Zompist Bboard Again

Imralu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:52 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:46 amAs it happens, you didn’t need to ramble, because Eŋes has precisely this distinction too: wafŋim ‘be broken’ vs mafŋim ‘get broken’ (vs wmafŋim ‘break’).

Rambling doesn't happen because it is necessary. It's a force that comes from within ... and it's name is probably ADD.

True…! I’m prone to it myself, in late-night posts (e.g.).

How do you usually gloss them? What do you give as the translation in a dictionary? The "be"/"get" distinction is useful, but it's awkward for a lot of words, and "be" is inherently ambiguous in these phrases.

I gloss them morphemically, like usual. wa- is the stative auxiliary, and ma- is the punctual auxiliary, so if there’s no single-word translations I can use STAT and PUNC. (The former doubles as a transitivity marker, so it can be CAUS or COM too.)

The key here is that the adjectival root cannot be used on its own, and thus is ambivalent between stative and punctual readings. With a noun it naturally tends to be stative, so in a dictionary I write it as stative too.

However, consulting my dictionary for the example I gave, it looks like I got a bit muddled here. fŋim is in fact not an adjective: it’s an active verb, derived from the root √fŋi- ‘relating to breakage’. Like the adjectival roots, this one is ambivalent between readings. fŋim is the punctual stem, while the stative stem fŋiŋ means ‘be broken’. The intensive stem fŋin ‘be ground into small pieces’ also happens to be stative here, while the iterative fŋis ‘crumble away’ and atelic fŋi ‘flake off’ are dynamic. (*mafŋim doesn’t exist, while wafŋim actually means ‘break (tr.)’.) I have no really good way to gloss these, since in general the components of a verb stem aren’t easily glossable.

(If you want to discuss this further, it’s probably best to move to my scratchpad thread, where all this is documented in more detail.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:44 am Na ni anfwen naʔsnos bitowaʔpes? Naʔ ni sanigiʔssem bifwasnerfin?
/na.ni an.fwen.naʔs.nos.bi.toˈwaʔ.pes | naʔ.ni sa.ni.ɟiʔsˌsem.bif.was.neɾˈfin/
na ni an-fw·en naʔsnos bi-to-waʔ-pes? naʔ ni s-an-igiʔ·s·sem bi-fwas·ne·rfin?
what FOC ACT-say that.ANA Q-DEF.SG-do-BEN? who FOC ACC-ACT-eat Q-force
Why that sentence? Who is forcing the eating?

yomali na tatsun na'o nya onyo nkolapuaye
Each day I select one glyph to study.

tatsu te iyoma "nipo"...yoto uateye
Today's glyph is "compel"...hence, that sentence.

Imralu wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:35 am(It really frustrates me that English doesn't have an easy and clear way to distinguish džág repariert werden from džuwág repariert sein. A huge number of basic roots in Tobarese have passive translations and the glosses for dynamic and stative forms are either the same or awkward.)

Mmm, not sure if I get your problem. It's just "being repaired" vs. "having been repaired"? I don't see much difference with the German there? Like English "repaired", German "repariert" is ambiguous between the two? Most/all Western European languages seem to have settled on two distinctions: past passive (or perfective) and present active (or imperfective), at least for adjectives ("eaten" vs. "eating").

Imralu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:47 amShould I gloss the underived root tém (be eaten ... gegessen/gefressen werden, Vorgangspassiv) as "eat[PASS]" or "eat(PASS)"?

I don't think either is valid according to the Leipzig glossing rules? If the passive part is inherently part of the morpheme, it's just eat.PASS?


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 10:26 am

Imralu wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:35 am(It really frustrates me that English doesn't have an easy and clear way to distinguish džág repariert werden from džuwág repariert sein. A huge number of basic roots in Tobarese have passive translations and the glosses for dynamic and stative forms are either the same or awkward.)

Mmm, not sure if I get your problem. It's just "being repaired" vs. "having been repaired"? I don't see much difference with the German there? Like English "repaired", German "repariert" is ambiguous between the two?

Indeed, but I am talking about the difference between "repariert werden" and "repariert sein" which is as big a difference as "die" vs "be dead". Of course, "be dead" is basically the same as "have died" if your language has a clear perfect, which is why Swahili manages to do pretty well using kufa for "die" and perfect forms for "be dead" (there is an adjective/noun for "dead (one)", but it's rarely used). German and, increasingly, American English don't have a clear distinction between present perfect and past tense, which is why "er ist gestorben" (he died/he has died) and "er ist tot" (he is dead), although frequently equivalent, are still quite different in how they can be used: er ist gestern gestorben = he died yesterday; er ist gestern tot = he is dead yesterday.

Imralu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:47 amShould I gloss the underived root tém (be eaten ... gegessen/gefressen werden, Vorgangspassiv) as "eat[PASS]" or "eat(PASS)"?

I don't think either is valid according to the Leipzig glossing rules? If the passive part is inherently part of the morpheme, it's just eat.PASS?

Isn't that used for cases where it's a passive form? For example "sang" is "sing.PST" because it is the past form of "sing" and it's difficult to clearly point out the specific past tense morpheme since it's formed by ablaut.

Tém is not a passive form of a word meaning "eat". It's a root word. It's just that the meaning in English requires an additional specification. I've definitely seen this with square brackets or parentheses in glosses, but I can't remember which. I could also do it as "be.eaten", but then that runs into the issue of whether it means "gegessen/gefressen werden" or "gegessen/gefressen sein". Of course, in a gloss, that's a pretty small issue because I'll usually gloss the morphemes:

tém
tém
be.eaten
is eaten

tuwém
t<uw>ém
be.eaten<RET>
is eaten / has been eaten

Cf.

yóg
yóg
die
dies

yuwóg
y<uw>óg
die<RET>
is dead/has died

Bayabehozúyušō.
b<ay><ab><eh><oz><uy>úš-ā
work<CONT><very><JUSS><go><place>-R2
I have to go to work now.

Imralu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:05 pm German and, increasingly, American English don't have a clear distinction between present perfect and past tense, which is why "er ist gestorben" (he died/he has died) and "er ist tot" (he is dead), although frequently equivalent, are still quite different in how they can be used: er ist gestern gestorben = he died yesterday; er ist gestern tot = he is dead yesterday.

The death of the preterite in (southern) German (both StG and traditional dialects) is well-known, but the AmE here seems to preserve the distinction between present perfect and the preterite. For instance "he died" indicates that someone died at some arbitrary time in the past, without any reference to how far in the past it happened, whereas "he has died" indicates that someone died recently; you would not say that *"19,240 British soldiers have died on the first day of the Somme". The idea that the distinction between the present perfect and the preterite is dying out in AmE seems to be a misunderstanding by speakers of other English varieties based on the fact that it just happens that in some cases where they use the present perfect Americans tend to use the preterite, without considering that there are plenty of cases where Americans very much do make a distinction between the two, such as this one.

• perfect (ling.) (adj.), ferfet'
• aspect (ling.), asfet'
• perfective (ling.) (adj.) ferfet'if
• imperfective (ling.) (adj.) imferfet'if
• now (n.), malah
• past (n.), kaate

Gadit'a malah ferfet' fad'ami.
exist-DAT-NEG now perfect language-POSS.1.P
Fad'ami does not have a present perfect.

Gadi asfet' ferfet'if ut asfet' imferfet'if kaatet fad'ami.
exist-DAT aspect perfective and aspect imperfective past-GEN language-POSS.1.P
Fad'ami has a perfective and an imperfective past.

• phonemes (ling., coll.), foonem
• number, k'iixa
• cromulent, lemaahe

Ximaam ha gadi k'iixa lemaahe foonemit fad'ami.
think-AGT.1.S COMP exist-DAT number cromulent phonemes-GEN language-POSS.1.S
Fad'ami has a cromulent number of phonemes

Imralu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:05 pm German and, increasingly, American English don't have a clear distinction between present perfect and past tense

zÁ`zÎêÆp_z¿Â`ezÁ½Ñx¿Îa
(Now mens’life in only now things , these men of incomprehension of past words...)
nowadays, we only live in the present, and tenses that don't relate to it are no longer understood...

tiuam pakayo pa utsupyalo nkilok
rambling-PL fool-GEN even.though RED-attempt-PL resonant-NEG
Despite many various attempts the fool's ramblings did not resonate.

• understand (trans.), lahu
• blather (intr.), maab'i

Lahumufat'a k'a maab'idaadu.
understand-AGT.1.S-HAB-PAT.3.S.INAN-NEG EMPH blather-ACTION-POSS.3.S.ANIM
I don't understand his blathering.

õÄCÒbÆ_C½bx¿f¿C¿½_z¿½
(future sun will see other name written and experienced...)
every new day brings a new glyph to use...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:45 am Lahumufat'a k'a maab'idaadu.
understand-AGT.1.S-HAB-PAT.3.S.INAN-NEG EMPH blather-ACTION-POSS.3.S.ANIM
I don't understand his blathering.

reminds me of...

"Blathering blatherskytes!"

{WIP, but enough exists to say that, among other things}

keenir wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 3:26 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:45 am Lahumufat'a k'a maab'idaadu.
understand-AGT.1.S-HAB-PAT.3.S.INAN-NEG EMPH blather-ACTION-POSS.3.S.ANIM
I don't understand his blathering.

reminds me of...

"Blathering blatherskytes!"

{WIP, but enough exists to say that, among other things}

• assume (trans.), faayi
• sounds (coll.), lagad
• smooth, seewa

Faayim ha gadi lagad seewa fad'ana.
assume-AGT.1.S COMP exist-DAT sounds smooth language-POSS.2.S
I assume your language has vowels.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:00 pm

• assume (trans.), faayi
• sounds (coll.), lagad
• smooth, seewa

Faayim ha gadi lagad seewa fad'ana.
assume-AGT.1.S COMP exist-DAT sounds smooth language-POSS.2.S
I assume your language has vowels.

(thank you)
(it does, but right now, I have only two choices: use the syllabary I've formed, with no way thus far of indicating which vowels are to be ignored; or use it as an abjad - which I did above. my apologies for any confusion)

keenir wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:02 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:00 pm

• assume (trans.), faayi
• sounds (coll.), lagad
• smooth, seewa

Faayim ha gadi lagad seewa fad'ana.
assume-AGT.1.S COMP exist-DAT sounds smooth language-POSS.2.S
I assume your language has vowels.

(thank you)
(it does, but right now, I have only two choices: use the syllabary I've formed, with no way thus far of indicating which vowels are to be ignored; or use it as an abjad - which I did above. my apologies for any confusion)

• abjad (ling.) abjad
• silly, joori

Ligim ha ta qo abjad ─ tama joori.
know-AGT.1.S COMP COP PROX.S.INAN abjad || COP-AGT.1.S-PST.IPFV silly
I knew it was an abjad ─ I was being silly.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:00 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:02 pm(thank you)
(it does, but right now, I have only two choices: use the syllabary I've formed, with no way thus far of indicating which vowels are to be ignored; or use it as an abjad - which I did above. my apologies for any confusion)

• abjad (ling.) abjad
• silly, joori

Ligim ha ta qo abjad ─ tama joori.
know-AGT.1.S COMP COP PROX.S.INAN abjad || COP-AGT.1.S-PST.IPFV silly
I knew it was an abjad ─ I was being silly.

(oh; sorry. I seriously am aiming to expand it as i go - an abjad wasn't anywhere near an aim before, but now I think I'll try it alongside the alphabet, making both from the logosyllabary)

keenir wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 3:26 pm

yÏÎS¾‰Ó̐À¾ÒyÍ
(this words running on a flat material not known by me...)
on what material is this writing supposed to be traced...

Tinnáit wizótiŋenisséusiyas tuvakenúwatinīt.
t-ī-n<ay>át w<iz>o-ti-ŋe-ŋ-ī-séusiyas t-<uvak>-e-n<úw>át-in-ī-t
be.time-R5-be.day<CONT> sixteen<PST>-eight-three-QM-R5-be.degrees.Celsius be.time-<although>-LK2-be.day<CAUS>-north-R5-be.time
Today it was twenty-seven degrees even though it's winter.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 6:05 pmThe idea that the distinction between the present perfect and the preterite is dying out in AmE seems to be a misunderstanding by speakers of other English varieties based on the fact that it just happens that in some cases where they use the present perfect Americans tend to use the preterite, without considering that there are plenty of cases where Americans very much do make a distinction between the two, such as this one.

Žégiddál gúŋā ŋébiqqincreasinglyq.
žég-ī-d-á-l gúŋ-ā ŋéb-ī-q-increasingly-q
be.cause-R5-DEM-MED-2S use.finger-R2 be.said-R5-∅-increasingly-∅
That's why I said 'increasingly'.

Imralu wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 1:18 amTinnáit wizótiŋenisséusiyas tuvakenúwatinīt

zÎìȐÔÁ¿‰ÁÐÂb|ÁøƿÔaøÆ¿~ÈÏka{ÎÉe
(my house now having thing freshing it and warming other places and maybe yours...)
I've just air-conditioned my house,
but this system heats up the outside
and maybe even yours...

inkayokua sauampanko ma sitsaha
PROX-week-INCL be.humid-much-PROG and be.hot-AUG
This entire week has been very humid and hot