Ahah, no, not this time
a-Uttes: Syntax
Re: a-Uttes: Syntax
A quick guide to abbreviations: 1 = first person, 3 = third person, P = Participant case, F = Frame case, SP = SPecific, INAN = INANimate, ANIM = ANIMate, * = ungrammatical, ? = questionable
Basic sentence structure
A-Uttes sentences require a predicate, and any number of arguments. The default word order is:
Argument1 ... ArgumentN Predicate
'Planet Earth is blue'
Ilden sees the planet.
Ilden eats soup.
This is soup.
These are blue.
That person is Ilden.
Predicates will accept any number of arguments.
Contrast:
Earth is blue.
*Earth Neptune is blue.
*Earth orange blue.
With:
Earth is blue
Earth and Neptune are both blue.
Earth is blue like an orange.
There's no such thing as transitivity.
Arguments can be freely added or omitted.
A few examples to consider; the predicate is underlined in the a-Uttes samples.
Ilden eats soup
Ilden eats
?eats soup
With:
English is noticeably lenient respect to transitivity too! But consider:
I grow oranges.
?I grow
I grow oranges.
I grow crops.
Ilden laughs
(*) Ilden laughs the joke
(*)Ilden laughs me
(*)laughs the joke
Ilden laughs.
Ilden laughs at the joke.
Ilden laughs with me.
The joke is funny.
Object and Participant
Content words inflect for four cases: Object, Participant, Result and Frame which are mapped to the semantic roles I talked about earlier.
The Object case.
I don't mark the object case in the glosses as it is the less marked form.
The general meaning is Argument IS Predicate
Earth is a planet.
Ilden is a human being.
More difficult, perhaps:
Soup is a meal.
The Participant case
I mark this with the abbreviation P in the glosses.
One possible meaning is Argument IS INVOLVED IN Predicate
Ilden laughs.
The soup is eaten.
An animate Participant will be translated as a subject (more precisely, as an Agent) and an inanimate Participant as a direct object (Patient.)
I grow oranges.
(What about inanimate direct objects? Stay tuned. It's a bit more complex.)
The other possible meaning is Argument IS CURRENTLY Predicate
The planet looks blue.
A good test:
Will Argument IS Predicate still be true tomorrow? If so, use the Object case. If not, use the Participant case.
Predicate animacy.
Most languages have valency or transitivity. A-Uttes, as we've seen, doesn't use these categories.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't have categories of its own.
To recap a bit: a) content words are either animate or inanimate and b) any content word can be used as a predicate.
This means that predicate are animate or inanimate too!
Which leads us to the rule of animacy agreement:
The soup is a meal.
But this isn't:
(*)
(*)Ilden is a meal.
An animate can be the Object or the Participant of an animate predicate:
Ilden is a human being
The cat is a human being. (A bit weird, but grammatical!)
The cat is acting like a human being
Epicene words
Some content words can be either animate or inanimate -- these tend to be translated as adjectives:
Earth is blue.
My shirt is blue.
Basic sentence structure
A-Uttes sentences require a predicate, and any number of arguments. The default word order is:
Argument1 ... ArgumentN Predicate
- ninnes
- planet
- a-
- of
- Terra
- earth
- assi
- blue
'Planet Earth is blue'
- Ilden-tu
- Ilden-F
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
Ilden sees the planet.
- Ilden-i
- Ilden-P
- dall-arr
- soup-P
- unni
- eat
Ilden eats soup.
- see
- 3.INAN.SP
- dalli
- soup
This is soup.
- se
- 3.INAN
- assi
- blue
These are blue.
- ad
- 3.ANIM.SP
- Ilden
- Ilden
That person is Ilden.
Predicates will accept any number of arguments.
Contrast:
Earth is blue.
*Earth Neptune is blue.
*Earth orange blue.
With:
- Terra
- Earth
- assi
- blue
Earth is blue
- Terra
- Earth
- Neptun
- Neptune
- assi
- blue
Earth and Neptune are both blue.
- Terra
- Earth
- olossak
- orange
- assi
- blue
Earth is blue like an orange.
There's no such thing as transitivity.
Arguments can be freely added or omitted.
A few examples to consider; the predicate is underlined in the a-Uttes samples.
Ilden eats soup
Ilden eats
?eats soup
With:
- Ilden-i
- Ilden-P
- dall-arr
- soup-P
- unni
- eat
- Ilden-i
- Ilden-P
- unni
- eat
- dall-arr
- soup-P
- unni
- eat
English is noticeably lenient respect to transitivity too! But consider:
I grow oranges.
?I grow
- nin
- 1-P
- olossa-wo
- orange-P
- on
- grow
I grow oranges.
- nin
- 1-P
- on
- grow
I grow crops.
Ilden laughs
(*) Ilden laughs the joke
(*)Ilden laughs me
(*)laughs the joke
- Ilden-i
- Ilden-P
- ali
- laugh
Ilden laughs.
- Ilden-i
- Ilden-P
- sinn-at
- joke-SP.P
- ali
- laugh
Ilden laughs at the joke.
- Ilden-i
- Ilden-P
- nin
- 1.P
- ali
- laugh
Ilden laughs with me.
- sinn-at
- joke-SP.P
- ali
- laugh
The joke is funny.
Object and Participant
Content words inflect for four cases: Object, Participant, Result and Frame which are mapped to the semantic roles I talked about earlier.
The Object case.
I don't mark the object case in the glosses as it is the less marked form.
The general meaning is Argument IS Predicate
- Terra
- Earth
- ninnos.
- planet
Earth is a planet.
- Ilden
- Ilden
- da
- human
Ilden is a human being.
More difficult, perhaps:
- dalli
- soup
- unni
- eat
Soup is a meal.
The Participant case
I mark this with the abbreviation P in the glosses.
One possible meaning is Argument IS INVOLVED IN Predicate
- Ilden-i
- Ilden-P
- ali
- laugh
Ilden laughs.
- dall-arr
- soup-P
- unni
- eat
The soup is eaten.
An animate Participant will be translated as a subject (more precisely, as an Agent) and an inanimate Participant as a direct object (Patient.)
- nin
- 1-P
- olossa-wo
- orange-P
- on
- grow
I grow oranges.
(What about inanimate direct objects? Stay tuned. It's a bit more complex.)
The other possible meaning is Argument IS CURRENTLY Predicate
- ninneos
- planet-SP.P
- assi
- blue
The planet looks blue.
A good test:
Will Argument IS Predicate still be true tomorrow? If so, use the Object case. If not, use the Participant case.
Predicate animacy.
Most languages have valency or transitivity. A-Uttes, as we've seen, doesn't use these categories.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't have categories of its own.
To recap a bit: a) content words are either animate or inanimate and b) any content word can be used as a predicate.
This means that predicate are animate or inanimate too!
Which leads us to the rule of animacy agreement:
- Object arguments of an inanimate predicate must be inanimate
- Object argument of an animate predicate must be animate.
- dalli
- soup
- unni
- eat
The soup is a meal.
But this isn't:
(*)
- Ilden
- Ilden
- unni
- eat
(*)Ilden is a meal.
An animate can be the Object or the Participant of an animate predicate:
- Ilden
- Ilden
- da
- human
Ilden is a human being
- deen-es
- cat-SP
- da
- human
The cat is a human being. (A bit weird, but grammatical!)
- deen-eos
- cat-SP.P
- da
- human
The cat is acting like a human being
Epicene words
Some content words can be either animate or inanimate -- these tend to be translated as adjectives:
- Terra
- earth
- assi
- blue
Earth is blue.
- lue-wo
- shirt-SP
- a-ni
- of-me
- assi
- blue
My shirt is blue.
Re: a-Uttes: a touch of alien semantics
Oh, good! I’d hate to see you typecast.
Some questions on your post:
So a verb can have, say, 10 core arguments? How would that work?
In that case, how do you assign the animacy of a verb like ‘eat’ or ‘punch’ or ‘go’ or ‘roll’? I’m not quite sure what semantic feature you would base that on.Predicate animacy.
Most languages have valency or transitivity. A-Uttes, as we've seen, doesn't use these categories.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't have categories of its own.
To recap a bit: a) content words are either animate or inanimate and b) any content word can be used as a predicate.
This means that predicate are animate or inanimate too!
A semi-relevant thought: I’m sure you’re familiar with the animacy hierarchy: pronouns > humans > nonhuman animates > inanimates. Less familiar is the continuum between nouns and verbs: things—abstractions—properties—states—actions. It has occurred to me that both could be unified in a single hierarchy: pronouns > humans > nonhuman animates > inanimate things > abstractions > properties > states > actions. This would then imply that verbs are intrinsically inanimate. (Probably relevant here is the fact that adjectives tend not to have an intrinsic gender in many languages; this also applies to coverbs in at least Komnzo and I suspect other languages as well.)
How exactly do you define ‘object’ here? Your ‘Object Case’ seems to mark all core arguments, so does just one argument agree with the verb — in which case, which is the agreeing argument? — or do all arguments agree?
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Re: a-Uttes: Syntax
Sure!
- Bilbo-o
- Bilbo-P
- sesseh
- birthday-SP
- a-ad
- of-him
- ammad-wo
- friend-SP.
- a-ad
- of him
- mun-eos
- friend-SP.P
- a-ad
- of-him
- alop-aus
- wizard-P
- woss-arr
- ale-P
- onnid-to
- food-P
- nahurr-aus
- fireworks-P
- vehun-to
- ring-P
- sinn-a
- music-P
- essalun
- party
For his birthday, Bilbo throws a party for his friends and family, with ale, food, music, a wizard, fireworks, and a ring.
Breaking this down a little:
- Bilbo's birthday (Object case) is a party
- Bilbo, his friends, his family, the food and drink, the wizard, the ring, are all involved in the party. How exactly they are involved is left to the listener to figure out.
Actions are indeed inanimate.In that case, how do you assign the animacy of a verb like ‘eat’ or ‘punch’ or ‘go’ or ‘roll’? I’m not quite sure what semantic feature you would base that on.
Generally, if the best translation of a particular lexeme is a verb, it's inanimate.
A very inaccurate but serviceable guide:
- nouns referring to animate beings → animate
- all other nouns and verbs → inanimate
- adjectives → both
All arguments in the Object case must agree. If one of the arguments is animate and the predicate is inanimate, then that argument must take another case.
(Core arguments can take any of the four cases.)
Re: a-Uttes: Syntax
I'm liking this, although I have trouble really getting a handle on it right now (mostly due to work & finishing my masters project for school). There are a couple things that are unintuitive, even though I understood them when thinking about the case names. However, this is actually a GOOD thing because they are logical & add an interesting twist to the language. I'm thinking primarily of:
Ilden sees the planet.
The flexibility of transitivity is nice. It can be fun to have conlangs where it's explicitly marked, but I tend to prefer those where it's not. I'm looking forward to seeing TAM, etc.
- Ilden-tu
- Ilden-F
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
Ilden sees the planet.
The flexibility of transitivity is nice. It can be fun to have conlangs where it's explicitly marked, but I tend to prefer those where it's not. I'm looking forward to seeing TAM, etc.
Vardelm's Scratchpad Table of Contents (Dwarven, Devani, Jin, & Yokai)
Re: a-Uttes: Syntax
After a brief interlude (real life keeps getting in the way! ), let's wrap up the discussion of case:
The Result case.
A simple formula for the Result case (the abbreviation in the gloss is -R) is that it's equivalent to Participant + a perfective.
Ilden finished the soup.
The event or action is bound in some way and additionally Arguments marked with the Result case have changed in some way. There is no requirement that all arguments be in the Result case, in fact you can use both:
Ilden ate his soup.
The implication in the last example is not necessarily that the soup wasn't finished, but rather than whether it's finished or not is irrelevant.
Or, for instance:
?
Ilden took a ship.
This is somewhat questionable: this implies that the state of the ship is somehow relevant -- this tends to emphasizes the fact that Ilden brought the ship along.
This is more acceptable:
Idlen took the ship and brought it here.
Using the specific form implies that this is a specific ship, possibly one we already know about -- and we can care, in some way, about what happens to it.
Though of course the more common and straightforward sentence is:
Ilden took a ship.
With animates, the Result case tends to imply an experiential aspect:
I've been on a ship before.
Ilden took a ship. or Ilden has taken a ship before (The correct translation depending, of course, on context.)
Frame
The Frame case is used to mean that Predicate is true with respect to Argument.
Essentially, this is the go-to case when nothing physical happens; as a result, this case is used for:
Perception:
Ilden sees the planet.
(If it helps, think of it as 'The planet is visible, with respect to Ilden')
Possession:
I have a ship
(^Interesting nahda, ship is the predicate here.)
Knowledge:
You know Ilden.
You may be familiar with double subjects (as found in, for instance, Mandarin):
Earth is a beautiful planet.
However, the Frame is not necessarily the topic (which is marked by fronting, with a following pause):
As for Earth, it's a beautiful planet.
With animates, you can substitute the Result case for the Frame case. The meaning is again experiential:
Ilden has seen Earth before.
), let's wrap up the discussion of case: The Result case.
A simple formula for the Result case (the abbreviation in the gloss is -R) is that it's equivalent to Participant + a perfective.
- Ilden-n
- Idlen-R
- dall-adon
- soup-R
- unni
- eat
Ilden finished the soup.
The event or action is bound in some way and additionally Arguments marked with the Result case have changed in some way. There is no requirement that all arguments be in the Result case, in fact you can use both:
- Ilden-n
- Ilden-R
- dall-arr
- soup-P
- unni
- eat
Ilden ate his soup.
The implication in the last example is not necessarily that the soup wasn't finished, but rather than whether it's finished or not is irrelevant.
Or, for instance:
?
- Ilden-n
- Ilden-R
- nahd-in
- ship-R
- venn
- use
Ilden took a ship.
This is somewhat questionable: this implies that the state of the ship is somehow relevant -- this tends to emphasizes the fact that Ilden brought the ship along.
This is more acceptable:
- Ilden-n
- Ilden-R
- nahd-aun
- ship-SP.R
- venn
- use
Idlen took the ship and brought it here.
Using the specific form implies that this is a specific ship, possibly one we already know about -- and we can care, in some way, about what happens to it.
Though of course the more common and straightforward sentence is:
- Ilden-n
- Ilden-R
- nahd-a
- ship-P
- venn
- use
Ilden took a ship.
With animates, the Result case tends to imply an experiential aspect:
- no
- 1s-R
- nahd-a
- ship-P
- venn
- use
I've been on a ship before.
- Ilden-n
- Ilden-R
- nahd-a
- ship-P
- venn
- use
Ilden took a ship. or Ilden has taken a ship before (The correct translation depending, of course, on context.)
Frame
The Frame case is used to mean that Predicate is true with respect to Argument.
Essentially, this is the go-to case when nothing physical happens; as a result, this case is used for:
Perception:
- Ilden-tu
- Ilden-F
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
Ilden sees the planet.
(If it helps, think of it as 'The planet is visible, with respect to Ilden')
Possession:
- neo
- 1s-F
- nahda
- ship
I have a ship
(^Interesting nahda, ship is the predicate here.)
Knowledge:
- do
- 2s-F
- Ilden
- Ilden
- henn
- know
You know Ilden.
You may be familiar with double subjects (as found in, for instance, Mandarin):
- ninn-os
- planet-F
- Terre
- Earth
- halaki
- beautiful
Earth is a beautiful planet.
However, the Frame is not necessarily the topic (which is marked by fronting, with a following pause):
- Terre,
- Earth /
- ninn-os
- planet-F
- halaki
- beautiful
As for Earth, it's a beautiful planet.
With animates, you can substitute the Result case for the Frame case. The meaning is again experiential:
- Ilden-n
- Ilden-R
- Terre
- Earth
- sin
- see
Ilden has seen Earth before.
Re: a-Uttes: Syntax
Modal clitics.
Modal clitics have a modal, evidential and sometimes aspectual value.
-seh is used for both direct evidence (preferably visual) and ongoing action:
Ilden is eating.
-ti is a factitive: used for known, certain facts. This generally correlates with past actions or events
He has seen the planet before. (I know it for a fact.)
-iss is used for intentions, plans and wishes. This is essentially equivalent to a future tense:
Ilden will laugh at the joke.
-um is used for deduction from know facts; this covers past, present or future meaning.
Ilden must have used a ship.
The star will enter the red giant phase.
-essi is used for obligation, duty, and desired states:
You must eat.
-los is a milder equivalent:
You should eat.
-ya is an imperative:
Eat!
Negation
Negation is marked with a clitic -ma
I don't see the planet.
-ma negates a modal if place immediately after it; so there is a distinction between:
You must (not eat)., it is prohibited that you eat.
and
you (must not) eat, you don't have to eat
This feels natural with -essi, -los, and -ma but this is also used with other modals:
He has seen the planet.
He has not seen the planet. (I know that for a fact)
We don't know for a fact if he has seen the planet.
Ilden is not eating right now.
I don't see Ilden eating right now.
Questions
Yes-no questions are marked with the clitic -teo
Do you see the planet?
-teo always come last.
Do I have to eat that?
It never combines with -ma. If you expect a negative answer, -teo is replaced by -mma (-umma after a consonant)
I didn't eat that, did I?
Where to place them
Modal clitics attach to the first argument phrase.
We haven't gotten into the structure of argument phrase yet, but still I'll mention that the clitic attaches to the last constituent of the phrase:
The giant star must be seen.
The Earthman is eating.
You can use several clitics in the same phrase, but you're restricted to one per argument.
He will see the planet (which he must do.)
while **arr-iss-essi is ungrammatical.
You can bring a constituent to focus by attaching a modal clitic to it:
?
It is the planet that Ilden must see.
But that's hardly typical; as a rule, a constituent brought into focus will be fronted:
Generally, a predicate will require that at least one argument is present. But arguments can be ommitted if a modal clitic is present; in this case the clitic will attach to the predicate instead:
You must (not eat)., it is prohibited that you eat.
→
Eating is forbidden.
You eat!
→
Eat!
Someone uses the ship
→
In use.
Modal clitics have a modal, evidential and sometimes aspectual value.
-seh is used for both direct evidence (preferably visual) and ongoing action:
- Ilden-i-seh
- Ilden-P-DIR
- unni
- eat
Ilden is eating.
-ti is a factitive: used for known, certain facts. This generally correlates with past actions or events
- arr-ti
- 3s.SP.FR-FACT
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
He has seen the planet before. (I know it for a fact.)
-iss is used for intentions, plans and wishes. This is essentially equivalent to a future tense:
- Ilden-i-iss
- Ilden-P-FUT
- sinn-at
- joke-SP.P
- ali
- laugh
Ilden will laugh at the joke.
-um is used for deduction from know facts; this covers past, present or future meaning.
- Ilden-n-um
- Ilden-R-DED
- nahd-a
- ship-P
- venn
- use
Ilden must have used a ship.
- yill-we-um [gloss="red.giant"]hemmeo
- star-P-DED
The star will enter the red giant phase.
-essi is used for obligation, duty, and desired states:
- di-essi
- 2s-MUST
- unni
- eat
You must eat.
-los is a milder equivalent:
- di-los
- 2s-SHOULD
- unni
- eat
You should eat.
-ya is an imperative:
- di-ya
- 2s-IMP
- unni
- eat
Eat!
Negation
Negation is marked with a clitic -ma
- neo-ma
- 1s.F-NOT
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
I don't see the planet.
-ma negates a modal if place immediately after it; so there is a distinction between:
- di-ma-essi
- 2s-MUST
- unni
- eat
You must (not eat)., it is prohibited that you eat.
and
- di-essi-ma
- 2s-MUST
- unni
- eat
you (must not) eat, you don't have to eat
This feels natural with -essi, -los, and -ma but this is also used with other modals:
- arr-ti
- 3s.SP.FR-FACT
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
He has seen the planet.
- arr-ma-ti
- 3s.SP.FR-FACT
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
He has not seen the planet. (I know that for a fact)
- arr-ti-ma
- 3s.SP.FR-FACT
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
We don't know for a fact if he has seen the planet.
- Ilden-i-ma-seh
- Ilden-P-NOT-DIR
- unni
- eat
Ilden is not eating right now.
- Ilden-i-seh-ma
- Ilden-P-DIR-NOT
- unni
- eat
I don't see Ilden eating right now.
Questions
Yes-no questions are marked with the clitic -teo
- do-teo
- 2s.F-Q
- ninnes
- planet
- sin
- see
Do you see the planet?
-teo always come last.
- nin-essi-teo
- 1s.P-MUST
- sete
- 3s.INAN.P
- unni
- eat
Do I have to eat that?
It never combines with -ma. If you expect a negative answer, -teo is replaced by -mma (-umma after a consonant)
- nin-umma
- 1s.P-Q.NEG
- seon
- 3s.INAN.R
- unni
- eat
I didn't eat that, did I?
Where to place them
Modal clitics attach to the first argument phrase.
We haven't gotten into the structure of argument phrase yet, but still I'll mention that the clitic attaches to the last constituent of the phrase:
- yill [gloss=of-giant-MUST]a-hemmeo-essi sin
- star
The giant star must be seen.
- d-eo
- human-SP.P
- a-Terra-seh
- of-Earth-DIR
- unni
- eat
The Earthman is eating.
You can use several clitics in the same phrase, but you're restricted to one per argument.
- arr-iss
- 3s.SP.FR-FUT
- ninnes-essi
- planet-MUST
- sin
- see
He will see the planet (which he must do.)
while **arr-iss-essi is ungrammatical.
You can bring a constituent to focus by attaching a modal clitic to it:
?
- Ilden-tu
- Ilden-F
- ninnes-essi
- planet-MUST
- sin
- see
It is the planet that Ilden must see.
But that's hardly typical; as a rule, a constituent brought into focus will be fronted:
- ninnes-essi
- planet-MUST
- Ilden-tu
- Ilden-F
- sin
- see
Generally, a predicate will require that at least one argument is present. But arguments can be ommitted if a modal clitic is present; in this case the clitic will attach to the predicate instead:
- di-ma-essi
- 2s-MUST
- unni
- eat
You must (not eat)., it is prohibited that you eat.
→
- unni-ma-essi
- eat
Eating is forbidden.
- di-ya
- 2s-IMP
- unni
- eat
You eat!
→
- unni-ya!
- eat-IMP
Eat!
- nahd-a-seh
- ship-P-DIR
- venn
- use
Someone uses the ship
→
- venn-seh
- use-DIR
In use.
Re: a-Uttes: Syntactic trees
Additional predicates.
The meaning of the sentence can be completed by additional predicates.
For instance:
The ship is fast.
Ilden ate his soup quickly.
The phrase Ildenn dallarr unni becomes the argument of the predicate nur 'fast'. Schematically:
It is fast. Ilden eats his soup. → [[Ilden eats his soup] is fast]
[[Ilden dallar unni] nur]
Locative postpositions
Postpositions are essentially a special case of predicates. Some common ones:
I'm from Earth.
Ilden is in Uttes.
Motion is expressed with the Result or participant case:
Ilden goes to Uttes.
Ilden has gone to Uttes, Ilden is in Uttes now.
Prototypically, locative postpositions take two arguments: the first one is in the object, participant, or result case; the second is a reference point, in the Frame case.
Ildenn (A1) Uttat (A2) yu (P)
You can substitue a predicate phrase for A1:
dau punto a-sensi unni (A1) Uttat (A2) yu (P)
In Uttes, people eat cultured meat.
Combining predicates; syntactic trees.
You can stack additional predicates, for instance:
In Uttes, people often eat cultured meat.
And here I get to draw syntactic trees!
The structure of an equivalent sentence in English would be something like:
The phrase structure in a-Uttes is (using A=Argument, P=Predicate, PP=Predicate phrase, AP=Argument phrase)
The meaning of the sentence can be completed by additional predicates.
For instance:
- nahd-au
- ship-SP
- nur
- fast
The ship is fast.
- Ilden-n
- Ilden-R
- dall-arr
- soup-P
- unni
- eat
- nur
- fast
Ilden ate his soup quickly.
The phrase Ildenn dallarr unni becomes the argument of the predicate nur 'fast'. Schematically:
It is fast. Ilden eats his soup. → [[Ilden eats his soup] is fast]
[[Ilden dallar unni] nur]
Locative postpositions
Postpositions are essentially a special case of predicates. Some common ones:
- yu, at
- mu, towards/i]
- un, from
- seh, on the surface of
- yen, over
- nen, 'west of' (in the direction of rotation')
- wun, 'east of' (opposite rotation)
- tes, 'south of' (towards the local star)
- tu, 'north of' (opposite the local star)
- wo, at, about, around, in orbit around
- ni
- 1s
- Terr-at
- Earth-F
- from
- un
I'm from Earth.
- Ilden
- Ilden
- Utt-at
- Uttes-F
- yu
- in
Ilden is in Uttes.
Motion is expressed with the Result or participant case:
- Ild-eni
- Ilden-P
- Utt-at
- Uttes-F
- towards
- mo
Ilden goes to Uttes.
- Ild-enn
- Ilden-R
- Utt-at
- Uttes-F
- yu
- in
Ilden has gone to Uttes, Ilden is in Uttes now.
Prototypically, locative postpositions take two arguments: the first one is in the object, participant, or result case; the second is a reference point, in the Frame case.
Ildenn (A1) Uttat (A2) yu (P)
You can substitue a predicate phrase for A1:
- dau
- human-P
- punto
- meat-P
- a-sensi
- of-lab
- unni
- eat
- Utt-at[gloss] [gloss=in]yu
- Uttes-F
dau punto a-sensi unni (A1) Uttat (A2) yu (P)
In Uttes, people eat cultured meat.
Combining predicates; syntactic trees.
You can stack additional predicates, for instance:
- dau
- human-P
- punto
- meat-P
- a-sensi
- of-lab
- unni
- eat
- Utt-at[gloss] [gloss=in]yu
- Uttes-F
- denhaos
- frequent
In Uttes, people often eat cultured meat.
And here I get to draw syntactic trees!
The structure of an equivalent sentence in English would be something like:
- english.png (10.41 KiB) Viewed 4163 times
- auttes.png (10.33 KiB) Viewed 4163 times
Last edited by Ares Land on Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: a-Uttes: Syntactic trees
I want to get back & read the post more closely, but from a quick scan this jumped out:
For some reason, that makes a TON of sense to me and makes serial verbs a bit less muddy. I don't know if "serial verbs" are exactly what you're thinking of here (are they???), but this 1 bit was super helpful for me, so thanks!
Vardelm's Scratchpad Table of Contents (Dwarven, Devani, Jin, & Yokai)
Re: a-Uttes: Syntactic trees
It may be worth noting that this is only one of several types of serialisation. Specifically, this is what Crowley calls ‘ambient’ serialization. A natlang example from North-East Ambae (Hyslop 2001):Vardelm wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:38 am I want to get back & read the post more closely, but from a quick scan this jumped out:
For some reason, that makes a TON of sense to me and makes serial verbs a bit less muddy. I don't know if "serial verbs" are exactly what you're thinking of here (are they???), but this 1 bit was super helpful for me, so thanks!
- Mo
- REAL
- geli
- dig
- =e
- =3s.O
- geli
- dig
- =e
- =3s.O
- geli
- dig
- =e
- =3s.O
- mo
- REAL
- bue.
- be.deep
He dug it deep.
(Also, this reminds me that I haven’t quite gotten around to reading the latest few posts on a-Uttes… I’ll need to get around to it soon!)
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Re: a-Uttes: Syntactic trees
I'm surprised, but happy it helps! (That's inspired by serial verb constructions but not necessarily intended to be naturalistic.)