Random Conlang Grammar Ideas Thread

[TomHChappell]

Didn’t there used to be a thread like this?
This thread is for people to post ideas about the grammar, or morphology, or syntax, or morphosyntax, of possible conlangs.
They may not have yet named or completed the conlang. Or they may not yet have decided which conlang to use the idea(s) in.

[TomHChappell]

Using Case-Endings and Postpositions and Prepositions to Mark Case-Like Stuff
Imagine a language with a few case-endings and a few postpositions and a few prepositions.
Imagine the following are true:
* any noun-phrase can be used with no case-ending and no postposition and no preposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any case-ending and no postposition and no preposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any postposition and no case-ending and no preposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any preposition and no case-ending and no postposition.

Assume all of those marking possibilities indicate different syntactic roles and/or different semantic roles; ad-verbal or ad-nominal.

More assumptions:
* any noun-phrase can be used with any case-ending and nearly any postposition and no preposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any case-ending and nearly any preposition and no postposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any postposition and nearly any case-ending and no preposition.
* any NP can be used with any postposition and nearly any preposition and no case-ending.
* any NP can be used with any preposition and nearly any case-ending and no postposition.
* any NP can be used with any preposition and nearly any postposition and no case-ending.

Assume all of the marking possibilities mentioned so far indicate either different syntactic roles or different semantic roles, whether ad-verbal or ad-nominal.

One more assumption:
* For any case-ending and any postposition and any preposition, if that case-ending can be used with each of the adpositions separately, and those adpositions can be used together with no case-ending, then any NP can be used with that case-ending and that postposition and that preposition all together at once.

And, with different semantic or syntactic implications than any other of the markings mentioned so far.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .

I’m about to get ready to figure out how many different marking combinations there are.

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If for each postposition there is one and only one case-ending with which it is incompatible (ie they can’t be used together), then there aren’t more postpositions than case-endings.
If for each preposition there is one and only one case-ending it is incompatible with, there aren’t more prepositions than case-endings.
If for each case-ending there’s one and only one postposition it’s incompatible with, there aren’t more case-endings than postpositions.
If for each case-ending there’s exactly one preposition it’s incompatible with, there aren’t more case-endings than prepositions.
If for each preposition there’s just one postposition it can’t be used with, there aren’t more prepositions than postpositions.
If for every postposition there’s just one preposition it can’t be used with, there aren’t more postpositions than prepositions.

I’m going to assume all six of the above hypotheses. That will mean the number of case-endings and the number of postpositions and the number of prepositions are all equal. And that will make the following algebra a lot simpler.

. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

Let n be the number of case-endings and the number of postpositions and the number of prepositions.
Then, there are
1 way to “mark” a NP with no case-ending and no adposition,
n ways to mark a NP with a case-marking but no adposition,
n ways to mark a NP with a postposition but no case-ending and no preposition,
n ways to mark a NP with a preposition but no case-ending and no postposition,
n(n-1) ways to mark a NP with a case-ending and a postposition but no preposition,
n(n-1) ways to mark a NP with a case-ending and a preposition but no postposition,
n(n-1) ways to mark a NP with a postposition and a preposition but no case-ending.

So far that’s 1+3n+3n(n-1) = 1 + 3n + 3(n^2) - 3n = 1 + 3(n^2) ways to mark a NP with none ore one or two, but not all three, of a case-ending and/or a postposition and/or a preposition.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many marking-combinations there are, when all three types — a case-ending, a postposition, and a preposition — are used, depends on how the incompatibilities line up with each other.
I’m going to calculate under two assumptions, which I’m guessing are the extremes. I doubt they’re the only possibilities unless n is small.

—————

First; assume:
* if a case-ending is incompatible with both a postposition and a preposition, then that postposition and that preposition are incompatible with each other.
* if a postposition is incompatible with both a case-ending and a preposition, then that case-ending and that preposition are incompatible with each other.
* if a preposition is incompatible with both a case-ending and a postposition, then that case-ending and that postposition are incompatible with each other.

If we assume those, then the number of ways to mark a noun-phrase with all three of a case-ending and a postposition and a preposition, each compatible with each of the others, is n(n-1)(n-2) = (n^3) - 3(n^2) + 2n.
So the total number of grammatical ways to mark up a NP in this language is
(n^3) - 3(n^2) + 2n + 3(n^2) + 1 = (n^3) + 2n + 1

If n is 0 this is 1. Boring.
If n is 1 this is 4, because you can’t use the case-ending with either adposition, and you can’t use both adpositions together. Still kinda boring.
If n is 2 this is 13. Now maybe we’re getting somewhere.
If n is 3 this is 34. That is at least as many as in Stanley Starosta’s “The Case for Lexicase”, unless my memory is completely misleading me, which gets ever likelier year by year.
If n is 4 this is 73. Four is my favorite value for n.
If n is 5 this is 136. Nearly as many as Tsez’s cases.
If n is 6 this is 229. More than Tsez has cases. I think that’s enough and I’m not going for bigger n under this assumption.

—————

The other assumption I plan to check out, about how the incompatibilities line up with each other, is the following threefold statement:
If a case-ending is incompatible with each of a postposition and a preposition, then that postposition and that preposition can be used together with any other case-ending, and also with no case-ending.
If a postposition is incompatible with each of a case-ending and a preposition, then that case-ending and that preposition can be used together with any other postposition, and also with no postposition.
If a preposition is incompatible with each of a case-ending and a postposition, then that case-ending and that postpositions can be used together with any other preposition, and also with no preposition.

Under this assumption, the number of grammatical ways this language has to markup case-wise and adposition-wise a NP with each of a case-ending and a postposition and a preposition all together at once, is
n(((n-1)^2) - 2) = n((n^2) - 2n + 1 - 2) = n((n^2) - 2n - 1) = (n^3) -2(n^2) - n .

So the total number of grammatical marking possibilities is
(n^3) - 2(n^2) - n + 3(n^2) + 1 = (n^3) + (n^2) - n + 1.

(This will usually exceed (n^3) + 2n + 1, as long as n-1 > 2.)

So for each value of n from 0 to 6, how many is (n^3) + (n^2) - n + 1 ?
If n is 0, this is 1. Of course. Boring.
If n is 1, this is 2. That doesn’t make sense. I don’t think all my other assumptions are consistent together with n=2.
If n is 2, this is 11. Not as many, yet, as the previous assumption.
If n is 3, this is 34. Same number as the previous assumption.
If n is 4, this is 77. A few more than under the previous assumption.
If n is 5, this is 146. Several more than the previous assumption.
If n is 6, this is 247. 28 more than under the previous assumption.

—————

So what does anyone think?

[Xwtek]

Using Case-Endings and Postpositions and Prepositions to Mark Case-Like Stuff
Imagine a language with a few case-endings and a few postpositions and a few prepositions.
Imagine the following are true:
* any noun-phrase can be used with no case-ending and no postposition and no preposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any case-ending and no postposition and no preposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any postposition and no case-ending and no preposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any preposition and no case-ending and no postposition.

Assume all of those marking possibilities indicate different syntactic roles and/or different semantic roles; ad-verbal or ad-nominal.

More assumptions:
* any noun-phrase can be used with any case-ending and nearly any postposition and no preposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any case-ending and nearly any preposition and no postposition.
* any noun-phrase can be used with any postposition and nearly any case-ending and no preposition.
* any NP can be used with any postposition and nearly any preposition and no case-ending.
* any NP can be used with any preposition and nearly any case-ending and no postposition.
* any NP can be used with any preposition and nearly any postposition and no case-ending.

Assume all of the marking possibilities mentioned so far indicate either different syntactic roles or different semantic roles, whether ad-verbal or ad-nominal.

One more assumption:
* For any case-ending and any postposition and any preposition, if that case-ending can be used with each of the adpositions separately, and those adpositions can be used together with no case-ending, then any NP can be used with that case-ending and that postposition and that preposition all together at once.

And, with different semantic or syntactic implications than any other of the markings mentioned so far.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .

I’m about to get ready to figure out how many different marking combinations there are.

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If for each postposition there is one and only one case-ending with which it is incompatible (ie they can’t be used together), then there aren’t more postpositions than case-endings.
If for each preposition there is one and only one case-ending it is incompatible with, there aren’t more prepositions than case-endings.
If for each case-ending there’s one and only one postposition it’s incompatible with, there aren’t more case-endings than postpositions.
If for each case-ending there’s exactly one preposition it’s incompatible with, there aren’t more case-endings than prepositions.
If for each preposition there’s just one postposition it can’t be used with, there aren’t more prepositions than postpositions.
If for every postposition there’s just one preposition it can’t be used with, there aren’t more postpositions than prepositions.

I’m going to assume all six of the above hypotheses. That will mean the number of case-endings and the number of postpositions and the number of prepositions are all equal. And that will make the following algebra a lot simpler.

. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

Let n be the number of case-endings and the number of postpositions and the number of prepositions.
Then, there are
1 way to “mark” a NP with no case-ending and no adposition,
n ways to mark a NP with a case-marking but no adposition,
n ways to mark a NP with a postposition but no case-ending and no preposition,
n ways to mark a NP with a preposition but no case-ending and no postposition,
n(n-1) ways to mark a NP with a case-ending and a postposition but no preposition,
n(n-1) ways to mark a NP with a case-ending and a preposition but no postposition,
n(n-1) ways to mark a NP with a postposition and a preposition but no case-ending.

So far that’s 1+3n+3n(n-1) = 1 + 3n + 3(n^2) - 3n = 1 + 3(n^2) ways to mark a NP with none ore one or two, but not all three, of a case-ending and/or a postposition and/or a preposition.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many marking-combinations there are, when all three types — a case-ending, a postposition, and a preposition — are used, depends on how the incompatibilities line up with each other.
I’m going to calculate under two assumptions, which I’m guessing are the extremes. I doubt they’re the only possibilities unless n is small.

—————

First; assume:
* if a case-ending is incompatible with both a postposition and a preposition, then that postposition and that preposition are incompatible with each other.
* if a postposition is incompatible with both a case-ending and a preposition, then that case-ending and that preposition are incompatible with each other.
* if a preposition is incompatible with both a case-ending and a postposition, then that case-ending and that postposition are incompatible with each other.

If we assume those, then the number of ways to mark a noun-phrase with all three of a case-ending and a postposition and a preposition, each compatible with each of the others, is n(n-1)(n-2) = (n^3) - 3(n^2) + 2n.
So the total number of grammatical ways to mark up a NP in this language is
(n^3) - 3(n^2) + 2n + 3(n^2) + 1 = (n^3) + 2n + 1

If n is 0 this is 1. Boring.
If n is 1 this is 4, because you can’t use the case-ending with either adposition, and you can’t use both adpositions together. Still kinda boring.
If n is 2 this is 13. Now maybe we’re getting somewhere.
If n is 3 this is 34. That is at least as many as in Stanley Starosta’s “The Case for Lexicase”, unless my memory is completely misleading me, which gets ever likelier year by year.
If n is 4 this is 73. Four is my favorite value for n.
If n is 5 this is 136. Nearly as many as Tsez’s cases.
If n is 6 this is 229. More than Tsez has cases. I think that’s enough and I’m not going for bigger n under this assumption.

—————

The other assumption I plan to check out, about how the incompatibilities line up with each other, is the following threefold statement:
If a case-ending is incompatible with each of a postposition and a preposition, then that postposition and that preposition can be used together with any other case-ending, and also with no case-ending.
If a postposition is incompatible with each of a case-ending and a preposition, then that case-ending and that preposition can be used together with any other postposition, and also with no postposition.
If a preposition is incompatible with each of a case-ending and a postposition, then that case-ending and that postpositions can be used together with any other preposition, and also with no preposition.

Under this assumption, the number of grammatical ways this language has to markup case-wise and adposition-wise a NP with each of a case-ending and a postposition and a preposition all together at once, is
n(((n-1)^2) - 2) = n((n^2) - 2n + 1 - 2) = n((n^2) - 2n - 1) = (n^3) -2(n^2) - n .

So the total number of grammatical marking possibilities is
(n^3) - 2(n^2) - n + 3(n^2) + 1 = (n^3) + (n^2) - n + 1.

(This will usually exceed (n^3) + 2n + 1, as long as n-1 > 2.)

So for each value of n from 0 to 6, how many is (n^3) + (n^2) - n + 1 ?
If n is 0, this is 1. Of course. Boring.
If n is 1, this is 2. That doesn’t make sense. I don’t think all my other assumptions are consistent together with n=2.
If n is 2, this is 11. Not as many, yet, as the previous assumption.
If n is 3, this is 34. Same number as the previous assumption.
If n is 4, this is 77. A few more than under the previous assumption.
If n is 5, this is 146. Several more than the previous assumption.
If n is 6, this is 247. 28 more than under the previous assumption.

—————

So what does anyone think?

I think if any case (or lack thereof) can be paired be preposition and/or postposition (or lack thereof), this is rather unrealistic, and also still hard to make nonarbitrarily even if you don't actually aim for realism.

In many languages with a relational noun, (Indonesia, Mandarin, Japanese), they're most likely have preposition/postposition/case, too.

	Ke	Dari	Di
Atas	Saya naik ke atas pohon	Kera itu jatuh dari atas pohon	Anton duduk di atas loteng
Bawah	Saya turun ke bawah jurang	Penambang itu sudah kembali dari bawah bumi	Anton bersembuny di bawah meja

However, Indonesia also has "pada", "kepada", "daripada", "untuk", etc that doesn't accept relational noun.
In chinese, the relational noun is put after the noun, creating something like circumposition.

[Xwtek]

Anyone making a language with a relative pronoun? I used to make one, but I abandoned it. The diachronic is as follows.

Initially, the language has a symmetric voice and nominative-accusative alignment. Pronoun is obligatory for relative clause, except if the subject is the thing that is relativized.

1SG.NOM book-SG.ACC REL be.red buy-ACT (I buy the red book)
man-SG.ACC REL K'ijama-SG.NOM 3SG.ACC poison.ACT still be.alive (The man whom Kijama poisons is still alive)
1SG.NOM book-SG.ACC REL 3SG.GEN cover be.red buy-ACT (I buy the book whose cover is red)
man-SG.ACC REL K'ijama-SG.NOM 3SG.GEN wife-SG.ACC poison.ACT be.depressed (The man whose wife K'ijama poisons is depressed)
1SG.NOM box-SG.ACC REL book 3SG.LOC lie buy-ACT (I buy the box that contains book (lit. I buy the box where book lies))

Later, the relativized thing must be put on the front (note that the word order is strict, unlike Latin, so a clause with relativized accusative must be passivized):

1SG.NOM book-SG.ACC REL be.red buy-ACT (I buy the red book)
man-SG.ACC REL K'ijama-SG.ACC poison.PASS still be.alive (The man whom Kijama poisons is still alive)
1SG.NOM book-SG.ACC REL 3SG.GEN cover be.red buy-ACT (I buy the book whose cover is red)
man-SG.ACC REL 3SG.GEN wife-SG.NOM K'ijama-SG.ACC poison.PASS be.depressed (The man whose wife K'ijama poisons is depressed)
1SG.NOM box-SG.ACC REL 3SG.LOC book lie buy-ACT (I buy the box that contains book (lit. I buy the box where book lies))

Then the relative particle and the pronoun is fused.

1SG.NOM book-SG.ACC REL be.red buy-ACT (I buy the red book)
man-SG.ACC REL K'ijama-SG.ACC poison.PASS still be.alive (The man whom Kijama poisons is still alive)
1SG.NOM book-SG.ACC REL-GEN cover be.red buy-ACT (I buy the book whose cover is red)
man-SG.ACC REL-GEN wife-SG.NOM K'ijama-SG.ACC poison.PASS be.depressed (The man whose wife K'ijama poisons is depressed)
1SG.NOM box-SG.ACC REL-LOC book lie buy-ACT (I buy the box that contains book (lit. I buy the box where book lies))

The reason I used relative pronoun is that in that language, I don't have applicative construction. In my new language, this diachronic is broken because you're supposed to use applicative voice to relativize indirect object.

[mèþru]

Didn’t there used to be a thread like this?
This thread is for people to post ideas about the grammar, or morphology, or syntax, or morphosyntax, of possible conlangs.
They may not have yet named or completed the conlang. Or they may not yet have decided which conlang to use the idea(s) in.

We already have such a thread.

[Xwtek]

Didn’t there used to be a thread like this?
This thread is for people to post ideas about the grammar, or morphology, or syntax, or morphosyntax, of possible conlangs.
They may not have yet named or completed the conlang. Or they may not yet have decided which conlang to use the idea(s) in.

We already have such a thread.

Uh, that's more like a place to ask general question.

[KathTheDragon]

It's the Conlang Random Thread. There's nothing specific about asking questions there, it isn't the Conlang Random Questions Thread, after all.

[mèþru]

Not that I'm trying to say what is right or wrong here, but it is funny you guys are telling me, the person who started the Conlang Random thread, what is the intention of said thread

[TurkeySloth]

Not that I'm trying to say what is right or wrong here, but it is funny you guys are telling me, the person who started the Conlang Random thread, what is the intention of said thread

mèþru's correct, here. They'd know the purpose of their thread better than anyone else. They and I, actually, think somewhat alike as I'd have elided "questions" form the thread's name as well.

[Xwtek]

Okay, probably not for question after all, but I do think we need a separate thread for discussing conlang ideas.

[TomHChappell]

I’d be fine with having this thread merged with that one.
But it’s true I couldn’t tell from that topic title that this post should go there.
It (the topic title) looks as though someone wanted one thread to contain the entire subforum .
Does the opening post clear it up?

[Kuchigakatai]

I’d be fine with having this thread merged with that one.
But it’s true I couldn’t tell from that topic title that this post should go there.
It (the topic title) looks as though someone wanted one thread to contain the entire subforum .
Does the opening post clear it up?

Yes, methru's thread is for any random "small" thing about conlanging and conlangs (questions, ideas, links to papers, etc.), as can be seen in the title and opening post and also historically.

That kind of thread that contains a subforum is often useful because some people find psychological relief in not making a new thread, feeling more comfortable in making a humble post, or otherwise do genuinely think small things should go inside a long random thread like that. I have certainly been told off in other forums for making a thread for every question, even though making new threads makes things easier to find with the Search function afterwards.

I say it'd be useful to keep this thread for conlang ideas separate.



Here's an idea: a future Latin American Spanish where subject agreement is marked with the reflexive pronouns of current Spanish, along with decayed suffixes so that you end up with circumfixes.

Current Spanish has many verbs, especially intransitive ones, that can be turned more colloquial by adding a reflexive pronoun. The verb in caminé diez kilómetros 'I walked 10 km' can be made more colloquial, adding a notion of extra effort, by changing the verb to me caminé with the reflexive 1st person pronoun me attached. Murió 'he died' can also become se murió, becoming more colloquial and adding a notion of surprise or suddenness.

This could be extended in future Spanish to all verbs:

canto > me canto > ncantu [ˈŋkantu]
cantas > te cantas > tacant [təˈkant]
cantás > te cantás > tacntah [təknˈtah]
canta > se canta > scant [skant]
cantamos > nos cantamos > uhcntamu [uhknˈtamu]
cantan > se cantan > scantn [skantn]
(Note: the verb cntai 'to sing' would have a full-grade stem -cant- and a zero-grade stem -cnt-.)

Meanwhile, current bound direct and indirect pronouns would be lost, replaced by current PP-reinforced datives in animates (first group below) and by demonstratives in inanimates (second group below).

me llama > se-llama a-mí > siam ami [ˈsjam əmi]
te llamo > me-llamo a-ti > miamu ati [ˈmjamw‿əti]
lo llamo > me-llamo a-él > miamu ei [ˈmjamu ei]
la llamo > me-llamo a-ella > miamu ei [ˈmjamu ei]
nos llama > se-llama a-nosotros > siam anotu [ˈsjam ənotu]
los llamo > me-llamo a-ellos > miamu esh [ˈmjamu eʃ]
las llamo > me-llamo a-ellas > miamu esh [ˈmjamu eʃ]

lo toca > se-toca el-eso > stoa wesu [ˈsto.ə wesu]
la toca > se-toca la-esa > stoa es [ˈsto.ə es]
los toca > se-toca los-esos > stoa hesu [ˈsto.ə hesu]
las toca > se-toca las-esas > stoa hes [ˈsto.ə hes]
(Note: the first line, "lo toca", refers to a specific masculine singular. Current Spanish "lo toca" with a neuter collective would be replaced by se-toca todo > stoa tou [ˈsto.ə tou].)

[Pabappa]

I'd like to see a taxonomic language along the lines of my own Late Andanese but more pure. It would probably work best if it were a standalone language, free from a conworld, because it would be highly unnatural for any language not of this type to evolve into one that is.

The basic idea is that each word you say limits your choices of words later in the sentence. so for example if your subject is higiya "frog", your verb can't be *lahaa "cook", because frogs can't cook. Yes there is poetry and metaphor, but the poetry is ungrammatical and commonly leads to multiple simultaneous interpretations of the sentence.

Frogs are in noun class 14, and therefore can only use verbs that appear in noun class 14. There are 30 noun classes, and therefore 30 sets of verbs.

Humans are in noun class 17, which has by far the largest inventory of verbs. But this is an SOV language, and humans' verbs are also semantically limited by the choice of object, unlike the other classes. So, for example, if your object is tuya "pineapple", your verb can be a "eat" or lahaa "cook", but it cannot be *luli "ride on", because pineapples can't walk.
____________
Why don't I just do this myself? Well, maybe someday I will, but I only work on in-world languages, and they are all related, so deriving something like this from a parent language that had a traditional grammar would be very difficult. I'm using the system in Late Andanese, and in fact, that's where all these words are taken from, but .... it's only a very small component of the grammar, and a member of any noun class can use a verb from a different noun class just by sticking the appropriate classifier before the verb. Thus in Late Andanese one could say higiya hituya higiluli "the frog rides the pineapple", violating two principles at once by just adding the /gi-/ prefix before the verb. (The repetition of the hi- is for an unrelated purpose.)

[TomHChappell]

Pabappa, the whole point of Object-Oriented Programming, is that the meaning of a polysemous verb, is controlled better by the nature of its object, than by the nature of its agent.
Does that affect your thinking about what you’re trying to do?

[Pedant]

I'd like to see a taxonomic language along the lines of my own Late Andanese but more pure. It would probably work best if it were a standalone language, free from a conworld, because it would be highly unnatural for any language not of this type to evolve into one that is.

The basic idea is that each word you say limits your choices of words later in the sentence. so for example if your subject is higiya "frog", your verb can't be *lahaa "cook", because frogs can't cook. Yes there is poetry and metaphor, but the poetry is ungrammatical and commonly leads to multiple simultaneous interpretations of the sentence.

Frogs are in noun class 14, and therefore can only use verbs that appear in noun class 14. There are 30 noun classes, and therefore 30 sets of verbs.

Humans are in noun class 17, which has by far the largest inventory of verbs. But this is an SOV language, and humans' verbs are also semantically limited by the choice of object, unlike the other classes. So, for example, if your object is tuya "pineapple", your verb can be a "eat" or lahaa "cook", but it cannot be *luli "ride on", because pineapples can't walk.
____________
Why don't I just do this myself? Well, maybe someday I will, but I only work on in-world languages, and they are all related, so deriving something like this from a parent language that had a traditional grammar would be very difficult. I'm using the system in Late Andanese, and in fact, that's where all these words are taken from, but .... it's only a very small component of the grammar, and a member of any noun class can use a verb from a different noun class just by sticking the appropriate classifier before the verb. Thus in Late Andanese one could say higiya hituya higiluli "the frog rides the pineapple", violating two principles at once by just adding the /gi-/ prefix before the verb. (The repetition of the hi- is for an unrelated purpose.)

What an excellent idea, Pabappa! You’re quite right, of course, that it’s unlikely for such a language to develop from a traditional grammar under normal circumstances. But I wonder--with your permission, of course--whether I might try develop something of the sort from an avoidance register?

[k1234567890y]

An isolating language where there are no adpositions, and there are no inflectional affixes and productive derivational affixes either, all meanings of adpositions are conveyed by the use of verbs and nouns(and the language has serial verb construction), and most conjunctions are from content words(i.e. conjunctional "when" is from the word meaning "time" or the phrase "be at the time") too, and compounding and complete reduplication are used for derivations.

Besides there are no singular-plural distinction even in personal pronouns, there are no way distinguishing the subject from the direct object except for the word order, and there are no definite articles, and the basic word order is SOV and strongly left-branching.

For possessive phrases, the language uses juxtaposition of the uninflected possessor and possessed nominals, with the 3rd pronoun being inserted between the possessor and the possessed.

[TomHChappell]

The least complementary true thing I can say about these recent posts is, they are very entertaining and thought-provoking!

[Xwtek]

Pabappa, the whole point of Object-Oriented Programming, is that the meaning of a polysemous verb, is controlled better by the nature of its object, than by the nature of its agent.
Does that affect your thinking about what you’re trying to do?

As a programmer-in-training, this is false. In OOP, the actor provides the possible actions. And the action determines what objects to work with. You may probably be confused because object in linguistic is different than object in OOP. In OOP, the sentence "The bear eats the fish", both the bear and the fish is an object.

[Pabappa]

I'd like to see a taxonomic language along the lines of my own Late Andanese but more pure. It would probably work best if it were a standalone language, free from a conworld, because it would be highly unnatural for any language not of this type to evolve into one that is.

What an excellent idea, Pabappa! You’re quite right, of course, that it’s unlikely for such a language to develop from a traditional grammar under normal circumstances. But I wonder--with your permission, of course--whether I might try develop something of the sort from an avoidance register?

Thank you. Yes, this and any other ideas I post in this thread are for everyone to use, and I'd like to see where you go with it too.
__________
Im not a programmer so Im not sure I wholly understand the programming analogy, but .... I think it's true that verbs tie more closely to patients than to agents in natlangs, but working on Andanese it seemed more natural for me to apply the patient-based limitation to human agents only, and let animals apply their much more limited class of verbs to all patients. But someone who makes a pure form of this language may have a different plan because they'll run into obstacles that in Andanese can easily be bypassed by just adding an extra syllable before the verb.

[Salmoneus]

I'd like to see a taxonomic language along the lines of my own Late Andanese but more pure. It would probably work best if it were a standalone language, free from a conworld, because it would be highly unnatural for any language not of this type to evolve into one that is.

What an excellent idea, Pabappa! You’re quite right, of course, that it’s unlikely for such a language to develop from a traditional grammar under normal circumstances.

Just to point out: this does happen in natural languages. I mean, obviously not in as regimented a way, with exactly 30 classes and each noun class perfectly matching each verb class, but the principle does occur.

That is, there are languages in which the grammaticality of the verb depends on the class of the subject, and attempting to put a subject of a certain class with a verbal meaning normally expressed through a verb of the 'wrong' class has to be done either through periphrasis or through suppletion.

My conlang, Rawàng Ata, does this (though to nothing like the extent of Merc's suggestion). Verbs have animacy 'bars', which require the subject to be above or below a certain point in the animacy hierarchy. So you couldn't, for example, say "the hammer murdered the monk" - hammers are animate (in this language*) but 'murder' requires a human subject. So you'd have to explicitly say something like "the hammer killed the monk on purpose" - or you could, for instance, rephrase passively, to have "the monk was murdered by the hammer" ('hammer' is no longer the subject, so the animacy bars don't apply). Or "O hammer, you murdered the monk!", because then you're promoting the hammer to 2nd person, which is higher than 'human' in the hierarchy.

To be knowledge, this sort of thing in natural languages is limited to a few levels - I know animate vs inanimate happens and I'm fairly confident intelligent vs unintelligent (Rawàng Ata actually has four levels, because it has a separate feminine level, but that only applies to a few verbs and it's probably closer to a politeness issue than a grammaticality one).

I'm less aware of languages doing similar things with their objects, though it wouldn't entirely surprise me.

[some languages probably have de facto limits on objects due to animacy constraints - many languages have rules saying you can't have an agent less animate than the patient (as Rawàng Ata has), and I'd imagine at least some languages somewhere require the agent to be MORE animate than the patient, which would mean that highest-animacy participants couldn't be patients...]