Turning two genders into three and figuring out how to come up with new morphemes for gender agreement

[Ahzoh]

Copy from https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=317599#p317599

---

I'm stuck in a predicament. I originally only had masculine and feminine, but I came up with a third gender, the inanimate/neuter. I don't entirely know how this new noun class could come into existence from a noun class binary, so it creates problems with how nouns in this gender concord with pronouns and suffixes.

Essentially I now have this (in order: masculine, feminine, inanimate, masculine, feminine, inanimate):

Every noun has a final vowel that determines its class (u = feminine, i = masculine, a = inanimate)

But I only have possessive suffixes and subject suffixes for masculine and feminine only:

These affixes are intended to be morphologically the oldest features, older than even the case system.

There are three possible ways for the two genders to split into three:

Possibility A is most sensible and elegant, especially if one could say the masculine is a reanalysis of animate suffixes combined with some i-colouring affix. But it would result in the problem of needing new masculine suffixes because the possessive and subject affixes would originally be animate and inanimate.

Possibility B can work by having inanimate/neuter nouns concord with feminine possessive and subject suffixes, but there isn't anything in the morphology that could suggest the feminine gender splitting into two. It would also mean that the possessive and subject affixes were originally masculine and feminine and now new inanimate suffixes must be created.

There's Possibility C where both genders split into animate and inanimate (so 4 genders) and the feminine and masculine inanimate nouns merge into one gender, but that still leads to the same issues as possibility B.

Now, I could just take the existing affixes and make versions where the vowel is <a>: (-ma, -man, -ta/-sa, -tan/-san, -ka, -kan), but that doesn't really make sense and it would create a lot of awkward asymmetry (when would you ever refer to an inanimate object with the second person?) and I don't really want to have a pyramid of gender distinctions (first person not distinguishing gender, 2nd person only distinguishing two, third person distinguishing three). So the solution is undesirable and maybe not even feasible. Making it so the suffixes don't make distinctions based on gender is also undesirable.

[Travis B.]

One way to split things is to have multiple different declensions in each original gender, and then have some of the declensions in one of the original genders get assigned to one of the new genders derived from that original gender and other declensions in the same original gender get assigned to the other new gender derived from that original gender, based possibly on the semantics of the particular words that originally occupied those declensions.

[zompist]

Focusing on just one bit:

But I only have possessive suffixes and subject suffixes for masculine and feminine only:
These affixes are intended to be morphologically the oldest features, older than even the case system.

It seems like you see this as a problem, but I'd suggest it's a feature. Just as you have nom/acc merging for inanimates, it seems consistent that inanimates cannot possess things, and can't directly be marked as subjects. Defective morphologies are highly naturalistic.

The innovated genders I'm aware of come from reanalysis:
* PIE collective plural > feminine
* Slavic gen > acc creating inanimate subgenders
* In Konkani and Polish, a neuter term for girls developed into a gender for young/unmarried females

So I'd suggest messing up your case endings a bit. Let's say the original is, like the suffixes, u = fem, i = masc. Rather than just adding a third option a = neuter, see if you can get it with sound change.

E.g. maybe you have an infix -H- that marks, I dunno, locative or instrumental.
1. So you could say you killed ezîs nātHus, you killed the boar at night.
2. Now the H colors the next vowel and is lost: ezîs nātas
3. This turns out to be the most common usage of the word 'night', so it's reanalyzed as a new root with a new gender.
4. As it never had a nominative or suffixes, it continues to not have them. But the genitive and equative can be formed by analogy.

It might be interesting if the final case system isn't completely 'fixed'— e.g. maybe the equative remains -uli, as the final i interferes with the Hu > a sound change. That would be a clue that the neuter gender was not original.

[foxcatdog]

Given the nature of your alterations i would propose having both a Masculine Inanimate and a Feminine Inanimate contrasting with their animate forms.

Going back to the laryngeal suggestion you get *i > *e and *u > *a from an earlier "Laryngeal" lets say an ergative which is used for lexical inanimates in a passive construction say.

sunHim kik-gos ta mi
cloth-ERG weave-pas for 1.sg.NOM
"the cloth is weaved for me"

Or also

sunHim kik-gos luma:
cloth-ERG weave-pas loom-LOC
"the cloth is weaved in a loom"

These could end up.

sunem keggas ta mi

sunem kekgas lama:

Drop the old passive marker and you get pretty standard phrases but you could say preserve the passive stem alteration on the verb (or also adjectives) and add it to a reformed stem.

sunem kegV ta mes

sunem kegV lama:

You can also have original lative > accusative with a former applicative being reinterpetred as an inanimate accusative marker. But also say your lative has a ghost consonant which "raises" the vowel.

mi tene+ga usso+C
1.sg.NOM go-APP city-LAT

which becomes
mi tenaga ussu
1.sg.NOM go-INA city-ACC

Using this you could justify reversing the patterns in inanimate stem vowels vs animate stem vowels which i think is pretty neat.

Finally you could have 2 sources of a locative Comitative for Animates and standard Locative for Inanimates. Instrumentals and Ablatives would also be formed for inanimates but probably not Datives.

[Ahzoh]

It seems like you see this as a problem, but I'd suggest it's a feature. Just as you have nom/acc merging for inanimates, it seems consistent that inanimates cannot possess things, and can't directly be marked as subjects. Defective morphologies are highly naturalistic.

I wouldn't care if inanimates couldn't directly possess (but they do have a genitive case for things like "demon of the night" and "the city's inhabitants", but i'd never be able to say "the magical sword returns to its owner") but it is important to say things like "the house fell", don't want it always like "something did something to inanimate object".

The innovated genders I'm aware of come from reanalysis:
* PIE collective plural > feminine
* Slavic gen > acc creating inanimate subgenders
* In Konkani and Polish, a neuter term for girls developed into a gender for young/unmarried females

Basically one possibility is that there was originally animate and inanimate and the endings would have to be thus:

	Animate Singular	Animate Plural	Inanimate Singular	Inanimate Plural
Absolute Nominative	-u-m	-ū-m	-a-š	-ā-š
Absolute Accusative	-u-š	-ū-š	-a-š	-ā-š
Absolute Genitive	-u-n	-ū-n	-a-ḫ	-ā-ḫ
Construct Direct	-a	-ā	-a	-ā
Construct Oblique	-u	-ū	-a	-ā

This would mean the masculine would come about from this, with an affix that colours vowels. This affix would have marked dangerous or wild things like boars, crocodiles, or aggressive and violent things like warriors and natural disasters.

	Animate Singular	Animate Plural
Absolute Nominative	-Y-u-m	-Y-ū-m
Absolute Accusative	-Y-u-š	-Y-ū-š
Absolute Genitive	-Y-u-n	-Y-ū-n
Construct Direct	-Y-a	-Y-ā
Construct Oblique	-Y-u	-Y-ū

Maybe even the inanimate being similar (this leads to Possibility C where there are now a-inanimates and e-inanimates):

	Inanimate Singular	Inanimate Plural
Absolute Nominative	-Y-a-š	-Y-ā-š
Absolute Accusative	-Y-a-š	-Y-ā-š
Absolute Genitive	-Y-a-ḫ	-Y-ā-ḫ
Construct Direct	-Y-a	-Y-ā
Construct Oblique	-Y-a	-Y-ā

It could have even been simpler, many millennias ago (Q = uvular vowel-lowering consonant, H = glottal vowel-lengthening consonant):

	Animate Singular	Animate Plural	Inanimate Singular	Inanimate Plural
Absolute State	-u	-u-H	-a	-a-H
Construct State	-u-Q	-u-H-Q	-a-Q	-a-H-Q

"Dangerous or violent" marker (Y = palatal vowel-fronting consonant):

	Animate Singular	Animate Plural	Inanimate Singular	Inanimate Plural
Absolute State	Y-u	Y-u-H	Y-a	Y-a-H
Construct State	Y-u-Q	Y-u-H-Q	Y-a-Q	Y-a-H-Q

I should add that there is, in the language's current form, a weak non-high vowel harmony (often regressive), that is, a>e or e>a. Long vowels are more likely to trigger this effect as well as be unaffected by a shorter vowel (ger-ā > garā but not always gār-e > gēre). Consonant clusters almost always block this effect.

---

But all this only works if the animate-inanimate distinction came first but doesn't track with the existence of the subject and possessive suffixes which lack animacy distinction.

Possibility C is nice and would track with the subject and possessive suffixes lacking animacy distinction. Though then I must decide which of the suffixes will refer to nouns in this new gender

[keenir]

It seems like you see this as a problem, but I'd suggest it's a feature. Just as you have nom/acc merging for inanimates, it seems consistent that inanimates cannot possess things, and can't directly be marked as subjects. Defective morphologies are highly naturalistic.

I wouldn't care if inanimates couldn't directly possess (but they do have a genitive case for things like "demon of the night" and "the city's inhabitants", but i'd never be able to say "the magical sword returns to its owner") but it is important to say things like "the house fell", don't want it always like "something did something to inanimate object".

Well, maybe that is what happens, sort of...whether its a loan (like English picked up some pronouns from Norse) or an archaic word that finds a new life and usefullness (like if Shakespear or Disraeli had broughtEnglish's "hwat!" back into the vernacular) ?

so, perhaps...
(((it did/happen) fall) (house . PAST))
...assuming i remember how the tree worked.


...or...instead of a pronoun, maybe use locative? literally "demon LOC.night" ?

or, at least for "the city's inhabitants"...maybe handle it like "the bucket's water" ?

just some thoughts; hope they spark something useful.

[Ahzoh]

...or...instead of a pronoun, maybe use locative? literally "demon LOC.night" ?

or, at least for "the city's inhabitants"...maybe handle it like "the bucket's water" ?

just some thoughts; hope they spark something useful.

I have a genitive case for the inanimate/neuter gender, it is -ḫ, so it isn't an issue to have demon-CON night-GEN and people-CONS city-GEN

But i'd have to do "they will return sword to owner [of sword]" and "something fells the house" and I don't like that.

The crux of the issue is that there has to be some source for new subject and possessive affixes for this new third gender. But what noun class (masculine or neuter) receives the new affixes depends on how the third gender comes about. It might even make sense to call it a neuter and place collective nouns and other such sexless animate things in it just to justify the existence of a second person neuter.

[Ahzoh]

I think I made some head way. How does this look?

suffixes.png (18.1 KiB) Viewed 4199 times

The verbs divides by animate above and inanimate below:

strongverbs.png (60.93 KiB) Viewed 4199 times

rēbim paruḫti "the man speaks"
rēbīm paruḫtin "the men speak"

surğum paruḫtu "the chicken speaks"
surğūm paruḫtun "the chickens speak"

nātas parḫat "the night speaks"
nātās parḫāt "the nights speak"

[WeepingElf]

What's the purpose of the 2nd person inanimate forms? How often do your people talk to inanimate things?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I would guess there were irregularities in the gender system, or else it's a form children use when writing "Dear diary" or talking to their toys, or when you might shout at a computer or something in frustration? People talk to inanimate objects all the time.

[Ahzoh]

What's the purpose of the 2nd person inanimate forms? How often do your people talk to inanimate things?

It is common for Vrkhazhians to metonymize inanimates to stand in for animates, kind of like "good morning, America" and "the crown this" and "the crown that".

"Oh [people of] my city, how you bustle with activity so"
"Hussua will fall"

This is also why I opted to call it the neuter gender

[WeepingElf]

What's the purpose of the 2nd person inanimate forms? How often do your people talk to inanimate things?

It is common for Vrkhazhians to metonymize inanimates to stand in for animates, kind of like "good morning, America" and "the crown this" and "the crown that".

"Oh [people of] my city, how you bustle with activity so"
"Hussua will fall"

This is also why I opted to call it the neuter gender

I understand. Yet, I consider it more likely that 2nd person forms are unspecified for gender, as they are in IE.

[Ahzoh]

I understand. Yet, I consider it more likely that 2nd person forms are unspecified for gender, as they are in IE.

They can't be because the second person already specifies feminine and masculine

[Travis B.]

I understand. Yet, I consider it more likely that 2nd person forms are unspecified for gender, as they are in IE.

They can't be because the second person already specifies feminine and masculine

But one can treat the neuter as being lower on the person/animacy hierarchy than the masculine or the feminine, and thus make it ineligible for use with the 2nd person.

[Travis B.]

There are interesting things one can do with a personhood/animacy hierarchy, like forbidding inanimate subjects of transitive verbs, requiring transitivity with them to instead be expressed with passive constructions.

[Ahzoh]

I understand. Yet, I consider it more likely that 2nd person forms are unspecified for gender, as they are in IE.

They can't be because the second person already specifies feminine and masculine

But one can treat the neuter as being lower on the person/animacy hierarchy than the masculine or the feminine, and thus make it ineligible for use with the 2nd person.

I don't want a step-pyramid of morphology where 1st person makes no distinction, second only makes two, and third makes three distinctions.

[Travis B.]

They can't be because the second person already specifies feminine and masculine

But one can treat the neuter as being lower on the person/animacy hierarchy than the masculine or the feminine, and thus make it ineligible for use with the 2nd person.

I don't want a step-pyramid of morphology where 1st person makes no distinction, second only makes two, and third makes three distinctions.

I'd almost go further, and make it so that neuter 3rd person pronouns and nouns can't be put into nominative case.

[WeepingElf]

They can't be because the second person already specifies feminine and masculine

But one can treat the neuter as being lower on the person/animacy hierarchy than the masculine or the feminine, and thus make it ineligible for use with the 2nd person.

I don't want a step-pyramid of morphology where 1st person makes no distinction, second only makes two, and third makes three distinctions.

I understand fully. Neuter, after all, doesn't necessarily mean inanimate, merely 'neither masculine nor feminine'. In German (my L1), we have neuter nouns such as Kind 'child' or Pferd 'horse'. And finally, it is your conlang, so do what feels right to you!

[Travis B.]

I understand fully. Neuter, after all, doesn't necessarily mean inanimate, merely 'neither masculine nor feminine'. In German (my L1), we have neuter nouns such as Kind 'child' or Pferd 'horse'. And finally, it is your conlang, so do what feels right to you!

Tis true, but I personally like the idea of seemingly animate nouns that are grammatically inanimate myself. If one insists on having 2nd neuter pronouns, though, I would personally just derive them from one of the preexisting sets of 2nd person pronouns or even from, say, the 3rd neuter pronouns.

[Richard W]

What's the purpose of the 2nd person inanimate forms? How often do your people talk to inanimate things?

That probably depends on whether they distinguish animate and inanimate fire. In English, it's quite common for people to scold, threaten or plead with inanimate objects. Would vehicles be animate or inanimate?