Re: Group Conlang (was: Re: a Conlang, created by

Pablo wrote :

  [

Herman Miller wrote:

>>c) Case markers are prefixed (Carlos and Mathias both proposed
>>this, and we the others have stayed silent), so adpositions have to
>>be postfixed according to b).
>
>But my proposed system has gender/number prefixes and case suffixes. I just
>didn't have time to get around to it last night.
Sorry. But it's not "official" yet anyway. Mathias just posted a voting form
about that, so we'll decide there.

The main reason to prefix case markers is (it seems) to avoid imitating
Latin (and other IE langs).

Mathias :

I don't think I initiated that idea of putting case tag first. I think Carlos
did. But I liked it right away.

I don't know what your experience is, but I know that in SOV languages postcases
and postpositons are often blurred so it's not like in Latin where you keep

preposition+noun+case

but rather noun+case/postposition.

However, in SOV language with an easy syntax like Japanese you have both noun structure :

noun+case+noun+case :

'ie-no mae-ni'= 'house-of front-in'
 = 'in front of the house'

and verb structure :

noun+case predicate+suspensive :

'ie-wo too-tte' = 'through the house'
 = 'house-acc going_through'

It's very handy a syntax with suspensives.

I'm just concerned that other conlangers could speak it easily (strict SOV is
quite rigid, you know).

So I'd be happy to try :

case+noun case+noun :

'no-ie ni-mae' = 'of-house in-front'

case+noun predicate :

'wo-ie tootte' = 'acc-house going_throuse'

Not to ennoy Herman, only because it's in no natlang I know, and also because
cases are then like German articles (die, das, der, etc.) and that's much
easier for speakers of Latin languages and other no-case languages to pick.

I'm aware that it's a structure not found in natlangs so I don't know whether it
will work well but I read Carlos writing something on experiment (that'd
definitely be one, I tell you that much :-+

I first proposed an unambiguous embedded structure like

'ni-[ no-ie]-mae' = 'in of-house front'

which is reversable into the easier structure

'ni-mae no-ie' = 'in-front of-house'

This solves all problems with modifiers because they're either embedded into or put
right after the head.

But with unseparable tags, we're now heading towards a structure like

'no-mae ni-ie' = of-house in-front

then :

'in front of the big house'
= 'mod-big of-house in-front'

Yes, it's strange because it's brand new.
Ithink it's very workable because it's like upside-down Esperanto :-)

However, I'll abide by the decision of the majority.

[snip my made-up words]
>>qaun-  "hard, strong"
>
>Examples for some of these might be useful, especially since "hard" and
>"strong" have numerous meanings in English.
Just a general meaning, "physical (dynamic) strength, physical violence".
This is just for examples...
Anyway, if you say "hard" in English, no matter how many meanings it
has, everybody gets it, ne? ;)

>I don't especially like pe- or ys-.
Neither do I. Do you not like them or plainly hate them?

>Iin the case system I proposed that would be:
>a-frar-a s-u kjak-ul
>the-dog-agent I-patient bite-past
>
>or using -u as a perfective suffix, and putting the tense on the noun:
>
>a-frar-ul-a s-u kjak-u
>the-dog-past-agent I-patient bite-perfective
>
>a-frar-a s-ul-u kjak-u
>the-dog-agent I-past-patient bite-perfective
I see you use a prefixed marker a- which you translate
"the". Is it supposed to be a gender marker (where you proposed
it to be located), or is it really an "article"?

Bear in mind that kjak- "bite" should be marked with a
predicate case affix. Otherwise your sentence could mean
"the bit made to me by the dog", cos kjak- is both
nominal and verbal in principle. The proposed word order
(modifiers + head) suggests this.

>
>Being able to distinguish predicates from modifiers might be useful for
>word order flexibility: we could say "the-dog red-modifier" for "the red
>dog" without having it be confused for "the dog is red".
I agree. The trouble with modifiers is that you don't know what
they modify. If you say "man-agent strong-modifier disagree-predicate"
it could mean "the strong man disagrees" or "the man strongly disagrees".

[

Mathias :

unless you tag adverbs and decide an adverb could not modify a noun, only a verb.

]



This, of course, unless we use a resumptive there,
"man-agent strong-modifier, (he)-agent disagree-predicate"
"The man [who is] strong, he disagrees"

This resumptive could be a separable case marker, as proposed by
Mathias (for which I voted yes on his poll).

>>Note that if stems always end in a consonant as we decided,
>>at least a postfixed inflection will have to be added in order
>>not to produce invalid syllables such as _kjak_ (stops are not
>>allowed in syllable-final position). This should be gender for
>>nouns, and tense for verbs... at least a generic tense.
>
>or aspect.
I agree. Tho I prefer not to place tense markers on "nouns".

>>A final example:
>>
>>jol- "leg"
>>la   "in" (postp)
>
>(specifically "in" as "location of action", or can it also be used for
>"inside"?)
"Location of action", "in", "on". A general meaning so far.


--Pablo Flores ]

Mathias

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17151
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/