Conlang Random Thread

[bradrn]

So, if I’m understanding correctly: you have a verbal system which is very irregular, but which contains much ablaut with some metathesis. However, as in English, the ablaut process is unproductive; that is, it applies only to some verbs. (I presume that there are several other processes which can be used to conjugate verbs in addition to ablaut.) Can I confirm that this is correct?

Yes.

More: show

Historically, it's not metathesis, but a syncope affecting different vowels. But synchronically, yes, it's metathesis together with ablaut

In that case, I would assume that loanwords are just analogised to one of the currently-productive verb paradigms; possibly this can be dependent on phonetics, or semantics? (I see a great way to experiment with word classes if you go via semantics… I wonder if there are any languages with noun classes, but on verbs instead of nouns?) Or maybe they choose one specific form to apply to loanwords: see Nortaneous’s response to a question about Seri loanword plurals. Actually, Seri is a good example because plurals are completely irregular:

	Singular	Plural
lobster	ptkamn	ptkamn
man	ktam	ktamkʷ
plant	ʔeʔe	ʔeʔet
fire	ʔamak	ʔamakx
arrow point	ʔaꭓ	ʔaꭓɬk
girl	ʃakaːm	ʃakaːmaɬk
hematite	ꭓpaːʔxʷ	ꭓpaːʔxʷɬka
estuary	ꭓtaːsi	ꭓtaːsitox
fox	ꭓeːs	ꭓeːstax
bobcat	nop	nopꭓam
roadrunner	ʃaːp	ʃaːpkox

[akam chinjir]

One possibility would be to borrow only nouns, and then use them in a light verb construction (e.g., with a verb meaning do---Japanese mostly does this, for example).

[Xwtek]

One possibility would be to borrow only nouns, and then use them in a light verb construction (e.g., with a verb meaning do---Japanese mostly does this, for example).

I already know light verb construction. However, in language with SVO word order, heavy verb serialization, and no ditransitive verbs, this becomes ugly quickly. I have already enough problem with relativization of the object (because it requires passivization). Japanese's only way of serial verb construction is by verb root incorporation and converb. My language allows serial verb construction using finite verb

For example: this is how do you translate "I hacked your computer" (My language is not in a modern age, so the word hack and computer has to be loaned, precisely why I use this sentence):

ash-kyr-y

1SG-make.CPL-EGO

hack

hack

0-???-o

SS-???.CPL-EGO

no-computer'

2SG-computer

CNSC = consecutive

My proposal is instead this:

ash-hack-ts-o

1SG-hack-make.CPL-EGO

no-computer'

2SG-computer

[Kuchigakatai]

On the other hand, I can't just make verb closed class because of how the syntax works. (My language has no ditransitive verb, for starter). My idea is to derive the noun into verb by a suffix and make the ablaut just affect the derivational suffix. Other native verbs can still do ablaut on the entire root. Is this realistic?

Realistic? That's basically what Japanese does when it attaches the suffix する -suru, which is really a grammaticalized する su↑ru↓ 'to do', at the end of nouns to form verbs.

日本語を勉強する
ni↑hoNgo o↓ be↑Nkyoosuru
Japanese ACC study
'I study Japanese'

This is very much like your ash-hack-ts-o no-computer example in your latest post. Contrary to some linguists, I think of する -suru as a derivational suffix, as it is often possible to use these same phrases with the verb する su↑ru↓ plus the main verb as the object, with the semantic theme marked as a genitive with の no. There is a marked difference in the pitch accent too, where する su↑ru↓ as a main verb has pitch accents typical of full verbal predicates ("predicate" in the sense of "verb" or "verb complex").

日本語勉強をする
ni↑hoNgo no↓ be↑Nkyoo o↓ su↑ru↓
Japanese GEN study ACC do
'I'm doing Japanese studies.'

I'd also like to say that you don't need to have ditransitive verbs to make the verb class closed. You could do like Persian, and simply use "double-accusative" constructions. عوض کردن avaz kardán 'to change', literally "do change", simply takes a direct object, just like کردن kardán 'to do' by itself or انداختن andâxtán 'to throw' would.

او سبک زندگی‌ اش را عوض کرد
u sabk-e zendegí ash râ avaz kárd
3SG style-HEAD life 3SG DEF.ACC change do.PRF
'She changed her lifestyle.'

آموزگار همیشه آن را کرد
‎âmuzgâ´r hamishé ân râ kárd
teacher always that DEF.ACC did
'The teacher always did it.'

Notice that Persian exhibits a difference in pronunciation between کردن kardán as a light verb and as a main verb. When it's a light verb, the verbal noun that precedes it is often completely unstressed: کار کردن kâr kardán [kɒːrkarˈdan] 'to work' vs. کار کردن kâ´r kardán [ˈkɒːr karˈdan] 'to do a thing, a task'. (I'm aware Wikipedia says the opposite of this, citing John Mace's practical grammar, but I think he got it backwards. Just listen to it!) In your conlang maybe you could do something similar with stress or tone.

EDIT: I consulted a native Persian speaker and he made some corrections but I don't want to correct the post right now. So I just struck the Persian section through.

[akam chinjir]

Just to add slightly, it's a bit easier to see how you get a suffix in a verb-final language like Japanese, since whether "do" (or "suru") is a suffix or a light verb, it'll come after the thing it's verbalising.

I was also thinking about "throw"---like you could take the syntax you'd use for "I threw a pillow on your bed" for (in effect) "I threw a hack on your computer." (Or if you'd rather a proper serial verb construction, "I threw a hack hit your computer," or something.)

[Pabappa]

To the post further upthread:


Thanks for your interest. I said that while much of my conworld's history looks like Earth, some of it does not, and I think that human nature as a whole is shifted strongly towards pacifism on planet Teppala, and many golden opportunities for military expansion go unexplored because the stronger nation simply isn't interested. That said, I think there are ample examples even on Earth of a strong nation allying with a weak one and not exploiting the relationship by invading the weaker nation unprovoked.

[Xwtek]

Any other way to make a fusional language other than Subject+TAM+Voice prevalent in Indo European?

[jal]

Any other way to make a fusional language other than Subject+TAM+Voice prevalent in Indo European?

What kind of "way" do you mean?


JAL

[Xwtek]

What kind of "way" do you mean?

What to fuse.

[jal]

What to fuse.

Well, there's only so many things you can fuse. If your language has polypersonal verb marking, you could fuse that, for example. Any kind of particle or affix can fuse, it depends on what types you have.


JAL

[akam chinjir]

I'd actually be curious to know more about what markers tend to fuse with what. Like, I'm pretty sure it's most common to have subject agreement and tense (or tense/aspect?) marking fuse; and I'm pretty sure that having all of agreement, TAM, and valency markers get fused is pretty unusual; but it would be nice to know more. Like, in languages that often have directional affixes show up on verbs, how often do those fuse with other things, and with what other things?

I bet negation gets fused with TAM reasonably often (is Japanese an example?).

[Salmoneus]

What kind of "way" do you mean?

What to fuse.

Whatever you want.

You could have your verbs have valency-evidentiality-polarity-version-telicity-pluractionality fusion, and your nouns have tense-person-orientation fusion. That would be very non-European.

[Kuchigakatai]

I'd actually be curious to know more about what markers tend to fuse with what. Like, I'm pretty sure it's most common to have subject agreement and tense (or tense/aspect?) marking fuse; and I'm pretty sure that having all of agreement, TAM, and valency markers get fused is pretty unusual; but it would be nice to know more.

Standard Arabic verbs merge all four of tense (present/past), voice (active/passive), derivational valency (over 10 possibilities) and, partially, subject agreement (3 persons, 2 genders, 3 numbers), in one beautiful soup of transfixes (ablaut). Present-tense stems may also distinguish three or four moods (indicative/subjunctive/jussive; also the energetic if subject agreement allows it), which are merged into the part of subject agreement that doesn't depend on tense/voice/valency.

In other words, Arabic finite verbs can be analyzed as consisting of three parts:
Prefix: present-tense subject agreement that varies in form depending on voice and derivational valency
Stem: the root shaped into a stem while merging tense, voice and derivational valency (see example lists below)
Suffix: past subject agreement; otherwise present-tense subject agreement that varies in form depending on mood

Here is an example of an inflecting stem adapted from the Hans-Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, listing result forms in the order present-active, past-active, present-passive, past-passive (past-tense stems don't begin with a hyphen because they only take suffixes, unlike present-tense stems which take circumfixes):
valency I 'to write [sth]' (basic transitive): -ktub- katab- -ktab- kutib-
valency II 'to make [sb] write' (productive causative): -kattib- kattab- -kattab- kuttib-
valency III 'to write to [sb] often, keep in touch' (dative applicative): -kaatib- kaatab- -kaatab- kuutib-
valency IV 'to dictate' (idiomatic high-register causative): -ktib- ʔaktab- -ktab- ʔuktib-
valency VI 'to write to each other often' (reciprocal of valency III): -takaatab- takaatab-
valency VII 'to be subscribed, registered' (pseudo-passive): -nkatib- inkatab-
valency VIII 'to copy [sth]; subscribe, register' (abstract reflexive): -ktatib- iktatab- -ktatab- uktutib- (the first -t- is an infix)
valency X 'to ask [sb] to write' (suggestive causative): -staktib- istaktab- -staktab- ustuktib-



Inuktitut and especially Yup'ik have subject+object agreement that is amusingly heavily fused with other things, such as polar interrogativity (whether the verb poses a yes-no question or not), but I don't have time to look that up at the moment.

[akam chinjir]

And once again I find myself wishing I knew more about Arabic.

Some of the cases exemplify a different sort of pattern that's interesting to me---the cases in which (as far as I can tell) the past-active and the present-passive are distinguished only by the agreement affixes. It's sort of a combination of fusion with its opposite: the "past" part of "past-active" is encoded both by the ablaut pattern and by the agreement suffixes, but neither of those things encode only past tense.

(I think I've seen that sort of thing taken furthest in Komnzo and related languages; Döhler's A Grammar of Komnzo is free online.)

[Kuchigakatai]

Some of the cases exemplify a different sort of pattern that's interesting to me---the cases in which (as far as I can tell) the past-active and the present-passive are distinguished only by the agreement affixes. It's sort of a combination of fusion with its opposite: the "past" part of "past-active" is encoded both by the ablaut pattern and by the agreement suffixes, but neither of those things encode only past tense.

Yes, valency forms II and III do have that to distinguish past-active and present-passive.

kaatab-naa ʔaxaa=hu
write.VAL3.PAST.ACTIV-1PL brother.SG.ACC.CONSTRUCT=3SG.MASC
'We kept in touch with his brother.'

yu-kaatab-u
3SG.MAS.VAL3.PRES.-write.to.[VAL3].PRES.PASS-3SG.MASC.INDICATIVE
'He's being kept in touch with.' (Someone is keeping in touch with him)

In valency form VI, such a difference exists between present-active and past-active.

ya-takaatab-uu
3PL.MASC.VAL6.PRES-write.to.each.other.[VAL6].PRES-3PL.MASC.SUBJUNCTIVE
'They're keeping in touch. (present subjunctive)'

takaatab-uu
write.to.each.other.[VAL6].PAST-3PL.MASC
'They kept in touch.'

[TurkeySloth]

My setting's main language has a process whereby its rhotic ([ɾ~r]) vocalizes into an r-coloured vowel under certain circumstances. Is this process more likely to end up with a high vowel—like l-vocalization, a mid vowel, or a low vowel?

[bradrn]

My setting's main language has a process whereby its rhotic ([ɾ~r]) vocalizes into an r-coloured vowel under certain circumstances. Is this process more likely to end up with a high vowel—like l-vocalization, a mid vowel, or a low vowel?

I would imagine the most likely outcome would be /r/ → /ɹ/ → /ɚ/.

(Also, I think this question would be better in the Sound Change Quickie Thread.)

[TurkeySloth]

Thanks, bradrn.

The language pairs an ambiguously-rounded palatal approximant, transcribed [ʝ˕], with and ambiguously-rounded high front vowel, transcribed [ɩ] but without official IPA transcription. Have I unwittingly created a new semivowel?

[bradrn]

Thanks, bradrn.

You’re welcome!

The language pairs an ambiguously-rounded palatal approximant, transcribed [ʝ˕], with and ambiguously-rounded high front vowel, transcribed [ɩ] but without official IPA transcription. Have I unwittingly created a new semivowel?

To clarify: are you asking if [ʝ˕] is a new semivowel, or if the vocalised rhotic above is a new semivowel?

[TurkeySloth]

Thanks, bradrn.

You’re welcome!

The language pairs an ambiguously-rounded palatal approximant, transcribed [ʝ˕], with and ambiguously-rounded high front vowel, transcribed [ɩ] but without official IPA transcription. Have I unwittingly created a new semivowel?

To clarify: are you asking if [ʝ˕] is a new semivowel, or if the vocalised rhotic above is a new semivowel?

The [ɩ, ʝ˕] pair, as both are ambiguously-rounded. Essentially, is it plausible for speakers to use one character for both phones, as Italian does using <i> for [i, j]? Eventually, [ɩ → i] or [ʝ˕ → j] happens if [ɩ] turns out to be [ʝ˕]'s vocalic equivalent because the modern language doesn't have semivowels. After all, [ʝ˕]'s an approximant consonant in the IPA. I shifted [j → ʝ˕] before merging {i, y → ɩ}