Conlang Random Thread

[foxcatdog]

How is it pedantic or bad to reuse a preposition?

I'm not calling the choice pedantic i'm calling him pedantic.

for what - trying to help you solve the problem you asked for help with?

I'm trying to help him be a better person and not be so neurotic. And i only criticised one of his actions. Now stop harrassing me.

[zompist]

foxcatdog, don't ask questions if you're just going to insult people who answer.

You may not get the answers that you prefer or even that you can use, but that's no reason to be rude about it.

[Jonlang]

I've had an idea for evolving a feature in one of my conlangs, which usually means I come here to ask if it's logical or naturalistic, I get told "no" and I cry; but here goes:

If I have understood the use of the Latin gerundive correctly, it is an adjective which pretty much corresponds to the gerund of a verb. I feel that the gerundive has an intrinsic future-ness about it - that the qualified noun is to have an action performed on it in the future and can be used attributively or predicatively; the example given on Wikipedia is:

agnus caedundus – 'a lamb ready for slaughter(ing)' – [used attributively]
agnus est caedundus – 'the/a lamb is ready for slaughter/ ... is to be slaughtered/ ... is for slaughter(ing)' – [used predicatively]

(I know they can also be used impersonally, but it isn't really relevant to my upcoming question.)

With this future-ness in mind, and if I have the right of it, would it be feasible (or at least conceivable) that:

1. the gerundive could be used like a future participle in a compound with the preterite of 'to be' to mean 'was going to...', and
2. that the gerundive evolve further to become a future tense marker on verbs?

[keenir]

I've had an idea for evolving a feature in one of my conlangs, which usually means I come here to ask if it's logical or naturalistic, I get told "no" and I cry; but here goes:

1. the gerundive could be used like a future participle in a compound with the preterite of 'to be' to mean 'was going to...', and
2. that the gerundive evolve further to become a future tense marker on verbs?

Yes, yes it is.

[Richard W]

If I have understood the use of the Latin gerundive correctly, it is an adjective which pretty much corresponds to the gerund of a verb.

I would say that the correspondence is overwhelmingly one of form.

The only semantic relationship I'm aware of is in phrases like that meaning 'to seek peace', where instead of *ad pacem petendum which would be a literal translation of the English 'to seeking peace', the Romans actually wrote ad pacem petendam, where instead of a gerund, which is neuter as a noun, they used a gerundive which agrees with the noun which is an object of the infinitive in English, but in the actual Latin construction becomes the object of the preposition.

As most nouns are non-feminine singulars, for which the gerund or gerundive would end in -ndum, I suspect this originated as a misanalysis.

1. the gerundive could be used like a future participle in a compound with the preterite of 'to be' to mean 'was going to...', and

Indeed for some languages (well, at least in oldish Indic, for the suffixes that are -tavya or -ya in Sanskrit), one may find the same form being called a gerundive by some and a future passive participle by others. The longer suffix has no formal connection with the future or passive stems.

[Qwynegold]

I've started working on my old conlang Seebee again. The conjugation in this language is so complicated I can barely make sense of it myself. So I'm trying to simplify this. The idea is that this simplification is grammatical evolution that happened in the language pretty fast. So I'm writing here to get some feedback that would help me make a decision about one thing regarding the conjugation.

In Seebee there are class I, II and III verbs. Classes II and III have two different stems that are used in different conjugations. This chart shows which verb classes use stem 2 where in the paradigm:

Code: Select all

        fam pol
pst-pos -   -
pst-neg III II&III
prs-pos -   -
prs-neg III II&III
hort    III II&III
imp     -   II&III
nomz    -

So now I'm wondering what to do with these two verb stems. I can see the following possibilities:

1) Get rid of stem 2 entirely, because stem 1 is used in the least marked form of the verb (prs-pos-fam).
2) Get rid of stem 1 because 2 is used in the majority of the conjugations (7/13). Stem 1 could survive in a few verbs, where stem 1 and 2 are thought of as completely different verbs, with stem 1 being a rude or crude word and stem 2 being the neutral word.
3) Get rid of stem 2 for class II, and stem 1 for class III. Because class III uses stem 2 more than class II.
4) Maybe stem 2 would come to be so associated with the polite register, that it becomes used for all the polite conjugations while stem 1 becomes used for all familiar conjugations. So stems 1 and 2 would be regarded as different verbs, with 1 being familiar register and 2 being polite.

What would you do?

[jal]

What would you do?

4 seems the most likely, but languages are weird, so everything goes :D.


JAL

[Imralu]

This terminology is confusing. I usually see ‘experiential’ used for a verbal form related to the perfect, which implies the speaker has done an action before. (The standard example being Chinese 過 -guò, often translated as ‘ever’.) This kind of experiential, by the way, is also a perfectly good intermediate step in the development of a passive.

Maybe you can help me come up with a better term for what I'm calling "experiential voice". (I figured that specifying it as a voice makes it clear that it's different from the experiential aspect, but there still might be a clearer term.)

The experiential "voice" in Balog is marked by the derivative infix -uh- means that the referent experiences, in some way, something characterised by the root.

šev "be visible", "be seen" → šuhev "see"
teš "be familiar", "be known" → tuheš "know"
mazeg "be clear/understandable/comprehensible" → muhazeg "understand"
daž "be dangerous", "be a danger" → duhaž "be in danger"
ŋam "be loved" (sexually, romantically) → ŋuham "love"
sumux "be a shark" → suhumux "get sharked" "be attacked by a shark"
tšeg "be a spider" → tšuheg "get spidered", i.e. "get bitten by a spider", "get startled by a spider", "see a spider"
valus "be a friend" → vuhalus "have a friend"
tlev "be a name" → tluhev "be named"
muf "be a tear/tears" → muhuf "weep"
qalum "be rain" → quhalum "get rained on"

It's often quite similar to a passive or an applicative passive, but it contrasts a bit with roots that are inherently passive and are "depassivised" by the causative or antipassive infix -uw-.

tem "be eaten", "be consumed" → tuwem "eat, consume"
ŋem "be crushed" → ŋuwem "crush"
feŋ "be stolen" → fuweŋ "steal", "be a thief"

Frequently, both derivations can be used and can sometimes be used together:

feŋ "be stolen
→ fuweŋ "steal", "be a thief"
→ fuheŋ "have something stolen" (e.g. have one's car stolen, meaning "experience one's car being stolen" rather than "arrange for sb. else to steal one's car", which could be fuwuweŋ, but would more likely be expressed in a multiclausal construction)

šev "be visible", "be seen"
→ šuhev "see"
→ šuwev "show" (sth.), "reveal", "point out" ("make be seen")
→ šuwuhev "show" (sb.), figuratively "open sb.'s eyes" ("make see")

kal "burn" (intr.), "be on fire"
→ kuwal "set on fire", "light a fire", "torch sth."
→ kuhal "experience a fire" (e.g. have one's home or possessions burn down)
→ kuhuwal "experience a fire caused by someone" (e.g. have one's home or possessions burnt down/torched, experience an act of arson)

haž "be open" (of a door etc.); "be vulnerable", "be exposed", "be unprotected"
→ huwaž "open" (a door, etc.); "leave sb. vulnerable/exposed/unprotected"
→ huhaž "find (a door etc.) open", "be unimpeded", "be unhindered"; "find sb. vulnerable/unprotected"

ŋeb "be uttered", "be a message", "be an utterance", "be said", "be told" (e.g. a story)
→ ŋuweb "say", "utter", "tell", "be a messenger"
→ ŋuheb "be told" (a person), "receive a message"

nyag "use one's neck", "turn one's head"
→ nyuwag "be stunning", "be gorgeous", "be a head-turner"
→ nyuhuwag "see someone stunning and turn one's head"
→ nyuhag "be aware of heads turning while passing"

mil "hide" (intr.)
→ muwil "hide sth./sb."
→ muhil "be hidden from"

ŋaf "flee", "run away", "avoid"
→ ŋuwaf "chase away", "shoo"
→ ŋuhaf "be fled from"

loš "wash" (intr.), "bathe", "shower"
→ luwoš "wash sb./sth."
→ luhuwoš "be washed by sb. else"

I was calling -uh- a passive for a while, noting that with words for sensory states like "be visible", it is the reverse of English, which encodes experiencers as the subjects of the base words and the stimulus as the object. Recently though, I came across a concept where this -uh- couldn't be applied because passiveness wasn't associated with experiencing something, but I can't remember what it was.

[Imralu]

I also find that longer endings don't always sound good for most words. Like lumbu > lumbāwa. Lumbāwa and longer words sound clunky, especially if case ending are transparent and simply appended to the gender endings.

Of course it's all subjective, but for what it's worth, I don't find lumbāwa clunky at all and find it quite beautiful.

[Qwynegold]

@Imralu: Can't you just call it an applicative?

[Qwynegold]

What would you do?

4 seems the most likely, but languages are weird, so everything goes .


JAL

Ah, I was thinking is option 4 really how analogy would work? Now I'm thinking maybe I'll do option 4 for class II verbs because they only use stem 2 in the polite register, and for class III verbs I'll lose stem 1. Hmm, though I'm not sure if that would be plausible.

[bradrn]

A prominent conlanger on YouTube is running a conlanger survey. I’ve been through it and some of the questions seem a bit odd to me, but I’ve long thought such a census is a good idea, so let me link it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... w/viewform

[jal]

A prominent conlanger on YouTube is running a conlanger survey. I’ve been through it and some of the questions seem a bit odd to me, but I’ve long thought such a census is a good idea, so let me link it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... w/viewform

Nice, filled in. The region selection is questionable :).

JAL

[bradrn]

A prominent conlanger on YouTube is running a conlanger survey. I’ve been through it and some of the questions seem a bit odd to me, but I’ve long thought such a census is a good idea, so let me link it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... w/viewform

Nice, filled in. The region selection is questionable .

Indeed… I get very annoyed at people who think the US is the centre of the world!

[Travis B.]

A prominent conlanger on YouTube is running a conlanger survey. I’ve been through it and some of the questions seem a bit odd to me, but I’ve long thought such a census is a good idea, so let me link it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... w/viewform

Nice, filled in. The region selection is questionable .

Indeed… I get very annoyed at people who think the US is the centre of the world!

One could say the same thing about the East and West Coasts of the US.

[foxcatdog]

pai isimaa naransii tu tin siju
1.pau go-IMPF city+queen GEN INST riding.beast
“We are going to Naransii by riding beast”

pai isimaajan siju nar naransii
1.pau go-IMPF-COM riding.beast LAT city+queen
“We are going by riding beast to Naransii”

pai isimaajan naransii siju
1.pau go-IMPF-COM city+queen riding.beast”
“We are going to Naransii by riding beast”

Last example is a combination of the dative shift + applicative

[AwfullyAmateur]

Hi, I'm new to the site (and conlanging, as my name makes clear) and I'm not very good at anything yet. Dunno how to introduce my language, Sodemeresh, so I may as well begin with the conjugations (because I love my conjugations).

To Grow- Irovase
I Grow- Irovasu
You S. Grow- Irovases
You P. Grow- Irovasal
He/She/They Grow(s)- Irovasem
They P. Grow- Irovasi
It (Inanimate) Grows- Irovasil
They (Inanimate) Grow- Irovasole
We Grow- Irovasent

[bradrn]

Hi, I'm new to the site (and conlanging, as my name makes clear) and I'm not very good at anything yet. Dunno how to introduce my language, Sodemeresh, so I may as well begin with the conjugations (because I love my conjugations).

To Grow- Irovase
I Grow- Irovasu
You S. Grow- Irovases
You P. Grow- Irovasal
He/She/They Grow(s)- Irovasem
They P. Grow- Irovasi
It (Inanimate) Grows- Irovasil
They (Inanimate) Grow- Irovasole
We Grow- Irovasent

Welcome to the board! Let me reformat this as a table for easier viewing:

Person	SG	PL
1	irovasu	irovasent
2	irovases	irovasal
3 (animate)	irovasem	irovasem / irovasi
3 (inanimate)	irovasil	irovasole

Which leads me onto my questions:

• If both irovasem and irovasi can be used for ‘they grow’, how does one decide which to use when?
• Precisely what kind of verb form is irovase?

[AwfullyAmateur]

Irovasem is used for they singular (animate). Irovasi is they plural (animate). Also, irovase is a typical Sodemeresh verb. Seemed best not to introduce me and my language with irregular verbs. If you're asking what kind of growing, specifically, it's basically growing like a plant grows, or a person grows up. Sorry for any confusion.

[bradrn]

Irovasem is used for they singular (animate). Irovasi is they plural (animate). Also, irovase is a typical Sodemeresh verb. Seemed best not to introduce me and my language with irregular verbs.

Sorry, my second question was unclear. You gloss irovase as English ‘to grow’, which is an infinitive… but many other languages don’t really have a verb form like that.

So what I meant to ask was: what role does irovase have in the grammar of your language? For instance, how would you use it in a sentence?

If you're asking what kind of growing, specifically, it's basically growing like a plant grows, or a person grows up.

Also… be careful here! English happens to conflate these two meanings into one verb grow, but other languages may not. (For instance, I gather that French uses pousser for plants and grandir for people.) Of course, it’s still fine to use one verb in your language, but make sure you’re aware of it and that you’re conflating those meanings deliberately, rather than doing so merely because English does it.