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

Herman and Carlos wrote :

De: Herman Miller <hmiller@...>
> Fecha: Domingo 11 de Octubre de 1998 22:17
>
> > If we get rid of verb roots, it should have a predicate case affix. I'm
> > still not convinced that getting rid of verb roots is a good idea. I'd
> > prefer to derive the noun "bite" from the verb "to bite".
> Well, my original idea was not getting rid of verbs roots, but giving no
> morphological distinction between verb roots and noun roots.
>
> Probably some roots will be more verbal, some other will be more nominal,
> some other will be more atributive (adjectives).
>
> The concept "bite" is an action, the predicative form will mean just that:
> sb(erg) performes the action of biting (bites) sbe(abs).
I think I know the way to settle your issue and make both of you happy (trust me, I'm a lawyer :-)

You just have to coin to affixes :

one showing that the predicate uses an Aspective root verb (A)

one showing that the predicate uses an Unaspective root noun (U)

kjak-A (to bite) >< kjak-U (a bit)

di-kjak-A : to bite >< di-kjak-U (to make a bit)

It lokks maybe odd, but it's lintiguistically well known and VERY EASY :-)

This is possible only under the sole following condition :

Let me explain, and you both may make this language a success among both all-noun
and all-verb conlangers :-)

Modifiers incorporate themselves inherently the 'case tag' :

'a bitten (leg)' incorporates already the 'pe-' patientive as 'P' :

pe-jol di-kjake > mu-kjake-P (a-jolo)
the leg is bitten > the bit-TEN leg

'a biter (dog)' incorporates the 'R-' ergative as 'R'  :

a-frar pe-jol di-kjake >  mu-kjake-R a-frar
the dog bites the leg > the bit-ING dog

The suffix -P/S is a way to make a phrase a modifier.

Nouns integrate the case even deeper, in the unaspective form :

*the bit-TEN : a-kjake-P
the bit-ER : a-kjake-R

Now let's imagine the main classes of nouns available to make verbs from (I don't
say that Carlos would derive verbs from them, it's an example) :

(H = Herman's preference ; C = Carlo's preference)

H : he bites >< the biter : C

H : he's bitten >< the bitten : C

So both H & C would have NO PROBLEM using the same words in the same language, H
thinking he's deriving noun from verb and C thinking reversely

BUT

To do that with unergative instruments and results, you need do something special :

H : to be the seat of >< the seat : C

not : to sit on >/< the seat

H : to be the fruit of >< the fruit : C

not : to bear fruit >/< the fruit : C

In other words, H must accept that the verbal root is deponent, not active when C
derives this verb from unergative instruments and results

and C must accept that unergative instruments and results derive into deponent
verbs, not ergative ones.

I'm not inventing anything here.

I'm describing the origin of unergative and antipassive forms in ergative
languages drifting towards a nominative system.

NOW, do you want to know why ?

This is because C goes from UNASPECTIVE nouns into ASPECTIVE verbs

while H goes from ASPECTIVE verb register into UNASPECTIVE noun register :

H : 'to bite' (asp) > 'the bit' (unasp)
C : 'a bit' (unasp) > 'to bite' (asp)

So you need TAG the U/A REGISTER on the ROOT to say

'hey, I'm speaking of the noun embodying the action' (U)

or

'hey, I'm speaking of the action embodied by that noun' (A)

The predicate di- alone CANNOT do that.


>
> The concept "red" is an atribute.  The nominal forms would mean "red color",
> the predicative would mean "being red" (with undergoer) or "making/hold red"
> (with agent-patient).
>
> The concept "dog" is nominal.
>
> Thus, using Pablos examples:
> > frar-  "dog"
> > kjak-  "bite, bit"
> > wiv-   "red"
> > s-     "I, me, first person"
> > qaun-  "hard, strong"
> >
> > Case markers:
> > a-   agent
> > pe-  patient
> > di-  predicate
> > ys-  undergoer
> > mu-  modifier
> >
> > Other markers:
> > -o, -i  (dummy gender markers)
> > -ul  past tense
> > -e   present tense
>
> Adding -en for present tense dinamic
>
> afraro pesi dikjakul
> : the dog bit me
>
> asi pefraro diwiven
> : I paint the dog red
>
> ysfraro diwive
> : The dog is red
>
> muwivo afraro pesi dikjakul
> : The red dog bit me
> (note gender agreement)
You may have trouble with that for a reason we can discuss

I suggest

a-fraro mu-wivo pe-si di-kjakul

NOW you don't give any example for subclauses, and that's unfortunately the main
reason why SOV is SO difficult for Europeans to speak :

'the dog who-m I painted red bites me'

Then you have :

a-si di-wiv-ul a-fraro pe-si di-kjake

Imagine you have

'the dog who-m I painted red to have fun bites me'

then you must put is like that :

'have fun-to I red_painted dog me bites'

I bet nobody will speak our language because it will be a clumsy Japanese clone
without the escapes spoken Japanese created to rid of that structure.

I suggest to do like PABLO does, i.e. : to use special pronouns in order to put
the subclause after its head.

I told PABLO about 'resumptive pronouns' used in spoken Japanese, but actually
he managed something different :

We mean : the head the subclause is like the theme of a main clausE :

ti = who/which = the latter one

ki = who/which = the former one

'ti' and 'ki' both mean 'the dog' (fraro) in the two following examples :

a-fraro pe-ti a-si di-wivul pe-si di-kjake

'the dog who-m I painted red bites me'

fraro pe-ti a-si di-wivul a-ki pe-si di-kjake

'the dog who-m I painted red, he bites me'

I suggest we can do that with phrases as well :

to = the last phrase
no = the next phrase

'I see the dog whom I painted biting me'

di-kit = to see

a-fraro pe-ti a-si di-wivul pe-si di-kjake pe-to a-si di-kite

= a-si pe-no di-kite a-fraro pe-ti a-si di-wivul pe-si di-kjake



>
> muwivo afraro pesi muqaunul dikjakul
> : The red dog bit me hard
>
My proposal :

su = adverb modifier

ko = 'which/the following predicate'


The red dog bit me hard

we have either :

a-fraro mu-wivo pe-si su-qaunul di-kjakul

or

a-fraro mu-wivo pe-si a-ko di-qaunul di-kjakul


> mufrari yskjaki diqaunul
> : The dog's bite was hard
I suggest two structures :

one subclause structure with pronouns

one modifier structure : adjectives mu- and adverbs su-

SUBCLAUSE STRUCTURE

ys-kjaki di-ti a-fraro ko di-qaunul

or

ys-kjako ti a-fraro di-qaunul

ti = resumptive pronoun 'that/the latter one' = the bite

ko = resumptive pronoun = the verb

kjak is predicate in

a-fraro pe-si di-kjake

'the dog bites me

and now kjak is head of

kjak ti a-fraro ko

'the bit which is made by the dog'

kjak di-ti a-frari ko

'the bite which is the predicate of the dog (bites)'

These are subclauses, not adjectives.

Subclauses are aspective, not adjectives and nouns

ti, ki, to, no, ko are like English what, which, that, etc

MODIFIER :

The dog's bite :

kjako mu-a-frari

from

a-frari di-kjake

'the dog bites'

-a- in mu-a-fraro is the ergative case tag a- of a-fraro embedded after mu-

>From kjako 'the bite' you can derive an ergative agent noun :
kjak-a-o : 'the/a biter'


>
> -- Carlos Th
>
>

Mathias

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17172
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/