Conlang Random Thread

[bradrn]

Just to be clear, Swahili is nom/acc. E.g.:

ni-li-wa-sikia
1s-past-3p-hear
I heard them

wa-li-ni-sikia
3p-past-1s-hear
They heard me.

ni-li-jibu
1s-past-answer
I answered.

That is, the prefix order makes it nom/acc.

That's basically the system I was describing, so it definitely must be plausible.

Thanks! (I was wondering since it seems to collapse fairly quickly into an erg-abs agreement system if you have any sound change at all at the end of a word.)

Thinking about zompist's Swahili example made me remember something else that might be relevant: when there are both subject and object agreement markers, the object markers tend to be closer to the stem (so it'd generally be the subject markers that get affected by word-edge sound changes, resulting in a nom/acc pattern).

(In the paper I linked earlier, she argues that cases of ergative agreement patterns with unmarked case all involve clitics: in an intransitive clause, it'll double the subject, but in a transitive clause, it'll double the object, with the subject getting an agreement marker on the verb. Her explanation is threefold: these languages choose a clitic over an agreement marker when there's a choice; they allow a maximum of one clitic; when there'll be both a clitic and an agreement marker, it's the subject that gets agreement, because object agreement entails subject agreement.)

Interesting! So for affixes after the stem, would the order be verb-patient-agent?

[akam chinjir]

Interesting! So for affixes after the stem, would the order be verb-patient-agent?

Yeah, that'd be the normal pattern, at least.

[bradrn]

Interesting! So for affixes after the stem, would the order be verb-patient-agent?

Yeah, that'd be the normal pattern, at least.

Looks like I'll have to redo the verbal system, then (not that there's all that much to redo). Do you have any idea why this pattern exists?

[akam chinjir]

Looks like I'll have to redo the verbal system, then (not that there's all that much to redo). Do you have any idea why this pattern exists?

I can't say for sure, but in general objects tend to be more tightly bound to the verb than subjects are. One example: there are lots of verb-object idioms, but (transitive) subject-verb idioms are rare. (I think this is true even in languages in which you might otherwise think there's no verb phrase, such as VSO languages, but I don't remember details.)

In Chomskyan treatments, object agreement gets handled closer to the verb, within the extended verbal projection, whereas subject agreement gets handled around IP (I hope I've got the lingo right), and at least a lot of the time affixes associated with positions lower in the clause end up closer to the verb (that's Baker's Mirror Principle).

I admit that I've never felt I understood how it could be true both that you can't get object agreement without subject agreement and that object agreement markers end up closer to the verb. Shouldn't there be a stage in the development of polypersonal agreement where you've only got object agreement?

You can get at least apparent exceptions if your object "agreement" markers are actually clitics. I don't know about other exceptions.

[Xwtek]

Is it reasonable that the noun that is relativized is more proximate than all other arguments except for 1st person and 2nd person? My idea is to make a diachronic for a relative pronoun.

Initially, there is relativizer na. The relativizer na can be used standalone, or with a resumptive pronoun. For example.

The man whom Maria kill

kattu na Maria a a-ro-gapput-a
Man REL Maria 3SG.DIR 3SG>3SG-PRF-kill-DIR.SG

Later, since a refers to katta, it becomes more proximate than Maria.

katta na a Maria a-ro-gappud-e
Man REL 3SG.DIR Maria 3SG>3SG-gappud-INV.SG

na and a is fused to make a relative pronoun.

katta na Maria a-ro-gappud-e
Man REL.DIR Maria 3SG>3SG-gappud-INV.SG

Later, due to confusion between the fused na and a and original na, na is then used exclusively as relative pronoun.

After all of that is done, the original pronoun is lost and the emphatic pronoun is used instead.

[bradrn]

The man whom Maria kill

kattu na Maria a a-ro-gapput-a
Man REL Maria 3SG.DIR 3SG>3SG-PRF-kill-DIR.SG

Later, since akko refers to katta, it becomes more proximate than Maria.

katta na a Maria a-ro-gappud-e
Man REL 3SG.DIR Maria 3SG>3SG-gappud-INV.SG

I don't quite follow this - I can't see akko in any of your examples.

[Xwtek]

The man whom Maria kill

kattu na Maria a a-ro-gapput-a
Man REL Maria 3SG.DIR 3SG>3SG-PRF-kill-DIR.SG

Later, since akko refers to katta, it becomes more proximate than Maria.

katta na a Maria a-ro-gappud-e
Man REL 3SG.DIR Maria 3SG>3SG-gappud-INV.SG

I don't quite follow this - I can't see akko in any of your examples.

I missed it, thanks.

[k1234567890y]

I kinda want to have a language where most adjectives are actually nouns meaning "ADJ-ness", and the adjectival usage of these words are accomplished by using possessive structures or adpositional phrases.

[Zaarin]

I kinda want to have a language where most adjectives are actually nouns meaning "ADJ-ness", and the adjectival usage of these words are accomplished by using possessive structures or adpositional phrases.

You find this construct pretty commonly in Semitic languages.

[bradrn]

I kinda want to have a language where most adjectives are actually nouns meaning "ADJ-ness", and the adjectival usage of these words are accomplished by using possessive structures or adpositional phrases.

You find this construct pretty commonly in Semitic languages.

Are you sure? I don't know the language very well, but I definitely recall Modern Hebrew having adjectives.

[Kuchigakatai]

In Arabic, abstract nouns ("-ness nouns") related to "relative" adjectives (derived from nouns) can be formed by simply using the feminine singular form, but that's not the same thing k1234567890y is asking about.

k1234567890y: I think this is attested in Tibetan.

[k1234567890y]

ok thanks (:

also an idea of phonology:

nasals: /m n ŋ/<m n ng>
plosives: /p ɓ t tʼ k kʼ ʔ/<p b t t' k k' '>
affricates: /t͡s t͡sʼ t͡ʃ t͡ʃʼ/<tz tz' tx tx'>
fricatives: /v s ʃ χ/<v s x j>
resonants: /r l j/<r l y>

vowels: /a ɛ ɔ i u a: i: u:/<a e o i u aa ii uu>

syllable structure: minimum (C)V(C)

root structure:

verbs are mostly monosyllabic; nouns are often disyllabic

verbs:
- V
- CV
- VC
- CVC

nouns:

- VC
- CVC
- VCV
- VCVC
- VCCV
- VCCVC
- CVCV
- CVCVC
- CVCCV
- CVCCVC

some other phonological rules:
- at most one glottalized consonant(/ɓ tʼ kʼ/) is allowed to exist in one syllable, if there are two glottalized consonants, one of them becomes a plain consonant.
- long vowels only appear in stressed syllables; vowels are long vowels in open stressed syllables.
- only /a i u/ appear in unstressed syllables, in which they are realized as [ə ɪ ʊ] respectively.
- /k/, /k'/ and /ŋ/ become [c], [c'] and [ɲ] before or after front vowels.

[mae]

-

[bradrn]

nasals: /m n ŋ/<m n ng>
plosives: /p ɓ t tʼ k kʼ ʔ/<p b t t' k k' '>
affricates: /t͡s t͡sʼ t͡ʃ t͡ʃʼ/<tz tz' tx tx'>
fricatives: /v s ʃ χ/<v s x j>
resonants: /r l j/<r l y>

Why are your stops implosive/ejective depending on their POA? I would find it more plausible to have either /p pʼ t tʼ kʼ ʔ/ or /p ɓ t ɗ k ɠ ʔ/ (though I could be wrong)?

[k1234567890y]

nasals: /m n ŋ/<m n ng>
plosives: /p ɓ t tʼ k kʼ ʔ/<p b t t' k k' '>
affricates: /t͡s t͡sʼ t͡ʃ t͡ʃʼ/<tz tz' tx tx'>
fricatives: /v s ʃ χ/<v s x j>
resonants: /r l j/<r l y>

Why are your stops implosive/ejective depending on their POA? I would find it more plausible to have either /p pʼ t tʼ kʼ ʔ/ or /p ɓ t ɗ k ɠ ʔ/ (though I could be wrong)?

inspiration: Mayan languages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakaltek_language

also in my phonology, /χ/ is actually an uvular consonant.

Also foreign phonemes: /d g f θ/ <d g f c>

[bradrn]

nasals: /m n ŋ/<m n ng>
plosives: /p ɓ t tʼ k kʼ ʔ/<p b t t' k k' '>
affricates: /t͡s t͡sʼ t͡ʃ t͡ʃʼ/<tz tz' tx tx'>
fricatives: /v s ʃ χ/<v s x j>
resonants: /r l j/<r l y>

Why are your stops implosive/ejective depending on their POA? I would find it more plausible to have either /p pʼ t tʼ kʼ ʔ/ or /p ɓ t ɗ k ɠ ʔ/ (though I could be wrong)?

inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakaltek_language

also in my phonology, /χ/ is actually an uvular consonant.

Thank you!

[k1234567890y]

=
Thank you!

you are welcome (:

[Zaarin]

I kinda want to have a language where most adjectives are actually nouns meaning "ADJ-ness", and the adjectival usage of these words are accomplished by using possessive structures or adpositional phrases.

You find this construct pretty commonly in Semitic languages.

Are you sure? I don't know the language very well, but I definitely recall Modern Hebrew having adjectives.

Semitic languages have adjectives, yes, but they also very commonly express adjectival relationships with a noun in the genitive case. (Well, I can't speak for Arabic, Aramaic, or Ethiosemitic, but this is true of Biblical Hebrew, Phoenician, and Akkadian at any rate.)

[mèþru]

Modern Hebrew doesn't have a case system. You have the genitive preposition של /ʃel/, the use of the construct noun or addition of personal suffixed to the construct form. The first is used in most cases, the last is mainly used formally with many exceptions and the one in the middle is just rare, but it is the closest to the idea of nouns modifying nouns. Modern Hebrew just uses adjectives more for description than Biblical.

[mèþru]

worldbuilding idea: Moab survives as a culture into at the least Hellenic times, and develop their own monotheistic sect opposed to the Ammonite polythiestic sect of Chemosh worship. The rebellion of the Maccabees are joined by the Moabites, who establish a confederation of both religions opposed to the polytheistic Ammonites as well as the Samaritans. When Edom was conquered by the Hasmoneans, the religious pluralism meant that the Edomites were allowed to keep their religion, butterflying away Herod.

I'm not going to develop this, but it'd be interesting to see someone else do it.