bradrn’s scratchpad

[bradrn]

Fair. I think the apostrophe makes perfect sense for the glottal stop, unless you also use it as a diacritic e.g. for ejective stops (as in many languages) or aspirated stops (as in Wade-Giles).

Indeed; it’s just a personal preference of mine that I don’t love it.

[bradrn]

For the translation relay I wrote up a set of notes on some aspects of Eŋes grammar which aren’t yet fully described here. They’re focussed on the relay text, but ended up comprehensive enough that I’ve decided to link them publicly too: https://bradrn.com/files/2024-relay/e%C ... topics.txt.

(Note that details may change… at some point I do hope to write proper posts about all the topics covered in this document.)

[bradrn]

I was pleasantly surprised to discover just now that Jacques Guy, in his grammar of Sakao, independently came up with the term ‘verboid’ — with the same meaning as my usage in Eŋes! That is, in both Sakao and Eŋes, ‘verboids’ are bound forms which can be used in SVC-like constructions accompanied by a free verb. But unlike Eŋes, in Sakao there are only six of them. As usual, ANADEW…

[keenir]

I was pleasantly surprised to discover just now that Jacques Guy, in his grammar of Sakao, independently came up with the term ‘verboid’ — with the same meaning as my usage in Eŋes!

kudos!

[bradrn]

I got some queries about Eŋes diachronics in the Fluency Thread:

I'd like to see them.

I would like to see it too.

So I guess I have to talk a bit about them now…

Anyway, the big secret (which I was trying to avoid revealing, but I already mentioned it a couple of times elsewhere so I guess I’ve lost that battle already) is that Eŋes is a ‘Savanna’ language, descended from Proto-‘Savanna’ as described previously in this thread. (I really should find a non-placeholder name for the family…) The extreme difference in appearance compared to its ancestor comes mostly from two big changes:

• Massive syncope of unstressed syllables, along with umlaut and reshaping of the vowel system
• Change from SVO to SOV order, causing the verb complex to move clause-finally becoming more tightly bound in the process

Other than those, the language is surprisingly conservative, and many features can be traced back directly to the ancestor.

The specific query of Travis and Lērisama related to the structure of the verb stems, and especially the intercalating roots like √fw-s-eʼu. This particular feature can be traced back to the ancestral derivational/lexical aspect suffixes. In Proto-‘Savanna’ these suffixes were optional, and used for clause combining as much as derivation; in Eŋes they became obligatory, then fused with the verb root due to syncope and umlaut: e.g. *qefay-tsi, *qefay-ŋu, *qefay-me became feys, foyŋ, feym. (Note *q *e were /ʔ ə/.)

Further complicating the situation are the coverbs, which co-occur with a full verb to create a new meaning. In the ancestor those weren’t completely bound to the verbal root, but in Eŋes they fused, trapping the aspectual suffix between them: thus from *lhiise meŋul ‘see’ we get modern lsesŋun ‘search’, lsoŋŋun ‘see’, lsenŋun ‘look at’. These became the ‘complex roots’ of the Eŋes verb system. To some extent parts of these roots can still be matched up to the simple verb roots, but there is no longer any simple synchronic relationship between them.

[Lērisama]

Well, I made a nice post and then lost it, so you can have this one instead…

---

Anyway, the big secret (which I was trying to avoid revealing, but I already mentioned it a couple of times elsewhere so I guess I’ve lost that battle already) is that Eŋes is a ‘Savanna’ language, descended from Proto-‘Savanna’ as described previously in this thread.

Ooh, interesting. I think I was vaguely aware of this, but it's nice to see

(I really should find a non-placeholder name for the family…)

For what it's worth, Lēri Ziwi was supposed to be a placeholder¹, but it's been around for 2 years or so now, and I don't think it's going anywhere.

The extreme difference in appearance compared to its ancestor comes mostly from two big changes:

[snip interesting explanations]

This is really interesting, and I will probably have more to say when I've absorbed it better, and re-read the relevant information on Proto-‘Savanna’. And Ephraim's posts

---

¹ It's LZ for ‘Our language’, and it's not like there's any consistent way of distinguishing it.

[bradrn]

Well, I made a nice post and then lost it, so you can have this one instead…

Ah, pity. So it goes…

(I really should find a non-placeholder name for the family…)

For what it's worth, Lēri Ziwi was supposed to be a placeholder¹, but it's been around for 2 years or so now, and I don't think it's going anywhere.

¹ It's LZ for ‘Our language’, and it's not like there's any consistent way of distinguishing it.

And Wēchizaŋkəŋ is Wēchizaŋkəŋ for ‘what we speak’. But I plan to redo that language at some point, at which time I’ll change the name to something better.

The extreme difference in appearance compared to its ancestor comes mostly from two big changes:

[snip interesting explanations]

This is really interesting, and I will probably have more to say when I've absorbed it better, and re-read the relevant information on Proto-‘Savanna’. And Ephraim's posts

Wait, which of Ephraim’s posts?

EDIT: oh right, the ones on aspect which I linked from the description.

[Tsimaah]

On the other hand, aspectual verboids are fixed in position, and trigger stem alternations in other verboids, neither of which is very verb-like. Between these extremes are elements which may be more or less restricted, with their own distinctive behaviours.

So do strings of multiple verboids that are able alternate "agree" in whether they use stem 1 or stem 2?

[bradrn]

On the other hand, aspectual verboids are fixed in position, and trigger stem alternations in other verboids, neither of which is very verb-like. Between these extremes are elements which may be more or less restricted, with their own distinctive behaviours.

So do strings of multiple verboids that are able alternate "agree" in whether they use stem 1 or stem 2?

I don’t quite understand the question. But it’s true that, following an initial aspectual verboid, every following verboid takes the appropriate stem (if this is what you’re asking). Thus, for instance:

Siwlesamfeŋwel.
[siw.le.sam.feŋˈwel]
si-wl·es·am-feŋ-wel
PRF-fly-exit.B-go.B

[S/he] flew out.

But:

Sarwlesamfewal.
[saɾ.wle.sam.feˈwal]
sar-wl·es·am-fe-wal
PROG-fly-exit.A-go.A

[S/he] was flying out.

[Tsimaah]

That is what I meant, since it looks like the stems agree in being in A form: fe-wal: exit.A-go.A, or
B form: feŋ-wel: exit.B-go.B. Which aspects trigger which stems?

[bradrn]

That is what I meant, since it looks like the stems agree in being in A form: fe-wal: exit.A-go.A, or
B form: feŋ-wel: exit.B-go.B. Which aspects trigger which stems?

It’s listed in the table in that post, but there’s a fuller list in this document:

https://bradrn.com/files/2024-relay/e%C ... topics.txt.

[Man in Space]

https://bradrn.com/files/2024-relay/e%C ... topics.txt.

This gives an error relating to the HTTPS.

[bradrn]

https://bradrn.com/files/2024-relay/e%C ... topics.txt.

This gives an error relating to the HTTPS.

Ah yeah… I forgot to renew the certificate. Should be fixed now.