Šɯk grammar

[Ketsuban]

I know Sumerian has trouble keeping track of affixes when chaining possessives together: everything is fine at first (ensi Lagash-ak "the ruler of Lagash", dumu ensi Lagash-ak-ak "the ruler of Lagash's son") but when you add a third link the affix tends to get forgotten: dam dumu ensi Lagash-ak-ak "the ruler of Lagash's son's wife". Does Šɯk experience anything similar, or would it be incorrect to fail to stack -at three times in *nap meʇ ɯsak ʘily-at-at-at "the queen's healer's son's house"? What about if there's an intervening plural marker, such as *nap meʇ ɯsak ʘily-at-at-nye-at "the queen's healer's sons' house"? The same question I suppose applies to the other clitics; would one-man-and-his-dog-esque "A and B and C and …" constructions get weird if you have to string together lots of -bæ?

[vegfarandi]

I know Sumerian has trouble keeping track of affixes when chaining possessives together: everything is fine at first (ensi Lagash-ak "the ruler of Lagash", dumu ensi Lagash-ak-ak "the ruler of Lagash's son") but when you add a third link the affix tends to get forgotten: dam dumu ensi Lagash-ak-ak "the ruler of Lagash's son's wife". Does Šɯk experience anything similar, or would it be incorrect to fail to stack -at three times in *nap meʇ ɯsak ʘily-at-at-at "the queen's healer's son's house"? What about if there's an intervening plural marker, such as *nap meʇ ɯsak ʘily-at-at-nye-at "the queen's healer's sons' house"? The same question I suppose applies to the other clitics; would one-man-and-his-dog-esque "A and B and C and …" constructions get weird if you have to string together lots of -bæ?

I don't know what zompist will answer but my guess is that the breakdown of purely correct grammar in such complex constructions is pretty natural and very likely to also occur in Šɯk. In most cases, when such things happen, the inaccuracy of the uttered (or written) grammar doesn't reflect a different system at work but more like a certain level of "slack" in the system. If you technically need three genitive markers in a row but only use two, it's unlikely that the lack of one marker is what gets you misunderstood in the broader context of the conversation.

[bradrn]

Incidentally, thanks for alerting me to the fact that Šɯk has been published! At a quick skim it reminds me fairly strongly of Khoekhoe, though the clicks are interestingly un-Earthlike — I’d quite like to know more about their phonetic realisation.

[vegfarandi]

Incidentally, thanks for alerting me to the fact that Šɯk has been published! At a quick skim it reminds me fairly strongly of Khoekhoe, though the clicks are interestingly un-Earthlike — I’d quite like to know more about their phonetic realisation.

I like to take any opportunity I see to plug Zompist's Patreon where you can learn about the modern (and future) world of Almea and see pre-release versions of grammars. It's been really fantastic and I'm personally very give a little bit back to Mark after so many years on his forum for free

[bradrn]

Incidentally, thanks for alerting me to the fact that Šɯk has been published! At a quick skim it reminds me fairly strongly of Khoekhoe, though the clicks are interestingly un-Earthlike — I’d quite like to know more about their phonetic realisation.

I like to take any opportunity I see to plug Zompist's Patreon where you can learn about the modern (and future) world of Almea and see pre-release versions of grammars. It's been really fantastic and I'm personally very give a little bit back to Mark after so many years on his forum for free

Oh, I know about that already, but for various reasons it’s a bit tricky for me to subscribe to it at the moment, which is why I have to rely on what little is available publicly.

[zompist]

Had to look up Jagersma on this... you and veg are right, Sumerian only stacks two ak in a row.

(Also, when I learned about this insane construction I just had to use it. There are more Sumerian borrowings in Šɯk as well, especially in the verbal section.)

I know Sumerian has trouble keeping track of affixes when chaining possessives together: everything is fine at first (ensi Lagash-ak "the ruler of Lagash", dumu ensi Lagash-ak-ak "the ruler of Lagash's son") but when you add a third link the affix tends to get forgotten: dam dumu ensi Lagash-ak-ak "the ruler of Lagash's son's wife". Does Šɯk experience anything similar, or would it be incorrect to fail to stack -at three times in *nap meʇ ɯsak ʘily-at-at-at "the queen's healer's son's house"?

You can't stack more than two at directly; this would be just nap meʇ ɯsak ʘily-at-at.

What about if there's an intervening plural marker, such as *nap meʇ ɯsak ʘily-at-at-nye-at "the queen's healer's sons' house"?

This however is fine.

I think this counts as a center embedding, so I would try not to push it further than that. This probably sounds to a Šɯk speaker like those grammatical-but-marginally-comprehensible English examples ("He said that that "that" that that "that" referred to was something else entirely").

The same question I suppose applies to the other clitics; would one-man-and-his-dog-esque "A and B and C and …" constructions get weird if you have to string together lots of -bæ?

I'm going to say that -bæ can't be stacked at all, but doesn't need to be: you can say A B C-bæ.

(It's grammatically correct to say [A B-bæ] C-bæ. You could use that if it made semantic sense, kind of like "Batman and Superman, and also Joker.")

I've updated the grammar accordingly.

[WarpedWartWars]

"He said that that "that" that that "that" referred to was something else entirely"

I was struggling to find a grammatical sentence with three "that"s in a row, and you just gave one with six of them!

[zompist]

"He said that that "that" that that "that" referred to was something else entirely"

I was struggling to find a grammatical sentence with three "that"s in a row, and you just gave one with six of them!

Heh! It's not mine-- I ran into (a version of) it long ago.

[foxcatdog]

In the sections on topicalisation the gloss is off. with the that.one occuring after the warrior instead of before it. I thought it was a bit off until i reread it and realised the language gloss was correct.

[WeepingElf]

What are those funny letters like ʇ or ʘ? Clicks?

[zompist]

In the sections on topicalisation the gloss is off. with the that.one occuring after the warrior instead of before it. I thought it was a bit off until i reread it and realised the language gloss was correct.

Fixed, thanks! (You may have to reload the page.)

[WarpedWartWars]

What are those funny letters like ʇ or ʘ? Clicks?

Exactly--ʘ is labial, ʇ is dental.

[zompist]

What are those funny letters like ʇ or ʘ? Clicks?

Exactly--ʘ is bilabial, ʇ is dental (I think).

There is a phonology section in the grammar...

[zompist]

Well, I can't seem to put this post at the top. But here's a link:

Grammar of Šɯk

[WarpedWartWars]

What are those funny letters like ʇ or ʘ? Clicks?

Exactly--ʘ is bilabial, ʇ is dental (I think).

There is a phonology section in the grammar...

I know, I was just going off my memory from reading it yesterday or maybe the day before.

[Man in Space]

I just want to say that I think Šɯk is really cool. I'm an especial fan of the clicks—I like seeing them in conlangs.

[WeepingElf]

What are those funny letters like ʇ or ʘ? Clicks?

Exactly--ʘ is bilabial, ʇ is dental (I think).

There is a phonology section in the grammar...

Sorry, then, for the dumb question

[Man in Space]

I believe there’s a word missing from the sample here:

ɤʇlil, pægain ǁɤ nyany ifa men ʘily.
end-loc unite-3 Nyaʇa valley all-pl and be-3 queen
Finally Nyaʇa brought all the valleys together and became queen.

[bradrn]

I believe there’s a word missing from the sample here:

ɤʇlil, pægain ǁɤ nyany ifa men ʘily.
end-loc unite-3 Nyaʇa valley all-pl and be-3 queen
Finally Nyaʇa brought all the valleys together and became queen.

If there is, I can’t find it.

[alice]

The name "ʇeʇ" on the map made me wonder if the page was rotated 180 degrees somehow. Then I wondered if it was "ʇəʇ" and Zomp was experimenting with an orthography which meant something completely different upside-down. Of course none of this is true, but it might start giving people ideas.