This is linguistics! Assume absolutely every terminological choice is subjective and willynilly, until proven otherwise. ‘Counterfactual’ is a sufficiently old term that I wouldn’t assume it refers to a single coherent thing.
I don't find this answer particularly satisfying. I am referring to a very specific definition/type of counterfactual, which I believe I have already defined.
It’s worth noting that phonetics is unusual, in that (a) it’s firmly linked to the underlying physics, and (b) the terminology is rigorously standardised (courtesy of the IPA). Most of linguistics is not like this.
I have grave difficulties calling anything in linguistics ‘scientific’. Sure, people have suggested plenty of reasons for word order — but the reasons you get from Minimalists will be very different to the reasons you get from Cognitive Linguists, which in turn are very different from the reasons you get from Basic Linguistic Theorists. I sympathise with some of these reasons more than others, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call even my favourite theories ‘correct’ or ‘scientific’.And there's scientific reasons why certain combination of orders of noum, demonstrative, numeral, and adjective are unattested, such as iconicity principle, etc.
Yes, it does. But I note that it tries to summarise the situation in just a couple of sentences. I’d go back to the references they cite and read those, to get a better idea of the full scope of cross-linguistic variation.The abstract I read about (a download link to a pdf) suggests that using past tense (or nonfuture, in this case) morphology is pretty much a universal feature in languages with explicit tense marking.
Yeah, don’t bother about the formal semantics. Just ignore it, is my advice. Trying to work that stuff out from first principles can make you go a bit crazy. The theories have their place, but I’ve never believed that they reveal any really fundamental facts about how language works.So that is why I don't know whether the condition clause is supposed to be marked counterfactual or if it's the consequence clause, or both. I don't know the psycholinguostics or formal logic or semantic theories or whatever is involved.
to my eyes, that looks like the same thing...the only difference is the tense of the had/left within the counterfactual.Ahzoh wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:36 pmI was certain a counterfactual is simply "an alternate past state that did not occur in reality". That "if I had money, we would be drinking beer", asserts that having money is contrary to reality. But the drinking of beer is also contrary to reality.
Though for this same reason counterfactual futures confuse the fuck out of me like "if she left tomorrow, she would arrive on time", which is somehow distinct from indicative conditional "if she leaves tomorrow, she will arrive on time"
I don't think this matter is all that subjective and willynilly.
ah, but at the risk of me saying something stupid or obvious...things that are rare, are things that do exist, even if they are rare.Ahzoh wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 7:36 pmIt's like, sure, I can absolutely have a voiced uvular stop in my language, but there are clear reasons why they are rare:
They are apparently completely different things, and the counterfactual is expressed with fake past tense.
That would be missing the point since rarity, or even attestation in general, is not the issue. The issue is logic. Is it more logical to do it this way? Or that way? Why or why not? Does it make logical sense?ah, but at the risk of me saying something stupid or obvious...things that are rare, are things that do exist, even if they are rare.
My success has involved a lot of demystification of the nature of such a concept.I mean, triconsonantal roots aren't exactly common, and yet this language family was born from your successes when you and I tried learning how to make triconsonantal roots; I'm glad you had so much good fortune with this over all this time, and I wish you much more.
fake past tense? I'm suspecting that the two example statements were splitting an extremely fine hair, and "fake past tense" makes me think i was right.
I think you may be venturing far enough into theThat would be missing the point since rarity, or even attestation in general, is not the issue. The issue is logic. Is it more logical to do it this way? Or that way? Why or why not? Does it make logical sense?ah, but at the risk of me saying something stupid or obvious...things that are rare, are things that do exist, even if they are rare.
demystification? do the D'ni know you're doing that?My success has involved a lot of demystification of the nature of such a concept.I mean, triconsonantal roots aren't exactly common, and yet this language family was born from your successes when you and I tried learning how to make triconsonantal roots; I'm glad you had so much good fortune with this over all this time, and I wish you much more.
You look on quora and non-linguistic subreddits and you'll find many people who a) think speakers of Semitic languages don't use vowels at all a la Salishan or b) think words are actually composed of roots and templates and that the vowels between the consonants are completely without rhyme or reason, instead of the actual reality that there is some kind of original stem that undergoes various transformations.
Intriguing… if done right, this could be one of the best alien conlangs I’ve seen.rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 11:53 pm A sentence consists of a number of "root" words indicating weather and the speaker's mood. Sentences typically have 3 roots. Diverging from this pattern confers special significance. A number of prefixes and suffixes are added to these "roots" that communicate what humans think of as the relevant information in the sentence.
I’ll note, however, that this is not particularly alien. From your description, it sounds very similar to some polysynthetic languages like Greenlandic and Nuu-chah-nulth.What is even more alien is that each substantive is often represented by affixes spread across multiple "roots". The word order in Intramuros is not the linear order of vocalization but rather which affixes are closer or further away from each "root".
The language has case "endings". The endings are attached to the outer end of the substantive affixes; that is, farther away from the root. A common use of the oblique case is as a dative.
No, no, I don't think it's terrible -- and I don't think I encountered the idea before. I'd be glad to see this developped further when you get enough time, but this is really interesting.rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 11:53 pm Flavor conlang idea for my novel: Standard Intramural
(Let me know if this conlang idea already exists. I know it's terrible, but I think it's cool for an exotic SF setting. I have many pages of notes on this "language" that I didn't consult for this post. Last year, I had hopes of working this out is more detail, but I have been working pretty much nonstop since then.)
"Condition clause" and "consequence clause" are properly called "protasis" and "apodosis", or "antecedent" and "consequent" - I prefer the former terminology. What to mark the verb in what clause is up to you I'd say. I think the world's languages have all the varieties you could want: marking none, marking one or the other, or marking both (either the same or differently). It might also depend on how probable the speaker thinks the protasis is, if it's 100% certain, you have a "when" clause, and the apodosis is also no longer deemed counterfactual or uncertain.
I don't like the former since they don't help me remember which clause means what. The fromer is basically the same as my terminology except the clause conveying the conditions is called "antecedent"
Well yes, but I could just as much mark it in the irrealis mood since the irrealis deals with unrealized or nonactual events. The clause would make just as much sense.As for your question, if in "I would have done my homework, but then my friends came over", "to do" is marked with the counterfactual, I would pose that in "If my friends hadn't come over, I would have done my homework", you would use the same counterfactual in the aposdosis no?
A language that marks mood obligatorily on the verb but not tense or aspect is already uncommon.You could mark the If-clause with the counterfactual as well, but I don't think that's common cross-linguistically
But I wouldn't consider the first sentence to be a counterfactual at all, but a hypothetical, and thus I would properly mark both clauses in the irrealis mood. The counterfactual in Vrkhazhian explicitly conveys "the past has already happened, we're talking about an alternate past". It is essentially a modal past tense....especially since it's not really counterfactual when the condition is not in the past:
"If my friends don't come over, I will do my homework"
"If my friends hadn't come over, I would've done my homework"
So what for you is the difference between "counterfactual" and "unrealized/nonactual"? Seems to me that semantically these are very close, if not the same. It seems you insist on a mood that's also a tense, which is fine, but then call that tense part a tense, and you have a "past irrealis", which is a counterfactual, and a "non-past irrealis", which covers all other cases.
The irrealis is typically future-orientated while the counterfactual is nonfuture-orientated. So the distinction in the protasis makes sense. Yet, they (at least the irrealis) don't have to refer to time at all. Or, rather, the irrealis is far less tied to temporality than the counterfactual.jal wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 10:59 amSo what for you is the difference between "counterfactual" and "unrealized/nonactual"? Seems to me that semantically these are very close, if not the same. It seems you insist on a mood that's also a tense, which is fine, but then call that tense part a tense, and you have a "past irrealis", which is a counterfactual, and a "non-past irrealis", which covers all other cases.
JAL
So in that case I'd say always use the irrealis in the protasis, as it is/was "undecided" at the time of the apodosis.Ahzoh wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 11:40 amThe irrealis is typically future-orientated while the counterfactual is nonfuture-orientated. So the distinction in the protasis makes sense. Yet, they (at least the irrealis) don't have to refer to time at all. Or, rather, the irrealis is far less tied to temporality than the counterfactual.
That makes sense, as the apodosis is the main clause, the protasis a subclause.And when they each stand alone they seem to have an apodotic meaning. That is, at least, how counterfactuals behave in languages that have them as explicit moods (who also have distinct irrealis and realis moods)
The apodosis, I'd say, as that's the main clause. Also, the protasis and apodosis can govern different temporality:So then it's a matter if the protasis and apodosis must agree in mood markers or not. And if they need not, then I reason that one of the clauses should govern the temporality or primary modality.
I must emphasize that if there is to be any temporal references, it is between future and non-future, not past and non-past.jal wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 12:10 pm So it seems as if your irrealis can be used with seperate temporal information if used in the protasis, and the choice for the apodosis is either counterfactual (which is +past) or irrealis (especially for non-past references, though could be used for past references where the outcome is unsure)?
Sure, but your counterfactual seems decidedly +past.
Or certainty, I assume ("When I get home, I'll call you")?The realis can be marked in the apodosis, for matters involving implication (there are hoofprints here, so there must be a deer) or logical consequence (there is thunder if there is lightning).
That kinda contradict each other :D.
I have some difficulty with an animate-inanimate triggered pattern to have nom/abs and acc/erg. In fact, I don't think there's any language that has all four like this?eat\REAL-3sg Sam-NOM orange-ABS (VSO)
fall_on\REAL-3sg mouse-ACC pillar-ERG (VOS)
No, it makes perfect sense to me. The verb is the head.
I’m not aware of any with this specific combination, but Sanzhi Dargwa combines ergative–absolutive case-marking with hierarchical verbal agreement. So I don’t find the pattern here to be implausible.I have some difficulty with an animate-inanimate triggered pattern to have nom/abs and acc/erg. In fact, I don't think there's any language that has all four like this?eat\REAL-3sg Sam-NOM orange-ABS (VSO)
fall_on\REAL-3sg mouse-ACC pillar-ERG (VOS)
.