Zompist Bboard Again

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:42 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:17 am I know I also said I disliked the formatting, but do we really all need to pile on and complain about it this much? The formatting is the least important part of the conlang (and I say this as someone who is very much a perfectionist about formatting).

Fair. Let's not embark more on the presentation, but focus more on the content. Alas, I have little to say about that, except that it looks like the work of a beginner. That's fine, of course - we all did rather unsophisticated worlds and languages when we were young.

EDIT: This very post is my post #1000 on this incarnation of the ZBB.

it is the work of a beginner lmao.

CherylTheTGirl wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 6:22 am yeah, i'm gonna try add a button that disables the bg, sorry lol

edit: done

Thanks!

CherylTheTGirl wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 6:32 am 3: tbh i got the idea from my native language, spanish, where people mistake them all the time.

Spanish is a bit of an odd one in this regard. To my understanding, Spanish does not distinguish voiced stops and continuants: thus [b] and [β] (well, technically [β̞], since it’s an approximant) are allophones of each other and are not distinguished. Wikipedia claims that the phoneme /b/ is realised as [β̞] everywhere except after a pause or a nasal consonant, in which case it is realised as [b].

4: ehhhhhhh, i think it's CCVCC? i believe klins (which i shamelessly stole from latin crinis) is a good example.

In that case, you might want to consider which consonant clusters are possible. It looks like at least /kl/, /mj/, /ħl/, /pl/, /vj/ can occur in the onset, and /ħr/ in the coda; what else?

Yes, I can see it now!

Just some comments as they occur to me.

The name Pan is the genus name of chimpanzees and bonobos, and all the talk of hlatuing has made me imagine them as bonobos.

Personally, nothing turns me off a setting faster than magic, but that's a personal gripe.

I like your references to the different sounds in the Gujis dialect.

-den:
recipient of an action
examples:

• nendem (nem-dem) ‣ food
• hlatdem ‣ “bottom”
• jumanden ‣ present

There seems to be some random alternation between -den and -dem. Is there a pattern behind this or is this an error?

Relatives:
just put the phrase before the noun, separated with a “ja”, if you’re talking about the subject, a “shi”, if you’re talking about the direct object, and a “tu”, if you’re talking about the indirect:


X jumanu Y ja Z = the Z that X gives Y to.

X jumanu Y shi Z = the Z that is given to X by Y.

X jumanu Y tu Z = the Z that is given Y by X.

The idea is good, but when I look at your examples, it seems incoherent to me.

(1) The English translation "the Z that X gives Y to" means we're talking about the recipient (Z), with X being the agent (the giver) and Y being the theme (the gift).

(2) The English translation "the Z that is given to X by Y" is the same as (1), but the roles of X and Y are now swapped. Z is still the recipient, but now X is the recipient and Y is the agent.

(3) The English translation "the Z that is given Y by X" is identical to (1). Yet again, Z is the recipient, X is the agent and Y is the theme.

If I have understood your description of ja, shi and tu correctly, what I believe are better translations are ... no, that's getting too complicated because I don't know the roles of X and Y in the relative clause. Instead, how would you translate these?

(4) The A that gives B to C / The A that gives C B
the student who gives the apple to the teacher

(5) The B (that) A gives (to) C / the B (that is) given to C by A
the apple (that) the student gives (to) the teacher

(6) The C (that) A gives B to / the C (that is) given B by A
the teacher (that) the student gives the apple to

In each of these examples, A is the agent (giver), B is the theme (gift) and C is the recipient. In (4), the agent is the relativised element. In (5) it's the theme that is relativised. In (6) it's the recipient that is relativised. If I have understood your description of ja, shi and tu correctly, you'll use ja in (4), shi in (5) and tu in (6).

X jumanu Y ja Z = the Z that X gives Y to.

X jumanu Y shi Z = the Z that is given to X by Y.

X jumanu Y tu Z = the Z that is given Y by X.

Hang on I think the translations are ambiguous because I don't read them quite the same as Imralu, but I still don't get it

1) X gives Y to Z (same as Imralu - X is agent, Y is theme and z is recipient)
2) Y gives Z to X (not the same as Imralu - Y is agent, Z is theme and X is recipient)
3) X gives Z to Y

In any case if "ja" indicates subject should it not be "tu" for indirect object in 1) because z is IO of "give"?
"Shi" on this rule looks right for 2) as Z is direct object of "give" and should also be "shi" in 3 given that Z has same role, but now we can't tell the difference?

If "ja" indicates it is the subject of the main clause then "ja" is right for 1) but then how do we know what role it plays in the relative clause?

I read the first and third sentences as identical in meaning. X gives Y to Z and Z is given Y by X are the same thing.

Cherry's description makes a little more sense if it is X, not Z, that is identified by the ja/shi/tu system. But the first and last examples having identical meaning is probably a translation error, since English is not their first language, and this is a legitimately confusing aspect of English syntax.

Here is my fix:

X jumanu Y ja Z: The Z that gives X to Y -OR- The Z that gives Y to X, depending on how you handle ditransitive syntax; in this case Z is the giver.
X jumanu Y shi Z: The Z that is given to X by Y -OR- the Z that is given to Y by X; in this case Z is probably an object.
X jumanu Y tu Z: The Z that is given X by Y -OR- the Z that is given Y by X; in this case Z is the recipient.

Personally, my instinct is to use SOV syntax for this: X Y jumanu ja Z, etc... But you do you.

evmdbm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 4:34 pmX jumanu Y tu Z = the Z that is given Y by X.
[...]
3) X gives Z to Y

For "Y" to be the recipient, I'd need there to be a "to": the Z that is given to Y by X. Is "the money that is given charities" grammatical to you? I'd require "to charities".

Imralu wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:25 am Is "the money that is given charities" grammatical to you? I'd require "to charities".

No, but I would still say that money was the theme and the charities the recipient. If you want it the other way round I'd say "The charities to whom the money is given." "The charity that is given money" also seems off to me. Given that just above it is the "Z is that is given to X by Y" I thought it a typo...

evmdbm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:51 am

Imralu wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:25 am Is "the money that is given charities" grammatical to you? I'd require "to charities".

No, but I would still say that money was the theme and the charities the recipient. If you want it the other way round I'd say "The charities to whom the money is given." "The charity that is given money" also seems off to me. Given that just above it is the "Z is that is given to X by Y" I thought it a typo...

“The money that is given charities” pretty unambiguously means the money … and someone gives charities to that money, somehow. The only reason it doesn’t parse is because it’s semantically nonsense.

“The charities to whom the money is given” is a description of the charities, not the money. You’ve totally changed it.

And how does “The charity that is given money” seem off?

Imralu wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:28 pm “The money that is given charities” pretty unambiguously means the money … and someone gives charities to that money, somehow. The only reason it doesn’t parse is because it’s semantically nonsense.

No. It pretty unambiguously means the exact opposite. Someone gives money to the charities, but I grant it's ungrammatical

evmdbm wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 7:11 am

Imralu wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:28 pm “The money that is given charities” pretty unambiguously means the money … and someone gives charities to that money, somehow. The only reason it doesn’t parse is because it’s semantically nonsense.

No. It pretty unambiguously means the exact opposite. Someone gives money to the charities, but I grant it's ungrammatical

When does "X [relative pronoun] [be] given Y" ever mean that X is the gift and Y is the recipient?

(1) people who are given dogs (people = recipient; dogs = gift)
(2) students who are given more time (students = recipient; more time = gift)
(3) employees who are given more autonomy (employees = recipient; more autonomy = gift)
(4) characters that are given their own chapter headings (characters = recipient; their own chapter headings = gift)

To switch the roles, to is added.

(5) the time that is given to us (time = gift; us = recipient)
(6) a special assignment that is given to a person (a special assignment = gift; a person = recipient)

Yes, of course, we may recognise based on semantic context and general knowledge, that an omission or addition of a "to" may be an error, but if we take the phrase "the money that is given charities" at face value, there is no absolute grammatical error here. It fits squarely within the first pattern without "to", meaning "money" is the recipient and "charities" the gift, and it is no more ungrammatical than "colourless green ideas sleep furiously". Unless you can think of some metaphorical meaning for it, it is, of course, semantically utter nonsense and probably not what was intended to be said, but it is perfectly grammatical and has one clear, nonsensical interpretation.