A Question About Writing Morphosyntax Sections

[conlangernoob]

Hi guys!

In my current (and hopefully my last!) unnamed proto-lang, I have so far completely finished my phonology, as well as worked out some basic-level details (i.e., what inflections exist, basic word order, black pronoun charts, et cetera) by going through the various questions of LCK. My plan for finishing the remainder of the syntax and morphology sections is to work through each section of my newly acquired interlibrary loan copy of Describing Morphosyntax (sidenote: it took a lot of work to get this book, involving me using my parent’s university library account), reading through each section and answering the questions at the back of each section in as much detail as possible. My questions are: a) will this method produce a naturalistic result, b) what will I miss in my morphosyntax sections using just this method; and c) is working through the book linearly the best way to go about things?

Until anon,

conlangernoob

[conlangernoob]

.

[chris_notts]

It's a tricky question. I've read quite a few good grammars, and all of them are organised a bit differently. To pick some examples of the major sections and their ordering in several grammars:

Kunbarlang, by Kapitonov
-The language and its speakers
-Phonetics and phonology
-Grammatical overview
-Nominals
-Verbs: inflectional morphology
-Verbs: derivational morphology and constructions
-Clause structure
-Complex syntax
-Texts

This is probably the most common general structure, and is somewhat "bottom up". You start with the sounds of the language, then the core word types and their construction (nominals, verbs), then constructions involving those core word types (noun phrases, verb phrases, clauses), then complex multi-clause constructions. But even then there are variations on the theme. Compare:

Gurindji, by Meakins and McConvell
- The language and its speakers
- Phonology
- Parts of speech
- Nominals
- Closed class nominals
- Pronouns
- Inflecting verbs and coverbs
- Syntax of main clauses
- Complex sentences
- Unrestricted clitics and particles

Manambu, by Aikhenvald
- Introduction: the language and its speakers
- Phonology
- Grammatical relations
- Word classes
- Gender marking, semantics, and agreement
- Number
- Case marking
- Possession
- Derivation and compounding
- Closed classes
- Predicate structure and verb root types
- Verbal categories in positive declaration and interrogative clauses
- Mood and modality
- Negation
- Verb compounding
- Directionals and valency changing devices
- Complex predicates
- Clause linking and dependent clauses
- Other dependent clauses and further features of clause linking
- Clause types and discourse-pragmatic devices
- Issues in semantics and features of the lexicon
- Genetic and areal relationships, and new developments in the language

To a certain extent you need to adjust the structure to what's important for the language you're trying to describe. For example, Gurindji has a coverb construction, so the grammar dedicates space to describing it. If your language lacks coverbs, there's not much point having a chapter with "coverb" in the title. Similarly, Manambu has a somewhat unusual agreement system, which is why Aikhenvald addresses grammatical relations and agreement early on (although I think the chosen division of her grammar into chapters is a bit disorganised / scattergun / like a sequence of papers instead of a book, and I don't like it much as a whole).

[chris_notts]

Regarding Describing Morphosyntax specifically, its chapters are also organised in the bottom-up way that's fairly common, so the high-level structure is not a bad starting point. Looking through my copy, the questions within each chapter are good to think about and to know the answer to, but I'm not sure I would write a grammar by answering each question one by one. I would, instead, go through the questions, jot down some notes about what my answers were, and then consider what the best way to explain those answers to the reader is.

There's a reason it used to be considered the (or a) conlanger's bible and a good starting point, since it does a good job of giving you an overview of the variation in natural languages and offers a decent starting point for structuring a grammar, it's just that a book that reads like a sequence of answers to someone else's list of questions doesn't flow well. If you can, I'd recommend skimming through a few grammars of natural languages. They don't even need to be uncommon languages... go into your local bookshop or library, find a reference grammar of Spanish or some other big language, flick through it, and see how it flows.

[zompist]

My questions are: a) will this method produce a naturalistic result, b) what will I miss in my morphosyntax sections using just this method; and c) is working through the book linearly the best way to go about things?

I think Describing Morphosyntax is pretty good; of course I recommend my own Advanced Language Construction too. Of course my book is aimed at conlangers and Payne's is not.

a) It will certainly improve your grammar, but there's always something else to learn.

Another excellent resource is WALS Online, which surveys all sorts of linguistic structures based on a huge number of languages. You don't have to read the whole thing, but if you're looking at (say) relative clauses, it's great to skim the relevant sections to see what options are available.

Don't obsess too much about naturalism. Individual languages are often far weirder than global summaries make them out to be. And what is actually observed on our planet is hightly historically contingent— what is common is not due to linguistic factors.

b) I dunno, but that's why I tout WALS and my book. More info is always good.

c) No way is best. If you're new to conlanging, Payne is a great way to learn about a bunch of features you might not have realized existed.

Also, echoing Chris, the overall organization for your grammar should be what works for your language. Grammars of Sanskrit, Mandarin, and Quechua will probably look very different.

[vegfarandi]

I go through so much pain over this in my conlanging work, I'm constantly changing up chapter sections and hierarchies as I work through the material. For me, the experience of conlanging is like discovery. Once you've settled on your "core parameters" and you start writing, it often feels like you're discovering a language that already exists, because the way the parameters you've chosen (e.g. how SOV word order, non-tense based TAM system, multiple noun classes of my conlang Duriac lead me to "discover" that the language has unmarked relative clauses) seem to suggest certain interesting ways things should work. And there's always choices. But once you've written enough material and made enough microchoices, the thing really takes on a life of its own. And often, your original structure stops making sense and you have to reorganize.

Something I had to learn over time is that the structure of the description isn't the language. At some point the language will exist outside of your notes and description inside your brain in a similar way that a language you've studied for a couple of semesters in high school does. The only point of caution here, is that once this happens (and before too) you will be strongly motivated to fill in blanks with stuff from other second languages you've studied. That's where resources like Describing Morphosyntax, the ALC and WALS come in very handy to check yourself. Frequently, the way you feel something should work based on languages you know is not at all the only way it can.

I usually try to aim for "progressive disclosure" in my description. Make it so that each chapter builds on previous chapters and you're rarely required to jump back and forth to fully understand. When it's absolutely necessary to heavily refer to key information out of order, briefly summarize it in the flow and refer to the full chapter for details. I read a lot of natlang grammars and I really hate it when they require you to constantly jump around just to understand the basics of what they're saying.

[chris_notts]

I think "progressive disclosure" is more or less the bottom up approach I was talking about as standard in grammars too. Start from the smallest units and build your way up to bigger ones. Of course the actual network of topics is not a tree so you can't do this perfectly, but you can try to get as close as possible.

[conlangernoob]

Here are my core parameters so far:
1. Somewhat isolating
2. Head-final - Dominantly suffixing, SOV, postpositions ect.
3. Head-marking
4. Animacy based alignment split
5. Three verb inflections: Perfective, imperfective, subjunctive.

Also, due to the language being somewhat isolating, I decided to merge the “Word Classes”, “Derivational Morphology” and “Morphology” sections into one giant “Morphology” section. (If you can think of a better name, tell me.) My current format then if something like:

Phonology
Morphology
Syntax
Semantics and Pragmatics

Until anon,

conlangernoob

P.S. I DO have a copy of ALC.

[chris_notts]

Also, due to the language being somewhat isolating, I decided to merge the “Word Classes”, “Derivational Morphology” and “Morphology” sections into one giant “Morphology” section. (If you can think of a better name, tell me.) My current format then if something like:

Phonology
Morphology
Syntax
Semantics and Pragmatics

Until anon,

conlangernoob

P.S. I DO have a copy of ALC.

I think lumping is fine to start with for your initial sketch, but you may find that as you try to write more in your language and answer the questions that come up, you end splitting and refactoring your chapters again. As vegfarandi said, it's a living document as long as you're using your conlang.

[conlangernoob]

Two noun-related systems I came up with (please tell me if it’s unnaturalistic).

What number markings a noun can take depends on the animacy level of the noun.

(level 1 animacy) Humans, gods, spirits, large animals: Singular, paucal, and plural
(level 2 animacy) Small animals, water, weather, tools: Singular and plural.
(level 3 animacy) Other physical objects and abstractions: No number markings

All nouns either must be possessed, can optionally be possessed or cannot be possessed.

Unpossessable: Food, water, land, things in nature in general ect. (It will be marked in the lexicon)
Inherently Possessed: Body parts, kinship terms, attribute (e.g. age), mental state (e.g. fear).
Optional possession: Other nouns

Until anon,

conlangernoob

[chris_notts]

Two noun-related systems I came up with (please tell me if it’s unnaturalistic).

What number markings a noun can take depends on the animacy level of the noun.

(level 1 animacy) Humans, gods, spirits, large animals: Singular, paucal, and plural
(level 2 animacy) Small animals, water, weather, tools: Singular and plural.
(level 3 animacy) Other physical objects and abstractions: No number markings

All nouns either must be possessed, can optionally be possessed or cannot be possessed.

Unpossessable: Food, water, land, things in nature in general ect. (It will be marked in the lexicon)
Inherently Possessed: Body parts, kinship terms, attribute (e.g. age), mental state (e.g. fear).
Optional possession: Other nouns

Until anon,

conlangernoob

Number marking only for animates is attested. I think languages with a paucal only for pronouns are also attested, and having one only for higher animates doesn't seem implausible.

Similarly, most possession systems like you describe seem to be binary, but I think a ternary system isn't obviously implausible either. But you do have to ask yourself the question "what do people do if they want to refer to their food which they put down a minute ago and now can't find?" If they can't say "my food", what do they say?

[vegfarandi]

Two noun-related systems I came up with (please tell me if it’s unnaturalistic).

What number markings a noun can take depends on the animacy level of the noun.

(level 1 animacy) Humans, gods, spirits, large animals: Singular, paucal, and plural
(level 2 animacy) Small animals, water, weather, tools: Singular and plural.
(level 3 animacy) Other physical objects and abstractions: No number markings

All nouns either must be possessed, can optionally be possessed or cannot be possessed.

Unpossessable: Food, water, land, things in nature in general ect. (It will be marked in the lexicon)
Inherently Possessed: Body parts, kinship terms, attribute (e.g. age), mental state (e.g. fear).
Optional possession: Other nouns

Until anon,

conlangernoob

Number marking only for animates is attested. I think languages with a paucal only for pronouns are also attested, and having one only for higher animates doesn't seem implausible.

Similarly, most possession systems like you describe seem to be binary, but I think a ternary system isn't obviously implausible either. But you do have to ask yourself the question "what do people do if they want to refer to their food which they put down a minute ago and now can't find?" If they can't say "my food", what do they say?

Presumably, unpossessable means "morphologically unpossessable"? So you'd need periphrasis of some sort to mark possession of these? Whether an independent pronoun, adpositional phrase or some kind of reduced relative clause with a "have"-type word.

[chris_notts]

Presumably, unpossessable means "morphologically unpossessable"? So you'd need periphrasis of some sort to mark possession of these? Whether an independent pronoun, adpositional phrase or some kind of reduced relative clause with a "have"-type word.

Agreed, but you'd have to describe what that circumlocution is. Maybe apposition with a possessable noun or classifier, e.g. "my-thing the.food".

[Travis B.]

Two noun-related systems I came up with (please tell me if it’s unnaturalistic).

What number markings a noun can take depends on the animacy level of the noun.

(level 1 animacy) Humans, gods, spirits, large animals: Singular, paucal, and plural
(level 2 animacy) Small animals, water, weather, tools: Singular and plural.
(level 3 animacy) Other physical objects and abstractions: No number markings

All nouns either must be possessed, can optionally be possessed or cannot be possessed.

Unpossessable: Food, water, land, things in nature in general ect. (It will be marked in the lexicon)
Inherently Possessed: Body parts, kinship terms, attribute (e.g. age), mental state (e.g. fear).
Optional possession: Other nouns

Until anon,

conlangernoob

Number marking only for animates is attested. I think languages with a paucal only for pronouns are also attested, and having one only for higher animates doesn't seem implausible.

Similarly, most possession systems like you describe seem to be binary, but I think a ternary system isn't obviously implausible either. But you do have to ask yourself the question "what do people do if they want to refer to their food which they put down a minute ago and now can't find?" If they can't say "my food", what do they say?

All this I agree with. The system you (conlangernoob) describe does not seem implausible at all to me, but you will need some means of possessing unpossessable nouns, because ultimately people will need to possess them somehow. As mentioned in another post, apposition with a possessable noun or classifer is one way to do it. Another way is to have all nouns be possessable - but use different but grammaticalized ways of possessing them, e.g. have a genitive case or possessive clitics or putting the possessed noun in a construct state for inherently possessed and some other nouns, while having less-possessable nouns be possessed with an adposition (and how strongly something is possessed could be marked by a choice between the former or the latter).

[keenir]

Two noun-related systems I came up with (please tell me if it’s unnaturalistic).

What number markings a noun can take depends on the animacy level of the noun.

(level 1 animacy) Humans, gods, spirits, large animals: Singular, paucal, and plural
(level 2 animacy) Small animals, water, weather, tools: Singular and plural.
(level 3 animacy) Other physical objects and abstractions: No number markings

All nouns either must be possessed, can optionally be possessed or cannot be possessed.

Unpossessable: Food, water, land, things in nature in general ect. (It will be marked in the lexicon)
Inherently Possessed: Body parts, kinship terms, attribute (e.g. age), mental state (e.g. fear).
Optional possession: Other nouns

Number marking only for animates is attested. I think languages with a paucal only for pronouns are also attested, and having one only for higher animates doesn't seem implausible.

Similarly, most possession systems like you describe seem to be binary, but I think a ternary system isn't obviously implausible either. But you do have to ask yourself the question "what do people do if they want to refer to their food which they put down a minute ago and now can't find?" If they can't say "my food", what do they say?

If it was their food, prior to it vanishing, then its still their food, right? (so you can maybe say "the food i was about to eat") So maybe do that...or, emphasize that the food is now missing?

[Moose-tache]

Years ago I asked a similar question about how reference grammars should be organized. The consensus at that time was that it doesn't matter. People shouldn't be using your reference grammar as a learning material; that should be accomplished through other documents. The reference grammar is just that: a reference. Its index is far more important than its table of contents, and the organization and clarity of individual sections is more important than the relative order of those sections.

[bradrn]

Years ago I asked a similar question about how reference grammars should be organized. The consensus at that time was that it doesn't matter. People shouldn't be using your reference grammar as a learning material; that should be accomplished through other documents. The reference grammar is just that: a reference. Its index is far more important than its table of contents, and the organization and clarity of individual sections is more important than the relative order of those sections.

The extreme of this approach is of course Newman’s amazingly comprehensive The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar, with its chapters neatly sorted in alphabetical order. This makes it very easy to look up information, and almost impossible to understand as a whole. Especially for conlangs, I highly value being able to read a grammar to get a general overview of how a language works — thoughtful organisation can do wonders here.

[chris_notts]

The extreme of this approach is of course Newman’s amazingly comprehensive The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar, with its chapters neatly sorted in alphabetical order. This makes it very easy to look up information, and almost impossible to understand as a whole. Especially for conlangs, I highly value being able to read a grammar to get a general overview of how a language works — thoughtful organisation can do wonders here.

Not just for conlangs - this kind of organisation relies on almost complete knowledge with a few gaps, but for any small or endangered language, a reference grammar written by a field linguist is possible all there is, and the readership almost certainly lack that almost complete knowledge. And even when that's not that case, why would you choose to make your book less helpful and narrower in use? Better organisation allows it to do two jobs without sacrificing the ability to have an index for those who just want to look up one thing.

(Although, as the world goes digital, indices are partly a thing of the past anyway. Most people just search the entire text of ebooks, leaving you with no sensible organising principle for the reference case except "make it readable end to end for people who aren't just going to search it")

[Moose-tache]

I think you're both assuming that the reference grammar has to do all of those jobs: giving people a bird's eye view, teaching familiarity with the language, etc. Ideally, that wouldn't happen. There are Hausa lessons and textbooks, after all. The above-mentioned encyclopedia, unless I guess incorrectly, is probably not written for beginning Hausa learners.

So a reference grammar only needs to do these things in emergency situations in which a reference grammar is required to do more things other than be a reference grammar. You might as well ask how to design a car so that it can also double as an underwater shelter. Sure, that could be very useful in certain edge cases, but it tells you very little about good car design overall.

[bradrn]

I think you're both assuming that the reference grammar has to do all of those jobs: giving people a bird's eye view, teaching familiarity with the language, etc. Ideally, that wouldn't happen. There are Hausa lessons and textbooks, after all. The above-mentioned encyclopedia, unless I guess incorrectly, is probably not written for beginning Hausa learners.

So a reference grammar only needs to do these things in emergency situations in which a reference grammar is required to do more things other than be a reference grammar. You might as well ask how to design a car so that it can also double as an underwater shelter. Sure, that could be very useful in certain edge cases, but it tells you very little about good car design overall.

But at the same time, most people who are reading a reference grammar are generally not already experts in the language. And, in fact, if they are reading it for linguistic information, it is extremely unlikely that they know very much about it. So it is quite nice for a reference grammar to secondarily have a role as a birds-eye introduction. At the very least, it costs nothing to at least arrange the sections in logical order, from most elementary to most complex. (Some grammars I like in this vein are Hyslop’s grammar of Lolovoli East Ambae and Jacques’s grammar of Japhug.)