Zompist Bboard Again

Simbri uses the optative:

Xicōijjō xixoimi

xi-c-ō<i>jjō

2-II-<OPT>eat

xi-xo<i>mi

2-<OPT>first

I'll let you eat first. You eat (optative) first.

Raholeun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:27 pm"I let you [VERB] first"

Sajiwan uses the verb gi, "to give", for "to allow":

Mi gi yu it fehs wan.
I give you eat first one
"I allowed you to eat [as] the first one"

EDIT: I assumed you meant "to [VERB] as the first person to do so" rather than "to [VERB] first and then to [VERB2] after that". If you mean the latter, it would just be Mi gi yu it fehs.


JAL

Raholeun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:27 pm In any conlang of your choosing, how would you translate and gloss:

"I let you [VERB] first"

Proto-Whatsit would express a sentence like this using a coordinate structure, with the relation signalled by a resultative clitic on the second clause rather than any explicit marking:

Bepaatli ndil, nina gadqiye yandiyandi.

Be=paatli

1s=give

ndil,

2s

ni=na

2s=RES

gadqiye

eat.PFV

yandi~yandi.

one.ORD~ADVZ

Wēchizaŋkəŋ also isn’t fond of complementation, preferring to use a… participle, I think, though I haven’t properly worked out all details of Wēchizaŋkəŋ grammar yet:

Ēnaŋkrōtheŋkɨ kəwamasāməŋ.

|əʷ-e-naŋ-krə-othem-kɨ

3s.O-NP-just-IRR-eat-AGT

kə-wə-maⁿ-saməŋ|

3s.O-1s.A-PFV-permit

(The meaning ‘first’ comes from the prefix naŋ-, base meaning ‘just’. If you really wanted to be explicit about it you could use an ordinal and say Chāthən ēkrotheŋkɨ kəwamasāməŋ.)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:35 am Simbri uses the optative:

Xicōijjō xixoimi

xi-c-ō<i>jjō

2-II-<OPT>eat

xi-xo<i>mi

2-<OPT>first

I'll let you eat first. You eat (optative) first.

Are you sure this is really an optative? My understanding is that the optative would be ‘I want you to eat first’.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:41 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:35 am Simbri uses the optative:

Xicōijjō xixoimi

xi-c-ō<i>jjō

2-II-<OPT>eat

xi-xo<i>mi

2-<OPT>first

I'll let you eat first. You eat (optative) first.

Are you sure this is really an optative? My understanding is that the optative would be ‘I want you to eat first’.

Yes; it does mean 'I want you to eat first' too.

Ronc Tyu would use serial verb constructions of several types, for instance with the modal verbs táe ‘it is preferable; would rather’ (impersonal), nrà ‘can, be able’ (transitive, same-subject construction), or ao ‘want’ (transitive, different-subject construction). The last of these constructions can also be formed with the explicitly permissive verb twi ‘allow, let, permit’:

Táe tenc mun tyòu pa mác tsyún.
rather SUB 2SG eat as first person

Mun nrà tyòu pa mác tsyún.
2SG be.able eat as first person

Ne twi mun tyòu pa mác tsyún.
1SG allow 2SG eat as first person


Ndok Aisô has a special permissive mood that would be used in this kind of situation. It is marked with the prefix g(eu-):

Waihê geutusteu deu nege.
this.thing PERM-eat-IPFV.SG 2SG first

Leima also has a permissive mood:

You men dum wain dane

You

PERM

men

ACT.2s

dum

eat

wain

STA

da-ne

one-ORD

You may eat first

To state more explicitly, the subjunctive particle can be used as a complementiser

Ma aumrim oi men dum wain dane

Ma

ACT.1s

aumrim

allow

oi

SBJ

men

ACT.2s

dum

eat

wain

STA

da-ne

one-ORD

I let you eat first

Anyone got the idea of marking grammatical cases with vowel or consonant change?

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:43 am Anyone got the idea of marking grammatical cases with vowel or consonant change?

Umm... umlaut or consonant gradation?

I was falling asleep a few nights ago thinking vaguely about a language register indicated mostly through phonetic shifts. Social dynamics indicated by more voiced consonants, rounded vowels, rising tones, palatalization, etc., not noticeable within a social grouping but adopted to demonstrate relative authority within a specific interaction.

I shelved it for another time, but I'm putting it here in case anyone else wants to experiment with the idea, or point me toward some natlangs with this feature.

Has a natlang (or a conlang for that matter) done a number system contrasting specific and non-specific numerosity? The specific number would be used when the number of entities is known to the speaker (or alternatively, available from context), such as when the noun is modified with a (cardinal) numeral. The non-specific number on the other hand is used when the number of entities is not known (so is incompatible with (cardinal) numerals). I came up with this system the other day, and I can't recall seeing it anywhere before.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:55 pm Has a natlang (or a conlang for that matter) done a number system contrasting specific and non-specific numerosity? The specific number would be used when the number of entities is known to the speaker (or alternatively, available from context), such as when the noun is modified with a (cardinal) numeral. The non-specific number on the other hand is used when the number of entities is not known (so is incompatible with (cardinal) numerals). I came up with this system the other day, and I can't recall seeing it anywhere before.

I don’t understand the concept of a ‘non-specific numeral’. Why would a speaker use a numeral if they don’t know how many entities there are?

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:15 pm

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:55 pm Has a natlang (or a conlang for that matter) done a number system contrasting specific and non-specific numerosity? The specific number would be used when the number of entities is known to the speaker (or alternatively, available from context), such as when the noun is modified with a (cardinal) numeral. The non-specific number on the other hand is used when the number of entities is not known (so is incompatible with (cardinal) numerals). I came up with this system the other day, and I can't recall seeing it anywhere before.

I don’t understand the concept of a ‘non-specific numeral’. Why would a speaker use a numeral if they don’t know how many entities there are?

You misread.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:44 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:15 pm

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:55 pm Has a natlang (or a conlang for that matter) done a number system contrasting specific and non-specific numerosity? The specific number would be used when the number of entities is known to the speaker (or alternatively, available from context), such as when the noun is modified with a (cardinal) numeral. The non-specific number on the other hand is used when the number of entities is not known (so is incompatible with (cardinal) numerals). I came up with this system the other day, and I can't recall seeing it anywhere before.

I don’t understand the concept of a ‘non-specific numeral’. Why would a speaker use a numeral if they don’t know how many entities there are?

You misread.

…so could you tell me what you actually meant please?

EDIT: Oh, sorry, I think I understand what you were saying. You were suggesting a set of specific numerals, plus one non-specific numeral. I don’t know of any such system in any natlang.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:55 pm Has a natlang (or a conlang for that matter) done a number system contrasting specific and non-specific numerosity? The specific number would be used when the number of entities is known to the speaker (or alternatively, available from context), such as when the noun is modified with a (cardinal) numeral. The non-specific number on the other hand is used when the number of entities is not known (so is incompatible with (cardinal) numerals). I came up with this system the other day, and I can't recall seeing it anywhere before.

How is this "non-specific number" different than the use of some with plural count nouns in English, aside from being more grammaticalized?

That sounds to me like exactly what they mean. If you wanted it as a feature, you could probably just derive it by cliticising a word meaning "some, a number of" onto a nominal, and then giving it a bit of erosion and semantic bleaching till all that's left is an inflection

My main conlang has made slow but steady progress over the past half decade and I almost feel satisfied with the grammar. However the reliance on both animacy and obviation has always felt too derivative, coming straight from Algonquian morphosyntax. It also runs into problems when describing inanimate objects interacting with each other, given their inherent lack of agency. How can one describe an asteroid crashing into the moon and making craters when the language assumes only animates can truly act? This becomes an especially acute problem when writing an entire book on physics where all the participants are inanimate objects interacting with nary an animate in sight.

malloc wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:26 pm My main conlang has made slow but steady progress over the past half decade and I almost feel satisfied with the grammar. However the reliance on both animacy and obviation has always felt too derivative, coming straight from Algonquian morphosyntax. It also runs into problems when describing inanimate objects interacting with each other, given their inherent lack of agency. How can one describe an asteroid crashing into the moon and making craters when the language assumes only animates can truly act? This becomes an especially acute problem when writing an entire book on physics where all the participants are inanimate objects interacting with nary an animate in sight.

One solution to this is to use passives whenever inanimate objects interact. Another solution is to not use a simple animate versus inanimate distinction but rather relative personhood/animacy/topicality so that one inanimate object can still be higher on the hierarchy than another inanimate object if it is more topical.

malloc wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:26 pm My main conlang has made slow but steady progress over the past half decade and I almost feel satisfied with the grammar. However the reliance on both animacy and obviation has always felt too derivative, coming straight from Algonquian morphosyntax. It also runs into problems when describing inanimate objects interacting with each other, given their inherent lack of agency. How can one describe an asteroid crashing into the moon and making craters when the language assumes only animates can truly act? This becomes an especially acute problem when writing an entire book on physics where all the participants are inanimate objects interacting with nary an animate in sight.

Interesting problem. The obvious solution is to use the passive as suggested by Travis B., but there are others. A related option is to code the agent as some other category, such as a locative or instrumental, without any overt detransitivising morphology: ‘[with the asteroid] hit the moon’. Especially with indefinite objects, you could also incorporate the object producing an intransitive verb: ‘the asteroid moon-hit’. Or, focussing on the object, you could have a large number of ‘extended intransitive’ verbs, which are syntactically intransitive with the ‘object’ actually an indirect object: ‘the asteroid went [into the moon]’. You could even make it biclausal: ‘the asteroid went, craters appeared on the moon’ (possibly with some sort of resultative on the second clause).

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:55 pm Has a natlang (or a conlang for that matter) done a number system contrasting specific and non-specific numerosity? The specific number would be used when the number of entities is known to the speaker (or alternatively, available from context), such as when the noun is modified with a (cardinal) numeral. The non-specific number on the other hand is used when the number of entities is not known (so is incompatible with (cardinal) numerals). I came up with this system the other day, and I can't recall seeing it anywhere before.

In some languages, like Indonesian, plural is only used for an unspecific number of things or people. With cardinal numerals the unmarked singular is used. The unmarked form can also be used for plural referents, but I am not sure what the conditions are.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:45 pm

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:44 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:15 pm

I don’t understand the concept of a ‘non-specific numeral’. Why would a speaker use a numeral if they don’t know how many entities there are?

You misread.

…so could you tell me what you actually meant please?

EDIT: Oh, sorry, I think I understand what you were saying. You were suggesting a set of specific numerals, plus one non-specific numeral. I don’t know of any such system in any natlang.

Ok, I thought my original post was clear enough, but apparently not, somehow. I'll include some examples.

(SPF = specific, NSPF = non-specific)

maasu

person.ꜱᴘꜰ.ᴀᴄᴄ

nadiä

2.ꜱᴘꜰ.ʟᴏᴄ

ro-koo-tisgää

ᴘꜰᴠ=1>3=send.ɴᴘꜱᴛ

"I will send you a person"
OR
"I will send you some people (and how many has previously been established, or can otherwise be assumed)"

uo

two.ᴀᴄᴄ

maasu

person.ꜱᴘꜰ.ᴀᴄᴄ

nadiä

2.ꜱᴘꜰ.ʟᴏᴄ

ro-koo-tisgää

ᴘꜰᴠ=1>3=send.ɴᴘꜱᴛ

"I will send you two people"

maastu

person.ɴꜱᴘꜰ.ᴀᴄᴄ

nadiä

2.ꜱᴘꜰ.ʟᴏᴄ

ro-koo-tisgää

ᴘꜰᴠ=1>3=send.ɴᴘꜱᴛ

"I will send you some people (and how many is not known and cannot be readily assumed)"

And the following would be invalid:

uo

two.ᴀᴄᴄ

maastu

person.ɴꜱᴘꜰ.ᴀᴄᴄ

nadiä

2.ꜱᴘꜰ.ʟᴏᴄ

ro-koo-tisgää

ᴘꜰᴠ=1>3=send.ɴᴘꜱᴛ

wietu

two.ɴꜱᴘꜰ.ᴀᴄᴄ

maastu

person.ɴꜱᴘꜰ.ᴀᴄᴄ

nadiä

2.ꜱᴘꜰ.ʟᴏᴄ

ro-koo-tisgää

ᴘꜰᴠ=1>3=send.ɴᴘꜱᴛ

Creyeditor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:31 am

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:55 pm Has a natlang (or a conlang for that matter) done a number system contrasting specific and non-specific numerosity? The specific number would be used when the number of entities is known to the speaker (or alternatively, available from context), such as when the noun is modified with a (cardinal) numeral. The non-specific number on the other hand is used when the number of entities is not known (so is incompatible with (cardinal) numerals). I came up with this system the other day, and I can't recall seeing it anywhere before.

In some languages, like Indonesian, plural is only used for an unspecific number of things or people. With cardinal numerals the unmarked singular is used. The unmarked form can also be used for plural referents, but I am not sure what the conditions are.

That sounds broadly like what I've got here. I'd be interested to know what those conditions are.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:48 pm

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:55 pm Has a natlang (or a conlang for that matter) done a number system contrasting specific and non-specific numerosity? The specific number would be used when the number of entities is known to the speaker (or alternatively, available from context), such as when the noun is modified with a (cardinal) numeral. The non-specific number on the other hand is used when the number of entities is not known (so is incompatible with (cardinal) numerals). I came up with this system the other day, and I can't recall seeing it anywhere before.

How is this "non-specific number" different than the use of some with plural count nouns in English, aside from being more grammaticalized?

It's orthogonal to definiteness. In my above examples, adding the definite article se- would change the translations to "I'll send you the person", "I'll send you some (specific number) of the people", "I'll send you the two people", and "I'll send you some (unspecified number) of the people".

Besides, it being highly grammaticalised is kinda part of my question? I don't care if languages can express this (obviously they can), I want to know if this is their numerosity system.