Conlang Random Thread

[AwfullyAmateur]

Actually, to expand a bit (I whipped this up pretty much right now);

A language consisting (almost) entirely of nouns and verbs (everything else expressed through affixes and/or conjugation). Also, no definite articles except t’ (serves as both definite and indefinite).

Ebofig (noun: rock)
Ufamgi (verb: to be red)
Am (infix: Bigger than a person)
Oa (conjugation : Singular Inanimate)
Diodei (postfix: distant but within eyesight)
El (Postpostfix, equivalent to ‘recently was not but is now”)
Pronouns = Conjugation of verbs
Ebofiga ( the rock) = Ebofigu ([You talk about] the rock
T’ebamofigaufamgoadiodeiel = The distant big red rock is now within my eyesight.
Mi (prefix that goes before verbs, means ‘but’)
Retafueki = Travel
Ta = Postfix meaning ‘long’ (Time, multiple days)
O= Compulsion (e.g. I had to)
Mori= A distance
See= Ave
Af = Postfix, refers to noun before previous one
Ru- Prefix = Ru
T’ebofigaufamgoadiodeiel, mioretafuekitaruava’af. = The distant big red rock is now within my eyesight, but I have had to travel a long way to see it.

[äreo]

Also, no definite articles except t’ (serves as both definite and indefinite).

If t' is both definite and indefinite, what is the effective difference between ebofig and t'ebofig? Perhaps it's a way of simply letting the listener know to parse a word as a noun?

T’ebofigaufamgoadiodeiel, mioretafuekitaruava’af. = The distant big red rock is now within my eyesight, but I have had to travel a long way to see it.

I don't see mori distance here. Also, what does -ru- mean?

I think there may be some languages that mark nouns similar to the way you describe, "conjugating" them based on who mentioned them or at least marking verb tense on the subject noun, but I'm not sure.

[bradrn]

I think there may be some languages that mark nouns similar to the way you describe, "conjugating" them based on who mentioned them or at least marking verb tense on the subject noun, but I'm not sure.

There are a very few languages which can mark tense on nouns, as a sort of derivational process (the one which comes to mind right now is Tariana). But I’ve never heard of conjugating nouns for person like AwfullyAmateur describes, and I’m not even sure what it means.

On the other hand, marking the possessor via pronominal affixes is very common.

[keenir]

Imagine a language where you have to conjugate nouns, eg. Ebofig = Rock, Ebofiga = (I talk about) the rock), and Ebofigu (You talk about) the rock. Would a language like that conjugate verbs as well, do you think?

Yes it could do verbs as well; though it wouldn't be unheard-of for it to do nouns and no verbs. (that latter one would make it easier to distinguish the nouns from the verbs)

Or, another option might be to conjugate one noun and one verb, leaving the rest unconjugated...ie,

I-a drank-a water-a,
And I laid stones (to make a road),
And I-(a?) drank-(a?) hot chocolate-(a?).
{or however many nouns are included in whatever the verb's action is, in the statement - or vice versa}

[Imralu]

Oh, and by the way, I've going through the pronouns on my second conlang and, it occurred to me: Can you make possessive pronouns double as possessive adjectives or not?

Yes, of course. Swahili does this:

Hii ni nyumba yangu.
this.CL9 COP house(9) CL9-my
This is my house.

Nyumba hii ni yangu.
house(9) this.CL9 COP CL9-my
This house is mine.

The situation in Māori is a bit more complicated (as it usually is). In a way, there is no distinction between possessives used with or without noun phrases (e.g. tōku in the examples below can be both "my" and "mine"), but there is also another set. There is a distinction between t/∅ possession and n possession. Very often, the possessive adjectives will be translated with t/∅ possession (where the t derives from the singular definite article te and ∅ indicates plural) and the possessive pronouns will be translated with n possession, but that's not the full picture because, although n possession is not followed by a noun and t/∅ possession can be, the latter can also be used without a noun phrase. The chief use of n possession is when possession is indicated in the predicate without the accompanying noun phrase (e.g. "is mine"). If t/∅ possession is used in the predicate (as it has to be when the possessed noun phrase is included), it needs to be introduced by the equative particle ko. For these examples, with house, it might be useful to note that houses, vehicles (including horses to be ridden) and clothing are possessed with o, which is used for inalienable possession.

Ko t-ō-ku whare t-ēnei.
EQ SG-INAL-1S house SG-this
This is my house.

N-ō-ku t-ēnei.whare
"n"-INAL-1S SG-this house
This house is mine.

(I am not sure if ko tōku tēnei whare is ungrammatical, or if it is also grammatical but merely less idiomatic than nōku tēnei whare.)

T/∅ possession can also be used without a following noun, however, such as in the usual structure to indicate having something, or where a nounless possessive phrase is used in a sentence constituent other than the predicate, such as in the comparative sentence below.

He whare t-ō-ku
INDEF house SG-INAL-1S
I have a house. (Literally "Mine is a house.")

He nui ake t-ō-u whare i t-ō-ku.
INDEF big upwards SG-INAL-2S house ACC SG-INAL-1S
Your house is bigger than mine.

(Additionally, there is m possession, which is more equivalent to "for" than "of" and it is often contrasted with n possession and described as a difference of tense — not that unusual in Māori, which has tense indicated on predicate locative prepositions as well. M indicates future possession and n indicates an already existing possessive relationship. E.g. Mōku tēnei whare, "This house is for me. (I.e. it will be mine.) Nōku tēnei whare, "This house is (already) mine." The t/∅ possessives don't have this distinction and, uniquely, can be used as determiners or self-headed noun phrases and also mark singular and plural, which the n and m possessives don't.)

[jal]

Imagine a language where you have to conjugate nouns, eg. Ebofig = Rock, Ebofiga = (I talk about) the rock), and Ebofigu (You talk about) the rock. Would a language like that conjugate verbs as well, do you think?

Quick terminology lesson: verbs are conjugated, so have a conjugation, nouns are declined, and have a declension.

It's difficult from your example to see what's going on, without knowing more about the morphosyntax of the language. I can't even tell whether -a/-u is a noun case (and which one), or that they're clitics that just happen to be attached to a noun.

Also, "conjugation" of verbs can mean many things. In your example, marking person on the noun could well be combined with marking TAM (tense/aspect/mood) on the verb, for example. Also, many language have double concord, so marking things both on verbs and its constituents.

So, the quick answer is: I don't think anything, because of lack of information :).


JAL

[bradrn]

Imagine a language where you have to conjugate nouns, eg. Ebofig = Rock, Ebofiga = (I talk about) the rock), and Ebofigu (You talk about) the rock. Would a language like that conjugate verbs as well, do you think?

Quick terminology lesson: verbs are conjugated, so have a conjugation, nouns are declined, and have a declension.

I think this was intentional: they’re imagining a language where nouns can take person markers similarly to verbs. But as you note, that’s terribly vague and difficult to say anything about.

[jal]

I think this was intentional

Perhaps, but they also stated they're pretty novice, and don't know all the terminology so I thought I'd point it out.


JAL

[Moose-tache]

I think there may be some languages that mark nouns similar to the way you describe, "conjugating" them based on who mentioned them or at least marking verb tense on the subject noun, but I'm not sure.

There are a very few languages which can mark tense on nouns, as a sort of derivational process (the one which comes to mind right now is Tariana). But I’ve never heard of conjugating nouns for person like AwfullyAmateur describes, and I’m not even sure what it means.

On the other hand, marking the possessor via pronominal affixes is very common.

I think the clearest path would be to start with a language that uses the same affixes for person agreement and possession, like half of North America. Then you use syntax to distinguish nouns from verbs and level the nominalizing morphology with sound change. You could accomplish this pretty easily in some Muskogean languages, where the phonetic difference between "it sits on me" and "my chair" can be as little as a glottal stop or a falling tone.

[bradrn]

I think there may be some languages that mark nouns similar to the way you describe, "conjugating" them based on who mentioned them or at least marking verb tense on the subject noun, but I'm not sure.

There are a very few languages which can mark tense on nouns, as a sort of derivational process (the one which comes to mind right now is Tariana). But I’ve never heard of conjugating nouns for person like AwfullyAmateur describes, and I’m not even sure what it means.

On the other hand, marking the possessor via pronominal affixes is very common.

I think the clearest path would be to start with a language that uses the same affixes for person agreement and possession, like half of North America. Then you use syntax to distinguish nouns from verbs and level the nominalizing morphology with sound change. You could accomplish this pretty easily in some Muskogean languages, where the phonetic difference between "it sits on me" and "my chair" can be as little as a glottal stop or a falling tone.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here. If you already can use the same affixes with nouns and verbs, what’s the point of adding nominalising morphology? (Or is that removing nominalisation? That part’s confusing me too.)

[Moose-tache]

Yeah, "level" the nominalizing morphology meant get rid of it. Sorry for the confusion.

[bradrn]

Yeah, "level" the nominalizing morphology meant get rid of it. Sorry for the confusion.

So, to double-check my understanding: you’re suggesting starting off with a system like:

1s-chair ‘my chair’
1s-sit ‘I sit’
1s-sit--NMLZ ‘my sitting’

Then you use syntax to further disambiguate nouns and verbs, and lose the overt nominaliser, getting:

1s-chair ‘my chair’
1s-sit [used verbally] ‘I sit’
1s-sit [used nominally] ‘my sitting’

…which is interesting, but seems quite different to what AwfullyAmateur was getting at.

[Moose-tache]

Yeah, "level" the nominalizing morphology meant get rid of it. Sorry for the confusion.

So, to double-check my understanding: you’re suggesting starting off with a system like:

1s-chair ‘my chair’
1s-sit ‘I sit’
1s-sit--NMLZ ‘my sitting’

Then you use syntax to further disambiguate nouns and verbs, and lose the overt nominaliser, getting:

1s-chair ‘my chair’
1s-sit [used verbally] ‘I sit’
1s-sit [used nominally] ‘my sitting’

…which is interesting, but seems quite different to what AwfullyAmateur was getting at.

No. I'm sure there are languages that do this, but many NA languages, including the ones I was thinking about, do things differently. More like this:

1s-sit-NMLZ ‘my chair’
1s-sit ‘I sit’

...becomes:

1s-sit [used nominally] ‘my chair’
1s-sit [used verbally] ‘I sit’

[bradrn]

No. I'm sure there are languages that do this, but many NA languages, including the ones I was thinking about, do things differently. More like this:

1s-sit-NMLZ ‘my chair’
1s-sit ‘I sit’

...becomes:

1s-sit [used nominally] ‘my chair’
1s-sit [used verbally] ‘I sit’

Ah, I see: this is a language where the nominaliser applies to the verb stem directly. I don’t feel like such a situation is particularly similar to the original question, though.

[Moose-tache]

Not the way we've approached it, you're right. But if you just encountered a system like this in the wild, it might not be a crazy idea to say that "person is marked on the noun" like OP said. The point is, marking possession on nouns is common, and it doesn't take much finagling to make it at least in formal morphological terms the same as what OP suggested.

[äreo]

I've been working on Msérsca's noun morphology and currently have a system where three cases are "fundamental" and a few others are "supplemental" (I may want a better term for this). The "fundamental" cases require full agreement from adjectives, while the "supplemental" ones don't.

The idea is that these latter cases were postpositions not so long ago. Enough sandhi and analogical change has occurred that they function as suffixes, but adjectives modifying nouns in these cases still take the case the noun would have taken when the suffix was a separate word.

For example, the instrumental case derives from a postposition mis that was used with the genitive. Adjectives used with nouns in the instrumental still take the genitive, reflecting this origin. For example:

Ea ceppo théari soëmis vossanea.
1SG.NOM pot(.ACC) warm.GEN water.INSTR fill.PST
I filled the pot with warm water.

Is this realistic? Or is it more or less a given that if a language has an established rule of case concord, and an adposition has become a case affix, it will follow the same rules?

[bradrn]

Is this realistic? Or is it more or less a given that if a language has an established rule of case concord, and an adposition has become a case affix, it will follow the same rules?

Your system seems reasonable enough to me, and quite interesting too.

[Ares Land]

Not the way we've approached it, you're right. But if you just encountered a system like this in the wild, it might not be a crazy idea to say that "person is marked on the noun" like OP said. The point is, marking possession on nouns is common, and it doesn't take much finagling to make it at least in formal morphological terms the same as what OP suggested.

Nahuatl marks nouns with subject prefixes; nouns are also marked for possession:

ti-i-tlāca-huān

we-his-slave-PL.POSS

Titlācahuān 'We are his slaves.' (a title of the god Tezcatlipoca)

The same subject prefixes are used for verbs:

ti-chōca-h

we-run-PL

'We cry'

There are all sorts of syntactic consequences: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Nahuatl

But basically the idea is 1s-Verb = "I (verb)", 1s-Noun "I am a (noun)"

In the case of Titlācahuān, this can be a full sentence (*) but of course semantically 'We are his slaves.' is not far from 'Our lord'

(*) One interesting bit is that, as the 3rd person marker is ∅- -- ie, no prefix -- any noun can be a full sentence: tlācatl 'man, slave, he is a man, he is a slave'

[linguistcat]

How much could wanting to avoid certain sounds in words with certain meanings affect sound changes within a language or just a specific dialect of a given language? Or would that be more relegated to word choice or coining new terms?

[keenir]

How much could wanting to avoid certain sounds in words with certain meanings affect sound changes within a language or just a specific dialect of a given language? Or would that be more relegated to word choice or coining new terms?

I always used to hear that thats what helped give rise to the sheer number of languages in New Guinea - that when someone dies, their friends and family can't use the words (sounds?) in the deceased person's name...can't use them in anything, so they have to find workarounds.