So says WALS, but I can't find a clear explanation of the verbal agreement marking in Georgian anywhere
The 'Is this attested?' Thread
- dɮ the phoneme
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:53 am
- Location: On either side of the tongue, below the alveolar ridge
- Contact:
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Ye knowe eek that, in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.
(formerly Max1461)
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.
(formerly Max1461)
-
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:40 am
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
-
- Posts: 769
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:58 pm
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
No expert, but as far as I can tell George Hewitt Georgian: A Learner's Grammar says that in the aorist screeves you get split-S case marking but consistently nom/acc agreement markers (especially on pages 103-140, 165).
Edit: oops, for split-S you also need p. 177.
Edit: oops, for split-S you also need p. 177.
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Can inanimate marker turn into obviative marker? I planned Middle Ku to have proximal-obviative, like Asent'o, unlike Rkou that have animate-inanimate one.
IPA of my name: [xʷtɛ̀k]
Favourite morphology: Polysynthetic, Ablaut
Favourite character archetype: Shounen hero
Favourite morphology: Polysynthetic, Ablaut
Favourite character archetype: Shounen hero
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
The Proto-Algonquian animate obviative singular ending is identical to the inanimate plural marker; they're both *-ari. The jury is still out on what, if anything, this means.
dlory to gourd
https://wardoftheedgeloaves.tumblr.com
https://wardoftheedgeloaves.tumblr.com
- dɮ the phoneme
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:53 am
- Location: On either side of the tongue, below the alveolar ridge
- Contact:
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
In Porto-Yonutian, I presently have ergative alignment among third person nominals, and accusative alignment among first and second person pronouns. I know this is attested in quite a few languages. However, in clauses that have a 1st/2nd person agent a 3rd person patient, the 3rd person patient takes the accusative case (Whereas, were the agent a 3rd person, this patient would take the absolutive). Is anything like this attested?
Ye knowe eek that, in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.
(formerly Max1461)
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.
(formerly Max1461)
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Any languages with only one prenasalized stop? Bonus points if it's /ᵐb/.
-
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:40 am
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
I think this is basically what happens in Sahaptin - the ergative case basically occurs to dis-ambiguate two 3rd person arguments. I'd recommend you read up on that though.Max1461 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:56 pm In Porto-Yonutian, I presently have ergative alignment among third person nominals, and accusative alignment among first and second person pronouns. I know this is attested in quite a few languages. However, in clauses that have a 1st/2nd person agent a 3rd person patient, the 3rd person patient takes the accusative case (Whereas, were the agent a 3rd person, this patient would take the absolutive). Is anything like this attested?
Mixtec has /ⁿd/ only.
-
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:29 am
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Aside from English, are there languages that systematically broke long vowels into VC sequences and developed a dispreference for open stressed syllables?
Duaj teibohnggoe kyoe' quaqtoeq lucj lhaj k'yoejdej noeyn tucj.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
-
Last edited by mae on Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Cypriot Greek apparently has postconsonantal /j/>/c/, with an additional shift to /k/ after r. Very odd and a conlang might put that to good use someday.
It might not happen after some consos, e.g. nasals, or maybe gk never had those sequences to begin wih.
It might not happen after some consos, e.g. nasals, or maybe gk never had those sequences to begin wih.
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
It doesn't sound too odd at all, actually, especially considering that Cypriot has initial geminates.
Some Romance varieties of Italy also have Cj Gj > Ctʃ Gdʒ, including word-initially (thus /blaŋko/ > /bjaŋko/ > /bdʒaŋk/ in some Lombard varieties)
This makes me imagine a sound change like:
Cj Gj > cː ɟː or > tːʃ dːʒ
Some Romance varieties of Italy also have Cj Gj > Ctʃ Gdʒ, including word-initially (thus /blaŋko/ > /bjaŋko/ > /bdʒaŋk/ in some Lombard varieties)
This makes me imagine a sound change like:
Cj Gj > cː ɟː or > tːʃ dːʒ
-
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:29 am
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
According to PHOIBLE:
Akasilimi /ŋmɡb/
Brao /ntʃ/
Puri /mp/
Soso /nd/
Kimwani /ŋɡ/
Duaj teibohnggoe kyoe' quaqtoeq lucj lhaj k'yoejdej noeyn tucj.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
-
Last edited by mae on Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Rennelese /ŋɡ/
IPA of my name: [xʷtɛ̀k]
Favourite morphology: Polysynthetic, Ablaut
Favourite character archetype: Shounen hero
Favourite morphology: Polysynthetic, Ablaut
Favourite character archetype: Shounen hero
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:20 pm
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Nouns in my current proto-language inflect for class and number, quite a lot of classes as in Bantu languages. I also quite like the prefixal shape of them but I had an idea that the root word that gets inflected has sort of "slots" for lack of a better term, where placement of the class/number marker dictates whether it is singular or plural.
Ex.) bas /bɑs̱/ "person, thing, entity, stuff, whatchamacallit etc."
Singular
C1: Sentients : a- : abas "person, individual"
C2: Dang. Sent. : ge- : gebas "criminal, bad person, enemy"
C3: Beasts : ki- : kibas "beast"
C4: Animals : i- : ibas "animal"
Plural
C1: Sentients : <(h)a> : bās "people"
C2: Dang. Sent. : <ge> : bages "criminals, bad people, enemies"
C3: Beasts: <ki> : bakis "beasts"
C4: Animals: <(h)i> : bais "animals"
The (h) is only necessary to break up illegal syllable shapes and to avoid hiatus. Macrons indicate vowel length, and where two identical short vowels will combine to a long vowel.
Is this, marker placement determining number heard of? If it's not heard of, does it strike anyone as plausible or at bare minimum is it not trash?
Ex.) bas /bɑs̱/ "person, thing, entity, stuff, whatchamacallit etc."
Singular
C1: Sentients : a- : abas "person, individual"
C2: Dang. Sent. : ge- : gebas "criminal, bad person, enemy"
C3: Beasts : ki- : kibas "beast"
C4: Animals : i- : ibas "animal"
Plural
C1: Sentients : <(h)a> : bās "people"
C2: Dang. Sent. : <ge> : bages "criminals, bad people, enemies"
C3: Beasts: <ki> : bakis "beasts"
C4: Animals: <(h)i> : bais "animals"
The (h) is only necessary to break up illegal syllable shapes and to avoid hiatus. Macrons indicate vowel length, and where two identical short vowels will combine to a long vowel.
Is this, marker placement determining number heard of? If it's not heard of, does it strike anyone as plausible or at bare minimum is it not trash?
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
-
Last edited by mae on Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:20 pm
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Yeah, I felt it was a bit unrealistic. Ok, well I think I can still have some bizarre plurals formed from reduplication. I'll tweak the pattern of plural marking and apply some morphophonological rules after reduplication. Thank you for the input!mae wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:28 am As far as the way languages in real life tend to do things, that’s incredibly bizarre. However, you could get it through processes that *are* reasonable. If the original way of marking plurals was reduplication then you might get a situation like the one you describe as a result of some phonological reduction afterwards.
Re: The 'Is this attested?' Thread
Has relative pronoun attested to come from other sources? Particularly could relative pronoun come from logophoric pronoun (Asent'o's relative pronouns are originally this, and in Classical Asent'o, the relative pronouns still serve another usage as logophoric pronoun. It developed into relative pronoun from contact with islander merchants). Also, can logophoric pronoun and obviative marking occur together in a single language?
IPA of my name: [xʷtɛ̀k]
Favourite morphology: Polysynthetic, Ablaut
Favourite character archetype: Shounen hero
Favourite morphology: Polysynthetic, Ablaut
Favourite character archetype: Shounen hero