Zompist Bboard Again

Whimemsz wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:21 pm I doubt there's any languages where there's literally no identifiable patterns to plural formation at all.

1. Vowels disappear at the end of a word. (You'd think that wouldn't be too common, but it's fairly widespread according to the Index Diachronica.)
2. Glottal stops disappear at the end of a word.

ansɯ ansɯʔe
ɣad͡za ɣad͡zaʔe
onɣip onɣipe
mint͡sa mint͡saʔe
leræ leræʔe
xomin xomine

ans ansɯ
ɣad͡z ɣad͡za
onɣip onɣip
mint͡s mint͡sa
ler leræ
xomin xomin

anː anːɨ
jaz jaza
onːɨp onːɨf
mɨnː mɨnːa
lir lire
jomɨn jomɨn

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:36 pm

Whimemsz wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:21 pm I doubt there's any languages where there's literally no identifiable patterns to plural formation at all.

This is the problem - it is almost completely random. There are some vague, unhelpful patterns - for instance, words ending in geminates add a vowel to form the plural (but which vowel?), and words ending in some letters tend to lenite (but only sometimes). But for most words, the plural is random.

The problem I have may be demonstrated by these simple sound changes:

1. Vowels disappear at the end of a word. (You'd think that wouldn't be too common, but it's fairly widespread according to the Index Diachronica.)
2. Glottal stops disappear at the end of a word.

Now the ancestor forms plurals using -ʔe (for words ending in a vowel), and -e for words ending in a consonant. Now take the following words and their plurals:

Code: Select all

ansɯ ansɯʔe
ɣad͡za ɣad͡zaʔe
onɣip onɣipe
mint͡sa mint͡saʔe
leræ leræʔe
xomin xomine

Now applying the changes, you get:

Code: Select all

ans ansɯ
ɣad͡z ɣad͡za
onɣip onɣip
mint͡s mint͡sa
ler leræ
xomin xomin

See the problem? The final vowel (if there even is one) is unpredictable, since it's the last vowel of the ancestor word (if it had one). And the actual descendants (applying the full set of sound changes, not just the ones above) are even worse:

Code: Select all

anː anːɨ
jaz jaza
onːɨp onːɨf
mɨnː mɨnːa
lir lire
jomɨn jomɨn

In fact, the plurals are so badly behaved I think I may just take Akangka's suggestion and form it periphrastically. But it would be nice to have a more fusional solution...

anː anːɨ man
jaz jaza woman
onːɨp onːɨp house
mɨnː mɨnːa commoner
lir lire tower
jomɨn jomɨn castle

anː anːa man
jaz jaza woman
onːɨp onːɨp house
mɨnː mɨnːa commoner
lir lir tower
jomɨn jomɨn castle

Akangka wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:45 pm But it's just simple disfixation on a singular noun.

In this case, I think the final vowel on the plural will be treated as suffix. The vowel used is analogized by the semantics of the noun. For example I assign the meaning of each noun as this:

Code: Select all

anː anːɨ man
jaz jaza woman
onːɨp onːɨp house
mɨnː mɨnːa commoner
lir lire tower
jomɨn jomɨn castle

Then it will have a analogical change into

Code: Select all

anː anːa man
jaz jaza woman
onːɨp onːɨp house
mɨnː mɨnːa commoner
lir lir tower
jomɨn jomɨn castle

Now, -a is the human plural, and no change for building plural.

BTW, how can onɣip > onːɨp and onːɨf depending on plurality

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:39 pm It's fine. Plurals in Seri are completely unpredictable:

lobster	ptkamn	ptkamn
man	ktam	ktamkʷ
plant	ʔeʔe	ʔeʔet
fire	ʔamak	ʔamakx
arrow point	ʔaꭓ	ʔaꭓɬk
girl	ʃakaːm	ʃakaːmaɬk
hematite	ꭓpaːʔxʷ	ꭓpaːʔxʷɬka
estuary	ꭓtaːsi	ꭓtaːsitox
fox	ꭓeːs	ꭓeːstax
bobcat	nop	nopꭓam
roadrunner	ʃaːp	ʃaːpkox
ear	isɬitꭓ	isɬitꭓkox
road	ʔaːʔo	ʔaːʔoɬkam
black vulture	koɬkiːmet	koɬkiːmt
grasshopper	kaːtk	kaːtxk
Heermann's gull	kanokni	kanokʃox
3SG.POSS-placenta	iːꭓʷni	iːꭓʷʃax
cave	paːix	paːiɬk
round stingray	kotx	kotɬka
month	iːʃaꭓ	iːʃtoꭓ
heron	sɬeːkox	sɬeːkʷɬ
heart	imoʃ	imxʷk
knife	eːnim	eːntʃ
dog	ʔaꭓʃ	ʔaꭓaka
foot	itoaː	itoit
knee	iɸɬk	iɸɬxox
stone	ʔast	ʔasatox
person	kmiːke	komkaːk
woman	kmaːm	kmaxiːk
thing	ʃiːꭓ	ꭓiːka
Yaqui	yekim	yektʃ
shirt (loan)	kaːmiʃ	kaːmixox

akam chinjir wrote: How do they form the plurals of newly-borrowed words?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:51 pm Wow. Why hasn't that been analogised away by now?

Now what I'd like to know is akam chinjir's query:

akam chinjir wrote: How do they form the plurals of newly-borrowed words?

1. Simply preserve the irregularities (as in Seri or Welsh)
2. Preserve the irregularities, but treat it as disfixation
3. Semantics-based analogy
4. Abandon the morphological plural altogether and replace it with a periphrastic construction

statelessnation wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:10 am ¿What on earth would you call a system like this:

Each time a noun is introduced into a sentence the last vowel is assigned a final tone (lexically all nouns have an atonic [not neutral!] final vowel, including proper nouns), either: /˧ ˥ ˩ ˥˩/ which equate to the 'identifiers' {α β γ δ}.

There 24 personal pronouns: three persons × two numbers × four identifiers.

Again the personal pronouns have six base forms, with the 'identifier' being obligatorily marked, as the four tones on the final vowel.

The first three identifiers refer to a specific person(s), & until a new noun is introduced using one of those three tones, they will continue to refer to that particular noun when those pronouns are used.

The fourth (-δ) is used to indicate a variety of nouns, and may be used again to refer to someone/something else that hasn't been introduced yet and/or is unlikely to be as regularly referenced again.

The -α -β -γ pronouns are roughly proximal topical, whilst -δ is obviate, and it is often used for generic or indefinite referrants.

These pronouns allow for a unambiguous reflexive voice: repeat the same pronoun in the two relevant positions.

I'll note that there being four identifiers for all pronouns is excessive, but I just for funsies:
• 1.Sg.α = "I", always.
• 1.Sg.β & 1.Sg.γ may be re-Narrative or Royal We.
• 3.Sg.δ is used for impersonal verbs.

1.Pl.β & 1.Pl.γ have some use, whilst "I" has an innate & irremovable high tone, the later two  can be assigned to accompaniments separately (they include the I they are (eventually) adjacent to), thus allowing for an pseudo inclusive-exclusive distinction (all would include the 1.Sg.α but not vice versa).

I imagine this may all seem crazy, but it's inspired by my limited experience with sign language - essentially I'm using a floating tone instead of signing the same noun in a different direction; bit I'm pretty sure I totally misunderstood what was being communicated anyway.

I figured such a system could be fun, but there's a lot to hammer out, not to mention the whole problem about me ultimately preferring naturalism (I love flirting with crazy systems, but they rarely hold me interest for long)

1. What is difference of obviative system and topic system?
2. How does a language acquire gerund?

Akangka wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:05 am

1. What is difference of obviative system and topic system?
2. How does a language acquire gerund?

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:16 pm So then I thought that maybe I can use relative clauses instead. But the way Liu handles relative clauses is already so complicated, it just fries my brain when I try to think about how to translate "I want to work on Liu again, but I'm not sure what else to do to get the grammar more complete." Do you think it's a good idea to somehow use relative clauses instead of pronouns? Like something like "...that* which do to get the grammar more complete".

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:37 am Would it be realistic to have a polypersonal agreement system where the same affixes are used for both agent and patient? If so, how would you know whether it is nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive, since it's impossible to know whether an intransitive verb is agreeing with its experiencer using the agent or patient affixes?

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:37 am Would it be realistic to have a polypersonal agreement system where the same affixes are used for both agent and patient? If so, how would you know whether it is nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive, since it's impossible to know whether an intransitive verb is agreeing with its experiencer using the agent or patient affixes?

kode-xa-si

I see you

ka-si-xa

You see me

aman-ke-xe

They hear us

yes-xe

We exist

yes-xe

We exist