such verbs anyway that they can >be special-cased all the way to Saturn and back.
I had thought of only the complement sentence possibility. I'm not sure what I'd do if I wanted to omit "win".
>> I could only come up with four arguments. I guess "sell/buy" >> could take a 4th argument. > >The bartered item/sum of money, right?
Right. Incidently, I've come up with a tentative solution to the original question: if the secondary verb (say, -uxc-) means something like "offer" or "tender", it would relate to the primary verb's agentive argument (the one representing the seller or bettor), so that -i should be used. Jonak Toma vendek horsa pento gat'luxci. "John sold Tom a horse for five cats."
>> > > 9. Partitive and Superlative Constructions >> > > I came up with some morphosyntactical possibilities for the >> > > partitive construction, but I don't like them. >> >> I had in mind things like "three of the (four big) dogs" -- >> specifying a subset, by size, of some defined set. I don't >> know what else to call it. > >Have a look at how Finnish uses its partitive - weird.
True. I don't think I'll be copying Finnish for 5.
>> > > In some of my other languages, the superlative >> > > construction is formed by adding a simple (lexical) >> > > adjective to the partitive construction. I'm not sure that >> > > will work here. >> > >> > Maybe superlative is not right for this language. Not all >> > langs have it, after all. How would you do without? >> >> I don't know. All the natlangs I know of have either an >> analytic or synthetic superlative. > >I found a good book on adjectives at the library once but can't >recall it's name... you'll just have to take my word for it >until I can remember/find the reference :/
Don't worry about it unless you happen to run across it again and care to paraphrase. It's highly unlikely that I could find the same book locally, and I don't really have a book budget.
>> > > 10. Compound Phrases >> > > What I mean is expressions such as "John and Tom". I'm >> > > thinking of creating a new final (maybe -al) to be used for >> > > "and" on each subphrase but the last. The same final might >> > > also be used in compound numbers. >> > >> > Compound number: higher than the base? number+fraction? >> >> something like "forty-five" and more complicated things. I >> guess that would be higher than the base. Number + fraction >> would also qualify, I think. > >With the numbers you could simply do nothing, just put them >next to each other in some well defined order: four, five => 45 >etc. No need to add extra syllables, save that for fractions and >rare cases.
That's not really possible. The morphology requires _some_ final suffix, which can't be zero without changing the phonology as well. I guess this wasn't clear since I didn't include a link to the existing grammar. Or did you mean something like just leaving out the -ty in forty-five?
> >t.
Thanks again.