Zompist Bboard Again

Vardelm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:47 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:39 am I’d say you could get away with calling this either an ‘SVC’ or a ‘converb’...

Yeah, either would probably work. I'll just need to read up a little more on both and decide which term will describe the situation best. Right now, I lean towards calling the grouped verb that come before the arguments "SVC", and any that come after the arguments (using al-) would be "converbs".

Personally, that’s not a choice of terms I would make… it seems strange to give the same construction two different names depending on its position in the sentence.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:39 am there’s something distinctly un-SVC-like about the ability to turn the second verb into an adverbial.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain?

The idea with SVCs is that they are serial: in the traditional definition, the verbs must appear with no explicit marker of dependency, within the same clause, and immediately next to each other — or at least with only one or two constituents appearing between the verbs. To me, the ability to add a marker to one verb and move it to the end of the sentence seems to contradict at least two of these — there is a dependency marker, and the material between may be basically unlimited (and not even a constituent).

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:59 am Personally, that’s not a choice of terms I would make… it seems strange to give the same construction two different names depending on its position in the sentence.

What's your thought if I required al- in all positions except the very first one? So:

V1: Adverbial

k'alisi almiba qam umbabiwi ja nsatimi

V2: Adverbial

k'alisi qam umbabiwi ja nsatimi almiba

The V2 version would technically be allowable, but would be much more rare, specifically because it doesn't introduce a new subject or object. The end of the sentence would be used far more for adjunct phrases:


V3: Adjunct

k'alisi qam umbabiwi ja nsatimi alwika ja jambi The merchant cut the cloth with a knife.

V3 would be required to by pushed to the end of the sentence because it introduces a new object: the knife.

In this scenario, I would label all of these as converbs. My only hesitation there is that I see converbs described as using non-finite forms, and that's not really the case here, unless you consider al- to be a "finitizer". Other than the linker al-, the inflections would be the same as main verbs.

Vardelm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:57 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:59 am Personally, that’s not a choice of terms I would make… it seems strange to give the same construction two different names depending on its position in the sentence.

What's your thought if I required al- in all positions except the very first one? …

I was under the impression that this was what you said earlier… as I said, I don’t think it makes sense to call this an ‘SVC’ when you can move the second verb around in the sentence.

In this scenario, I would label all of these as converbs. My only hesitation there is that I see converbs described as using non-finite forms, and that's not really the case here, unless you consider al- to be a "finitizer". Other than the linker al-, the inflections would be the same as main verbs.

Hmm, I didn’t know converbs were meant to be non-finite (insofar as the term has any meaning). In that case, I’m not quite sure… perhaps ‘derived adverbial’? ‘Serial adverb’? I’m beginning to doubt that there are any standard linguistic terms which you could use for this.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:10 pm I was under the impression that this was what you said earlier… as I said, I don’t think it makes sense to call this an ‘SVC’ when you can move the second verb around in the sentence.

Nope. The very first verb in the sentence is the "main verb". What I had suggested was that verbs that appeared immediately after that main verb, in succession, with no intervening arguments, would not require the linker al-. It's only this chain of verbs at the start of the sentence that I was calling "serial verbs".

If verbs were introduced after the subject & object arguments, then they would require the linker al-. It was these that I was calling "converbs" since they had the intervening arguments and the dependency marker: -al.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:10 pm Hmm, I didn’t know converbs were meant to be non-finite (insofar as the term has any meaning). In that case, I’m not quite sure… perhaps ‘derived adverbial’? ‘Serial adverb’? I’m beginning to doubt that there are any standard linguistic terms which you could use for this.

Serial converbs?

I'm not sure which style I like better. I think I lean towards always using al-, so that only the only determination of where they are placed in the sentence is driven by requirements for using the same subject & object. It's more consistent. At the same time, having a spot where they aren't used looks nicer since there's less marking. I might actually describe them as "serial verbs" but make not that they don't follow the standard definition since they have the dependency marker.

Vardelm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:26 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:10 pm I was under the impression that this was what you said earlier… as I said, I don’t think it makes sense to call this an ‘SVC’ when you can move the second verb around in the sentence.

Nope. The very first verb in the sentence is the "main verb". What I had suggested was that verbs that appeared immediately after that main verb, in succession, with no intervening arguments, would not require the linker al-. It's only this chain of verbs at the start of the sentence that I was calling "serial verbs".

If verbs were introduced after the subject & object arguments, then they would require the linker al-. It was these that I was calling "converbs" since they had the intervening arguments and the dependency marker: -al.

I feel sure I’m missing something here — how is that not ‘requiring al- in all positions except the very first one’?

I'm not sure which style I like better. I think I lean towards always using al-, so that only the only determination of where they are placed in the sentence is driven by requirements for using the same subject & object. It's more consistent. At the same time, having a spot where they aren't used looks nicer since there's less marking. I might actually describe them as "serial verbs" but make not that they don't follow the standard definition since they have the dependency marker.

If it helps (or even if it doesn’t), I don’t really have a preference… I think any of those would work fine.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:29 pm I feel sure I’m missing something here — how is that not ‘requiring al- in all positions except the very first one’?

This is my original plan:

V1

k'alisi miba qam umbabiwi ja nsatimi

V2

k'alisi qam umbabiwi ja nsatimi almiba

Notice that V1 does not use al-. That's because miba immediately follows the main verb k'alisi. In this scheme, V1 is what I was calling "serial verbs" because k'alisi and miba are right next to each other, and there is no dependency marker (the linker al-). V2 is what I called "converbs" becaues the dependency marker (the linker al-) is used and the subject & object arguments come between the main verb k'alisi and the secondary verb miba.

-----------------------

Now, compare that with what I'm considering doing instead:

V1

k'alisi almiba qam umbabiwi ja nsatimi

V2

k'alisi qam umbabiwi ja nsatimi almiba

In this approach, miba uses al- in both positions.

The difference is in whether the main verb k'alisi and the second verb miba appear together before the arguments or miba appears separate from k'alisi after the arguments.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:29 pm If it helps (or even if it doesn’t), I don’t really have a preference… I think any of those would work fine.

That does help, actually. I just have to obsess over it for a while to figure out which aesthetic I like better!

Vardelm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:52 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:29 pm I feel sure I’m missing something here — how is that not ‘requiring al- in all positions except the very first one’?

This is my original plan…

Ah, right, I get it now! (I had misinterpreted the position of miba in kʼalisi miba as being ‘first position’… no, don’t ask me how I got there.) Now that I have a better idea of what’s happening here, I think I’d just call these a type of adverbial.

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:29 pm If it helps (or even if it doesn’t), I don’t really have a preference… I think any of those would work fine.

That does help, actually. I just have to obsess over it for a while to figure out which aesthetic I like better!

Hah, yes, I know the feeling

Holidays + vacation from work + time between semesters = PROGRESS ON CONLANGS!!!


Yokai Noun Classes - Version 2

This is a second attempt from my previous Yokai Noun Classes post. The classes are mostly rebuilt from the ground up, although there's a few similarities to the 1st draft.

These have a plural prefix (labeled with letters) for 5 "macro classes" and a suffix (numbers) that appears in both singular & plural. Each prefix letter and suffix number represents a unique affix (or maybe more than 1).

Just like the last noun class post, this one is sketchy. In particular, I haven't worked out the "objects" yet and which will fit into the macro classes. "Body parts" show up in "objects" for all 5 macro classes, which just indicates that body parts in particular will be spread across all of those. I think other types of objects will be more specific to 1 macro class. "Tools", for instance, will (mostly?) be in macro class D. Materials do not take a plural prefix, but have a suffix that correlates with a macro-class.

Yokai Noun Classes

Plural Prefix	Suffix	Description
A	01	People: general Animals: birds
B	02	People: men Animals: lizards
C	03	People: women Animals: fish, amphibians
D	04	People: outcast men Animals: furred mammals, crawling insects
E	05	People: outcast women Animals: shelled, flying insects
A	06	Plants: deciduous trees, bushes
B	07	Plants: flowers, seeds, leaves
C	08	Plants: grasses, mushrooms, moss, lichen, roots, vegetables
D	09	Plants: pines, cactus, pinecones, nuts
E	10	Plants: fruit, seaweed, lillies
A	11	Objects: body parts
B	11	Objects: body parts
C	11	Objects: body parts
D	11	Objects: tools, body parts
E	11	Objects: body parts
-	12	Materials: plant
-	13	Materials: coals, cinders, lava
-	14	Materials: rock, stone, sand, dirt
-	15	Materials: metal, shell
-	16	Materials: liquids, food
A	17	Places: forests Abstract: states, qualities
B	18	Places: deserts, volcanoes, sky, heavens Abstract: actions, ideas, concepts, emotions
C	19	Places: mountains, hills, plains, caves, graves, fields Abstract: death, darkness
D	20	Places: glaciers, tundra Abstract:
E	21	Places: oceans, lakes, rivers Abstract: events, time

Vardelm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:48 pm Holidays + vacation from work + time between semesters = PROGRESS ON CONLANGS!!!

Excellent news! I’ve been waiting for an update to this thread.

One question: you say ‘Materials do not take a plural prefix, but have a suffix that correlates with a macro-class’. What exactly do you means by saying that these suffixes ‘correlate’ with a macro-class?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:14 pm Excellent news! I’ve been waiting for an update to this thread.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:14 pmOne question: you say ‘Materials do not take a plural prefix, but have a suffix that correlates with a macro-class’. What exactly do you means by saying that these suffixes ‘correlate’ with a macro-class?

Suffix class 12 would be prefix/macro class A, if it took a prefix. The type of materials in suffix class 12 will be related to the type of objects, etc. you see in the rest of the classes that use prefix/macro class A.

Similarly:
B <=> 13
C <=> 14
D <=> 15
E <=> 16

It would be interesting to see some of this in practice. Also, I found it very amusing (clicking back to your earlier post) that the older version had mould and evil spirits in the same classification. Granted, mildews tend to be icky and vile things.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:23 pm It would be interesting to see some of this in practice.

That's the "sketchy" part of this. I sort of have a few ideas floating in my head, but I need to do more to flesh this out & come up with a bunch of examples, not to mention the affixes themselves.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:23 pm Also, I found it very amusing (clicking back to your earlier post) that the older version had mould and evil spirits in the same classification. Granted, mildews tend to be icky and vile things.

Yep, "icky" was pretty much the whole justification there!

I see we have rather inverted approaches — I started with a language family and general aesthetic I wanted, and worked my way to it from the protolanguage, letting grammar do what it would along the way, but you've an interesting structure, yet no sounds for it. If it's for Yōkai, there's the rather, ahem, obvious phoneme inventory to pillage (though I'm partial to the language family in question, so there may be some bias there).

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:59 pm ...you've an interesting structure, yet no sounds for it. If it's for Yōkai, there's the rather, ahem, obvious phoneme inventory to pillage (though I'm partial to the language family in question, so there may be some bias there).

Actually, I do have a phonology. It's just buried in the middle of other stuff, so it's not super easy to find relative to this post.

Yokai Phonology

I like it. It has a vaguely Sinitic feel, at least as far as the consonants are concerned (the three-way distinction makes me think of something between Old and Middle Chinese, but there aren't any retroflex consonants, and there is an r-l distinction; granted, given my present interests, I might be feeling yet more personal bias there). Have you any other details? Is it tonal or monosyllabic (or both), or is the consonant inventory's resemblance to a Sinitic language merely coincidental?

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:11 pm Have you any other details?

Not yet, but I can say that getting a solid noun class system is foundational to everything else I'm going to do with this lang.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:11 pm Is it tonal or monosyllabic (or both)

Nope & nope.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:11 pm ...is the consonant inventory's resemblance to a Sinitic language merely coincidental?

Also no.

The plot thickens.

Devani: Affix Mechanics

This will be an update to the post on stems & the post on verb suffixes, specifically the "Notes" section therein. I think I can update things to make it simpler to work with and understand while still giving almost exactly the same result.


Realis vs Irrealis Stems

Verb	Realis Stem	Irrealis Stem
to read	param	pararam

Notes:

• The realis stem is the lemma form & has no added modifications
• The irrealis stem takes the realis stem & makes the following changes:
  • The 1st onset consonant and vowel nucleus of the final syllable is reduplicated
  • If the onset has a consonant cluster, the 2nd consonant is not part of the reduplication
  • The reduplicated segment is placed immediately after the final vowel
  • If there was a coda consonant in the final syllable, it stays in the same position (end of the word) and becomes the coda for the syllable formed by the reduplicated segment
  • Example: vi.tral > vi.tra.tal

Prefixes & Suffixes

Prefixes and suffixes may affect the shape of the syllables they come into contact with depending on whether they and the word begin or end with a vowel or consonant.[*]

Prefixes:

• Prefix ends in a vowel + word starts in a vowel = final prefix vowel replaces the word-initial vowel
• Prefix ends in a consonant + word starts in a vowel = prefix is added w/ no changes
• Prefix ends in a vowel + word starts in a consonant = prefix is added w/ no changes
• Prefix ends in a consonant + word start in a consonant =
  • The word's initial onset & vowel metathesize & prefix is added if phonotactics allow
  • If the word starts with a consonant cluster, the phonotactics will never allow
  • If the metathesis doesn't resolve phonotactics, then an epenthetic vowel (same as the word's first vowel) is added between the prefix & word (instead of metathesis)

	V: apik	C: tapik
V: nu-	nupik	nutapik
C: n-	napik	natpik

Suffixes:

• Word ends in a vowel + suffix starts in a vowel = initial suffix vowel replaces the word-final vowel
• Word ends in a vowel + suffix starts in a consonant = suffix is added w/ no changes
• Word ends in a consonant + suffix starts in a vowel = suffix is added w/ no changes
• Word ends in a consonant + suffix starts in a consonant =
  • The word's final vowel & coda consonant metathesize & suffix is added if phonotactics allow
  • If the metathesis doesn't resolve phonotactics, then an epenthetic vowel (same as the word's first vowel) is added between the prefix & word (instead of metathesis)

	V: -un	C: -n
V: tapi	tapun	tapin
C: tapik	tapikun	tapkun

I'll need to adjust how my affixes are listed for volition, evidential, & person, but I think it becomes easier (at least for me) to know how the final word forms will shape up. Example:

Irrealis Stem "to read"		VOL.NVI.3P		Final Verb Form
pararam	+	v-STEM-nti	=	vaprarmanti

I started writing this post before the one on affix mechanics, but then realized I needed to clarify how affixes worked before writing this post. Onward!


Devani: Mood

Devani has 7 moods:

• Indicative
• Intentive
• Desiderative
• Subjunctive
• Optative
• Hortative
• Imperative

Indicative
So far, everything has been in the indicative mood, which has no additional affix.

The post on tense is a good place to review the forms (which will eventually be updated based on the new affix mechanics). The tenses are split between evidential/person, so that means 3 basic considerations for the shape of the verb:

• Future tense = irrealis stem
• Non-future = realis stem
• Non-past = irrealis stem
• Past = nu- + irrealis stem

As one example of the indicative from that post:

mechani vaprarmahe mechani scholar v-aprarm-ahe 3P-read.IRS-VOL.REP.3P The scholar will read. (He told me he was going to.)

These are the forms that the rest of the mood affixes attach to.


Intentive
The intentive mood signals that the subject is planning to perform the action, as in "intends to X; shall X; is going to X". Note that this is not that the speaker intends for it to happen.

"Mood & Modality" by Frank Palmer mentions Tonkawa & Maidu as having "intentives" (thanks to - IIRC - Salmoneous for the reference). In those languages, it is limited to 1st person or is part of an optative mood, so it seems to be more about the speaker's intent. Devani is different in that respect. I would guess these would usually be considered to be in the irrealis realm. Devani is also unusual in that it won't require the irrealis stem for the intentive; it can still attach to the realis stem for those evidentials that use it.

Intentive Mood Forms (non-visual evidential):

• realis: re-
• irrealis: r-

	Non-future Realis Stem	Future & Non-past Irrealis Stem	Past nu- + Irrealis Stem
1st Person	reparamanti	raprarmanti	runprarmanti
2nd/3rd Person	reparamanti	varprarmanti	varunprarmanti

vi reparama vi I.1P re-param-a INT-read.RLS-VOL.EGO.1P I shall read.

mechani varprarmahe mechani scholar va-r-prarm-ahe 3P-INT-read.IRS-VOL.REP.3P The scholar intends to read. (He told me he was going to.)

Desiderative
The desiderative expresses desire to perform the action, and like the intentive the desire belongs to the subject, not the speaker (unless it's 1st person).

Desiderative Mood Forms (reportative evidential):

• realis: sa-
• irrealis: s-

	Non-future Realis Stem	Future & Non-past Irrealis Stem	Past nu- + Irrealis Stem
1st Person	saparamacho	asaprarmacho	asanprarmacho
2nd Person	saparamacho	vasprarmacho	vasanprarmacho
3rd Person	saparamahe	vasprarmahe	vasanprarmahe

vi saparama vi I.1P sa-param-a DES-read.RLS-VOL.EGO.1P I want to read.

mechani sarprarmahe mechani scholar sa-r-prarm-ahe 3P-INT-read.IRS-VOL.REP.3P The scholar wants to read. (He told me so.)

Subjunctive
The subjunctive is mostly used in relative clauses and conditionals (work for the future), but is also found as the primary verb of a sentence. In such cases, it conveys a sort of possibility or potential, as per English "would".

Subjunctive Mood Forms (visual evidential):

• realis: y-
• irrealis: y-

	Non-future Realis Stem	Future & Non-past Irrealis Stem	Past nu- + Irrealis Stem
1st Person	yapramuram	ayaprarmaram	ayanprarmaram
2nd Person	yapramuram	vayaprarmaram	vayanprarmaram
3rd Person	yapramam	vayaprarmam	vayanprarmam

mida hayaprarmason mida he.3P.MSC ha-y-aprarm-ason 3P-SBJ-read.IRS-VOL.IND.3P He would read. (Assuming based on what I know of him.)

Optative
The optative mood expresses a hope, wish, desire, or fear that the utterance is true, as in "may it be that...". The desire is the speaker's, and so this mood is always marked with the egophoric evidential. 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person is used depending on the subject.

Optative Mood Forms (egophoric evidential):

• realis: lo-
• irrealis: l-

	Non-future Realis Stem	Future & Non-past Irrealis Stem	Past nu- + Irrealis Stem
1st Person	loparama	aloprarmi	alonprarmi
2nd/3rd Person	loparamiva	molaprarmiva	molanprarmiva

mida loparariva mida he.3P.MSC lo-param-iva 3P-OPT-read.RLS-VOL.IND.3P May he read!

Hortative
The hortative is (as typical) encouragement to action. It can appear in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person, and so also covers imperative, directive, or propositive meanings. A range of English translations are possible: "Let me eat", "Let's sing", "You should go", "He shall be silent", etc.

Like the optative, since the hortative communicates the speaker's desire, it always appears in the egophoric evidential. The person refers to the subject. The horative doesn't inflect for tense (or evidence) so the realis stem is always used.

Hortative Mood Forms (egophoric evidential):

• realis: kri-

1st Person	kriparama
2nd/3rd Person	kriparamiva

mida loparariva mida he.3P.MSC kri-param-iva 3P-HOR-read.RLS-VOL.EGO.3P Let him read! He shall/should read!

and finally.....


Imperative
The imperative is a direct command.

The imperative can take 3 different forms:

Bare realis stem:	param	Quick & informal
+ Egophoric Volitional 2P:	paramiva	Formal and/or polite
+ Egophoric Non-volitional 2P:	paramath	Pejorative (assumes addressee's volition is irrelevant

PARAMATH!!! param-ath read.RLS-INV.EGO.2P READ!!! (Said an exasperated teacher to an incalcitrant student)

Vardelm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:48 pm Holidays + vacation from work + time between semesters = PROGRESS ON CONLANGS!!!


Yokai Noun Classes - Version 2

Very nice. I'd love to see the diachronics for these sometimes!

Is assignment and agreement going to be purely semantic? Or will some nouns be assigned to an unexpected noun class if they happen to begin/end with an appropriate affix?