Conlang Random Thread

[rotting bones]

Ok, so tracking down the Kurmanji grammar I once read was easier than I thought: https://zimannas.wordpress.com/wp-conte ... mplete.pdf

On page 58 (48 by page numbering), it says:

18.2. The Simple Past (Transitive): The Ergative. The simple past tense
of transitive verbs exhibits a phenomenon called ergativity, whereby (1) the
agent is marked, (2) the patient is unmarked, and (3) the verb agrees with
the patient.

Huh.

I will now try to implement Travis B.'s suggestions.

[rotting bones]

Clearly I wasn't crazy enough last time. In my second attempt, what could a fully voiced IE language sound like with long nasal vowels? https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... rdi-mazdo/ Might have fucked up the ergativity. Not sure. Compare Kurmanji Kurdish.

Okay, now, I suggest preserving voicelessness on stops in at least a few more environments (e.g. you could derive /p t k/ from reduction of consonant clusters in a more broad fashion) along with at least some voiceless /s/'s.

Edit: and again, you could derive voiceless /s/ from reduction of consonant clusters containing sibilants.

I followed your advice. Rule Va:

Cluster resolution: 1. Nasal+voiceless stop → nasalize vowel + preserve stop (Vnt→Ṽt, Vmp→Ṽp, Vnk→Ṽk); 2. Stop+sibilant → sibilant (ks→s, ts→s); 3. Voiced obs.+voiceless stop → all voiced (vt→vd). Voiceless clusters st/sp/sk/kt/pt preserved.

I do like "night" better as Naktō. Thanks.

[Imralu]

What is the difference between /ai/ and /ay/ among the diphthongs?

If it's a contrast between /ai/ and /ay/, I'd assume that one ends close to [ i] and one ends close to [y], but the diphthongs aren't listed in a way that suggests it's IPA (no slashes or square brackets), so we can assume that the diphthongs are listed by their orthography rather than their value.

What is the difference between /ai/ and /ay/ among the diphthongs?

I was thinking of adding a glide rule that's currently not listed. There would be no change in orthography, I think.

Are you using "y" to indicate /j/? I see "y" listed among the consonants, so I'd assume so. If "ay" indicates /a/ followed by /j/ and it contrasts with an /ai/ diphthong, I wouldn't call the "ay" sequence a diphthong but simply a vowel plus consonant sequence. We'd need more details though.

[Richard W]

On page 58 (48 by page numbering), it says:

18.2. The Simple Past (Transitive): The Ergative. The simple past tense
of transitive verbs exhibits a phenomenon called ergativity, whereby (1) the
agent is marked, (2) the patient is unmarked, and (3) the verb agrees with
the patient.

Huh.

Why 'huh'? It seems like you average Indo-Iranian, where the active past tense of transitive verbs has been replaced by the passive past tense.

[Travis B.]

On page 58 (48 by page numbering), it says:

18.2. The Simple Past (Transitive): The Ergative. The simple past tense
of transitive verbs exhibits a phenomenon called ergativity, whereby (1) the
agent is marked, (2) the patient is unmarked, and (3) the verb agrees with
the patient.

Huh.

Why 'huh'? It seems like you average Indo-Iranian, where the active past tense of transitive verbs has been replaced by the passive past tense.

I suspect that many people who aren't familiar with the particulars of Indo-Iranian don't quite associate (split) ergativity with IE.

[Richard W]

Why 'huh'? It seems like your average Indo-Iranian, where the active past tense of transitive verbs has been replaced by the passive past tense.

I suspect that many people who aren't familiar with the particulars of Indo-Iranian don't quite associate (split) ergativity with IE.

Perhaps, but as Old Bengali has this construction and Hindi, which Rotting Bones studied formally for 3 years, has developed it, I would have expected him to already be aware of it. I am surprised the construction doesn't make its way from Classical Sanskrit to Modern Bengali just as Latin constructions sometimes surface in Modern English.

[bradrn]

Why 'huh'? It seems like your average Indo-Iranian, where the active past tense of transitive verbs has been replaced by the passive past tense.

I suspect that many people who aren't familiar with the particulars of Indo-Iranian don't quite associate (split) ergativity with IE.

Perhaps, but as Old Bengali has this construction and Hindi, which Rotting Bones studied formally for 3 years, has developed it, I would have expected him to already be aware of it. I am surprised the construction doesn't make its way from Classical Sanskrit to Modern Bengali just as Latin constructions sometimes surface in Modern English.

Does Classical Sanskrit have ergativity, though? I thought it only developed in the descendants.

(Agreed that I would have expected him to know this, though.)

[rotting bones]

What is the difference between /ai/ and /ay/ among the diphthongs?

If it's a contrast between /ai/ and /ay/, I'd assume that one ends close to [ i] and one ends close to [y], but the diphthongs aren't listed in a way that suggests it's IPA (no slashes or square brackets), so we can assume that the diphthongs are listed by their orthography rather than their value.

What is the difference between /ai/ and /ay/ among the diphthongs?

I was thinking of adding a glide rule that's currently not listed. There would be no change in orthography, I think.

Are you using "y" to indicate /j/? I see "y" listed among the consonants, so I'd assume so. If "ay" indicates /a/ followed by /j/ and it contrasts with an /ai/ diphthong, I wouldn't call the "ay" sequence a diphthong but simply a vowel plus consonant sequence. We'd need more details though.

Thanks for commenting on the language itself. Yes, "y" represented /j/.

I confused myself before, but now I have corrected it. I can't see any more serious issues with the draft other than incompleteness.

[rotting bones]

Why 'huh'? It seems like you average Indo-Iranian, where the active past tense of transitive verbs has been replaced by the passive past tense.

I'm aware that Hindustani and Kurdish are split-ergative, whereas Farsi and Bengali are not. I was surprised by the cleanness of the system in Kurdish. I had forgotten the details from when I read it before. I thought there would be more conditions attached like in Zaza: https://zimannas.wordpress.com/wp-conte ... ili-v1.pdf It's not as simple as it looks for Kurdish in Hindi either.

Maithili, Oriya and Assamese are all split-ergative while Bhojpuri isn't IIRC. This is weird because my impression is that Bengalis regard Bhojpuris as Hindustanis, but not the Oriya or the Assamese. Brajabuli was an educated prestige language in Bengal centuries ago, and it was based on Maithili. Even Rabindranath, the most Bengali person of all time, wrote some things in Brajabuli. I think Bhojpuris are Hindustani because they use Hindi as a prestige language.

Perhaps, but as Old Bengali has this construction and Hindi, which Rotting Bones studied formally for 3 years, has developed it, I would have expected him to already be aware of it. I am surprised the construction doesn't make its way from Classical Sanskrit to Modern Bengali just as Latin constructions sometimes surface in Modern English.

They never taught us the concept of ergativity. They started by throwing sentences at us and expected us to understand them, which we did for the most part because of media exposure and because the texts were elementary. For grammar, they made us memorize forms. There was no analysis of what any of it meant. Then they made us write sentences of our own. If we made a mistake, they cut marks. I learned the concept of ergativity online.

[rotting bones]

I don't know the etymology of Bhoj-pur-i. It sure sounds like "land of feasting (adjective)". Bhojpuris are known in Kolkata for having curly moustaches.

Edit: Feastlander?

PS. The holy city of Varanasi is technically in the Bhojpuri linguistic area. My understanding is that it's a cosmopolitan, largely Hindi-speaking city with enclaves of multiple ethnicities. I've never been there. I'm not sure I'm allowed to enter temples.

[rotting bones]

I can't believe I somehow missed this language: https://fiatlingua.org/wp-content/uploa ... 08A-00.pdf I love the colored text on page 14 of the pdf (13 of the text).

[rotting bones]

It's interesting that native Hindi speakers had a much tougher time learning Bengali. (Third language was compulsory, and there was no option to choose which language it was going to be.) They couldn't pronounce the words. They couldn't remember the names of the letters. The left the exam hall crying. This was not the case for Bengali speakers. We had to remember the gender of every Hindi noun. While Bengali speakers were reading paragraph-length texts in Hindi, Hindi speakers were spending hours trying to understand short Bengali sentences without breaking into tears.

[WeepingElf]

I can't believe I somehow missed this language: https://fiatlingua.org/wp-content/uploa ... 08A-00.pdf I love the colored text on page 14 of the pdf (13 of the text).

Thank you for digging that out! That is really good stuff I had missed, too.

[Travis B.]

It's interesting that native Hindi speakers had a much tougher time learning Bengali. (Third language was compulsory, and there was no option to choose which language it was going to be.) They couldn't pronounce the words. They couldn't remember the names of the letters. The left the exam hall crying. This was not the case for Bengali speakers. We had to remember the gender of every Hindi noun. While Bengali speakers were reading paragraph-length texts in Hindi, Hindi speakers were spending hours trying to understand short Bengali sentences without breaking into tears.

I presume Bengali-speakers have more passive exposure to Hindi than Hindi-speakers have to Bengali?

[rotting bones]

I presume Bengali-speakers have more passive exposure to Hindi than Hindi-speakers have to Bengali?

Probably. Even so, in the final exam, we were writing essays in Hindi. Meanwhile, their questions were like: What's this letter called? Translate the following sentence: ...

Those were actual final exam questions. They were freaking the fuck out.

[Richard W]

Does Classical Sanskrit have ergativity, though? I thought it only developed in the descendants.

How does one decide if it's split ergativity? Classical Sanskrit definitely uses this construction, with agent in the instrumental and patient in the nominative. The active past tenses remained available for those who were confident in their conjugation. The Romance perfect started from something similar, with the dative instead of the instrumental, but in this case the dative was converted to nominative plus a form of habeō.

I've come across the construction in Pali, with the word order agent-patient-participle, and I've seen others translate it to the active in English. The Pali, though, may have the sense of a perfect. Pali normally uses the active aorist as its past tense; there are fragments of a middle aorist and ghosts of the active perfect. 'Native' Pali grammar has the concepts of agent and patient rather than subject and object, It may be relevant that in Pali the first three cases are nominative, accusative and instrumental, the three that between them cover the agent and patient (or causer, doer and patient, when one gets onto the complexities of causal verbs.

[bradrn]

Does Classical Sanskrit have ergativity, though? I thought it only developed in the descendants.

How does one decide if it's split ergativity? Classical Sanskrit definitely uses this construction, with agent in the instrumental and patient in the nominative. The active past tenses remained available for those who were confident in their conjugation. The Romance perfect started from something similar, with the dative instead of the instrumental, but in this case the dative was converted to nominative plus a form of habeō.

I guess it’s always difficult to know in the middle of a linguistic change. Synchronically, Māori is currently in a similar state, with the passive more common but the active still occurring.

[Qwynegold]

I've begun working on a conlang again that I started long ago and never got very far with. The old grammar sketch is mostly a list of features without much explanations. When it comes to tense and aspect, the language apparently only has this: present, perfect, imperfect. They are all marked, so I assume a zero-marked verb is an infinitive.
The perfect is of course the "has done" or "had done" conjugation. It marks that an action had been done before some point in time.
But can someone help me understand what the imperfect is? When I was a kid it just meant past tense for the Swedish language, but this term is no longer in use. And I don't think that's what I've intended here either. Wikipedia says this:

The imperfect (abbreviated imperf) is a verb form that combines past tense (reference to a past time) and imperfective aspect (reference to a continuing or repeated event or state).

Is this true? Is it the same as a past imperfective? However, I feel like "a continuing or repeated event" isn't quite a correct definition of an imperfective. Is this actually the same as a past continuous/progressive? The rest of the Wikipedia article seems to say so.

[jal]

How does one decide if it's split ergativity?

If sometimes an ergative construction is used, and sometimes an accusative construction, it's split no? One doesn't "decide", one checks the grammar 🤷.


JAL

[jal]

Is it the same as a past imperfective? However, I feel like "a continuing or repeated event" isn't quite a correct definition of an imperfective. Is this actually the same as a past continuous/progressive?

To my knowledge, "imperfect" is used for languages that view it as more tense-y, while "(past) imperfective" is used for languages that have an imperfective aspect fully distinct from tense.

The perfective aspect and imperfective aspect, like other aspects, tell something about how an action or event is laid out in time: the use of the perfective denotes an action as a whole, with focus on the fact it's completed or the effect it has/had, while the imperfective focusses on the action's internal lay-out or the fact that it is or was ongoing. Like with many grammatical terms, especially those for aspect and mood, there's a lot of overlap, and what exactly a term denotes depends on the language. I don't think there's many languages that have indepently and/or opposing "imperfective" and "continuous" or "progressive" aspects, though a continuous or progressive aspect could exists apart from a more general imperfective (I'm not sure whether any natlang has this though). Also note that "imperfective aspects" is a category, there's not just "the" imperfective, though a language may only have a single imperfective as its sole imperfective aspect.

So, tl;dr I wouldn't worry to much about grammatical labels inter-linguistically, and pick labels for a conlang based on what you think is close enough, or usable enough, to how a label is used in other (nat)languages.


JAL