I wouldn't think so. It's only been 1 month since Imralu posted. Conlangs can take years to develop, so I'm sure there will be more posts when there are more developments. I haven't posted in my scratchpad thread for almost 4 months, and i can assure you my project isn't dead either. 1 month is nothing.
It was, but not anymore.
Code: Select all
LABIAL DENTAL/ PALATAL(ISED) VELAR/ GLOTTAL
ALVEOLAR UVULAR
NASAL: <m> <n> <ŋ>/<ng>
PLOSIVE VOICED: <b> <d> <g>
PLOSIVE VOICELESS: <p> <t> <k> <q>
PLOSIVE EJECTIVE: <pq> <tq> <kq>
AFFRICATE VOICED: <dz> <dž>/<dzh>
AFF. VOICELESS: <ts> <tš>/<tsh>
AFF. EJECTIVE: <tsq> <tšq>/<tshq>
LAT. AFF. VOICED: <dl>
LAT. AFF. VOICELESS: <tl>
LAT. AFF. EJECTIVE: <tlq>
FRICATIVE VOICED: <v> <z> <ž>/<zh> <ğ>/<gh>
FRIC. VOICELESS: <f> <s> <š>/<sh> <x> <h>
TRILL/FLAP: <r>
LATERAL: <l>
SEMIVOWEL: <y> <w>Technically speaking, if you have overt dependency markers it can’t be called a serial verb construction (at least in the usual definitions). I’m not sure what this would be, though.Imralu wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:53 am Compounds/Serial Verbs:
Verbs may be compounded but require a vocalic linking element. This preserves the strict CV(CV(CV(...)C structure of clauses. Consonant clusters (other than those where the second element is a semivowel) are only found at the boundaries between clauses.
There are two linking elements for compounding:… The difference between them is that CN1 is used when both verbs refer to the same entity and CN2 is used when they refer to different entities.
- -o- gloss: CN1
- -e- gloss: CN2
Yeah, just compounds then with two different types of modifiers. I don't know. Words are just words.
I notice the presence of Kq in the verb to cut, which you also said was a negative marker. Does that imply that the verb to cut is more like to reduce? Or like to not(something)? I'm not sure if I'm understood.
I also noticed a change in the verb 'to use hand' from 'b' to 'd'. Is that a mistake or is it some construction that appears in certain context?
B'uvvaŋ, magaz iddauz wettsik.
- b
- use.hand
- u=
- DEF(a)=
- vaŋ
- hunt
- |
- |
- magaz
- fall.over
- i=
- DEF(e)=
- dauz
- be.tree
- we=
- ATTR=
- tsik
- be.small
The hunter pushed/pulled the small tree over (by hand).
Perhaps speaking with oneself in the highest formal rank would become the norm when talking on the internet. (I remember reading something about the Chinese using the arrogant(?) I pronoun when speaking online (can't validate though)Imralu wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:07 am
One thing about the internet though: in nearly all cases, things can't be settled physically and there is no actual danger of ranking someone lower than you when they could actually kick your arse, so I imagine, if this language were used on something like the internet, there would just be a lot of people arrogantly ranking themselves higher than everyone else and either this would result in flame-wars or it would just be ignored and used to form judgements about who is arrogant and who isn't. Potentially, there would be a politeness standard where second person is placed above first person, always, and third persons could be placed even higher or lower depending on what you want to say about them. Maybe placing 2nd person above 1st person would even become a rule of politeness on some forums. I don't know. I think something like that would change the language. When it's spoken mostly face to face, this system seems like it could work well (although horribly, lol), but in fairly anonymous, written communication, I think a change would come about.
Hi. I haven't really thought of an etymology for kqal. The kq is just there because of a bit of sound symbolism. [kʼ] represents sharpness. I hadn't intended it to have anything to do with the negative morpheme kq, but I like the way you're thinking, like it could mean "reduce to nothing". Kqal doesn't mean "cut" though. It means "use/wield an axe". (Whence kqaled 'be an axe'.) It doesn't specifically mean cut with an axe, for example:
Oh yeah, I changed it. I go through my lexicon and change things from time to time and then try to look for all instances of it and change them too. It was d and now it's b, but I guess I didn't change it everywhere in this thread. I guess it's still d in the list of instrumental verbs, and wherever anyone has quoted me.I also noticed a change in the verb 'to use hand' from 'b' to 'd'. Is that a mistake or is it some construction that appears in certain context?
B'uvvaŋ, magaz iddauz wettsik.
- b
- use.hand
- u=
- DEF(a)=
- vaŋ
- hunt
- |
- |
- magaz
- fall.over
- i=
- DEF(e)=
- dauz
- be.tree
- we=
- ATTR=
- tsik
- be.small
The hunter pushed/pulled the small tree over (by hand).
Yeah, that's all possible and I really don't know how it would go and also can't be bothered coming up with the canon for how it does go in world, because it's not necessary. Their world is internetless for now. It would definitely cause a bit of language change, at least in the variety used online. Once the rank is more or less meaningless, people would need to keep explicitly mentioning first and second person with ž and l, rather than mentioning them briefly and then letting the rank make it clear.Namdio wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:04 pmPerhaps speaking with oneself in the highest formal rank would become the norm when talking on the internet. (I remember reading something about the Chinese using the arrogant(?) I pronoun when speaking online (can't validate though)
Maybe in the beginning it might have started of as a pissing contest, 'You cannot verify my rank so therefore I will put myself higher than you (or make myself the highest'. Then as new users get introduced to the medium, they just assume that it is the norm for speaking when on such a platform and adopt it as well (only for internet speak, though there might be some spill over).
I also think that the people who make use of the internet first would heavily determine the official formal rank used when speaking on the internet. And it may also differ from site to site, as different people use different sites and certain purposes call for certain speech modes. For example you might find the the u= rank I= rank might be used a lot more in competitive websites or online programs, like online games (mostly of the sports and action genre) much like trash talk.
Then in more casual sites like chatrooms, there may be some semblance of the spoken rank ordering (mods having higher ranks, and most people just defaulting to the neutral-ish o= rank (I hope I got this right).
Then perhaps on sites for businesses, you might see the use of a slightly more prestigious a= rank to refer to either the targeted user or the company making the product (either in an effort to butter up the customers (as in, 'wow a strong person like you would definitely want to patronize us') or in an effort to paint themselves in a much better light ('we are much better than the competition so chose to do business with us'). Such spaces may avoid the usage of the u= rank, in order to avoid coming off as arrogant or proud.
LMAO! Could happen! Disputes over rank can turn into arm-wrestling, full on wrestling or even all-out combat ... the two involved typically agree on what it will take to make clear who is higher ranked first. Both will of course try to suggest things that they are best at ... e.g. "Let's arm wrestle." "No, let us try to push one another out of this circle." (There should be a word for that.) If there is a clear winner, but one still won't acquiesce to the ranking in speech, then it may turn into real violence.
Ah, I edited some old posts to update some changes in vocabulary. Weird that it gave you a notification without indicating that it was for an edit. I guess because I had quoted you in those posts, it triggered the "quote" notification again. Sorry!
No worries! That sounds about right, since it gave me all ‘quoted’ notifications.
I've realised that these are essentially converbs. They subordinate the following verb to the preceding one.
In Balog, each verb (or verb phrase where there is subordination) must be inflected inasmuch as it must at the very least have a subject (with few exceptions), so this fits van Staden's definition. (TAM marking can be marked once on one verb phrase and then understood for the others. There are two types of negation: with the adverbial particle kqa, only the immediate clause is negated. With the verb kq followed by the complementiser ä(ä)=, negation can spread across the whole sentence.) Verbs do not have to have have the same inflections, in line with Durie's definition. The examples above do, but "switch-subject serialisation" is common:Page 21, MIRIAM VAN STADEN AND GER REESINK, emphasis mine wrote:For
some researchers, serial verb constructions must contain only one inflected verb, while the
others are not or less inflected (Dol 1996, 1999), while for others all verbs must be
inflected (van Staden 2000). Even so, whether all verbs must have the same inflections
(Baker 1989) or not (Durie 1988, 1997) is an issue.
(i) Yes.Page 22, MIRIAM VAN STADEN AND GER REESINK wrote:There are, however, several properties that are mentioned almost universally: (i) a
single intonation contour covers the entire construction, (ii) no conjunction can be inserted
between the verbs, and (iii) the entire construction represents a single notional event. The
first two criteria together are taken to mean that the construction is in fact a single clause,
and this single clause analysis is also what almost all linguists agree on.
Yes, that sounds a lot more accurate to me. It also means your CN1/CN2 distinction is basically just switch-reference — CN1 would be the different-subject converb while CN2 would be the same-subject converb.
Traditionally, subordination is considered a relationship between two clauses, so ‘subordination in a single clause’ would be a contradiction. This all leads me to suspect that the concept of a ‘clause’ is in fact completely inapplicable to Balog, at least without substantially redefining the term.The sentences above are all a single clause (with the exception of [Ŋelonam ool] [m'aaž] further up, which is two).
…
If that means that whole clusters of what I'm calling clauses count as one clause together, then I'll need to find new terminology for them. Or alternatively, I'll just ignore this and continue to describe it as I've been describing it because that's nice and parsimonious.
I’d say that what you have here is a construction which is very SVC-like in some ways, but very different in others — which, incidentally, is often what tends to happen with converbs. (Bisang wrote a chapter comparing the two in ed. Haspelmath and König’s Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.)I've just realised that this extra-clausal structure meets the requirements for some definitions of serial verb constructions.
What they’re getting at there is, essentially, that no-one can agree on the criteria for defining SVCs. Personally I consider inflection more or less irrelevant for defining the concept.One of the links you posted in the SOV help thread said this:Page 21, MIRIAM VAN STADEN AND GER REESINK, emphasis mine wrote:For
some researchers, serial verb constructions must contain only one inflected verb, while the
others are not or less inflected (Dol 1996, 1999), while for others all verbs must be
inflected (van Staden 2000). Even so, whether all verbs must have the same inflections
(Baker 1989) or not (Durie 1988, 1997) is an issue.
This immediately disqualifies it from SVC-hood, though, since almost all definitions I’ve seen forbid negation of only one verb in an SVC.There are two types of negation: with the adverbial particle kqa, only the immediate clause is negated. With the verb kq followed by the complementiser ä(ä)=, negation can spread across the whole sentence.
This reminds me strongly of how things are phrased in Kalam — which incidentally has both SVCs and converbs, if you want to compare the two constructions. Kalam has a small and closed verb class, though, which makes it nearly the opposite of Balog.(Also possible are more specific sentences leaving smaller semantic gaps when necessary: I use an axe, the axe is swung repeatedly, the tree is struck repeatedly, it (the tree) falls down.)
But you just said it’s common to subordinate verbs across two clauses!(iii) Yes.Page 22, MIRIAM VAN STADEN AND GER REESINK wrote:There are, however, several properties that are mentioned almost universally: (i) a
single intonation contour covers the entire construction, (ii) no conjunction can be inserted
between the verbs, and (iii) the entire construction represents a single notional event. The
first two criteria together are taken to mean that the construction is in fact a single clause,
and this single clause analysis is also what almost all linguists agree on.
Damn, I didn't think of it that way. Thanks! They're the other way around though. As a mnemonic, the 1 and the 2 refer to how many entities are mentioned. With CN1, there's only one entity. CN2 references two different entities. I suppose I could also gloss them as CNV.SS and CNV.DS, but that's longer.
Hmm, sure, but a subordinate clause is within its matrix clause. But yeah, I'm happy to just keep using the term clause to describe the PREDICATE-SUBJECT structure in Balog, regardless of whether someone else might look at it and identify other structures that they call clauses. Describing grammar, like phonology, is often just about finding a way of describing it that words.bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:13 pmTraditionally, subordination is considered a relationship between two clauses, so ‘subordination in a single clause’ would be a contradiction. This all leads me to suspect that the concept of a ‘clause’ is in fact completely inapplicable to Balog, at least without substantially redefining the term.
Yeah, I got that. Languages literally just do what they do. Things are how they are. We come up with names for phenomena and then also have to define where the boundaries of what is covered by that name are. Some people seem not to get that; as soon as there is a name for something, they assume that it's a natural phenomenon with hard boundaries, as if all we've done is labelled a platonic ideal that has its own edges rather than create a label for a area of land that blurs into its neighbouring areas without any hard boundaries until we decide on them ... and where those boundaries are can be arbitrary as fuck and different according to different authorities or in different contexts.What they’re getting at there is, essentially, that no-one can agree on the criteria for defining SVCs. Personally I consider inflection more or less irrelevant for defining the concept.
So "lie roll not-sleep" (for "have insomnia") would not be an SVC, but "lie roll fail sleep" or "lie try sleep fail roll" would be?This immediately disqualifies it from SVC-hood, though, since almost all definitions I’ve seen forbid negation of only one verb in an SVC.There are two types of negation: with the adverbial particle kqa, only the immediate clause is negated. With the verb kq followed by the complementiser ä(ä)=, negation can spread across the whole sentence.
Yeah, but if I call the content words nouns instead, tada! Now there are no verbs.This reminds me strongly of how things are phrased in Kalam — which incidentally has both SVCs and converbs, if you want to compare the two constructions. Kalam has a small and closed verb class, though, which makes it nearly the opposite of Balog.(Also possible are more specific sentences leaving smaller semantic gaps when necessary: I use an axe, the axe is swung repeatedly, the tree is struck repeatedly, it (the tree) falls down.)
Did I? I'm struggling to understand how that applies to Balog. I feel like I probably said something worded slightly differently which I imagine very differently from what I imagine reading those words.But you just said it’s common to subordinate verbs across two clauses!
Code: Select all
1 [SENTENCE________________________________________]
2 [CLAUSE_____________________] [CLAUSE____________]
3 [PRED__________] [SUBJ______] [PRED__] [SUBJ_____]
4 [VP____________] [NOM__] [VP] [VP____] [NOM_] [VP]
5 [VB] [VP_______] | [VB] [VB____] | [VB]
6 | [CN] [VB__] | | | | |
7 ŋel o nam o: =l m a:= ž
8 sole CN1 please DEF(c) =2S perceive DEF(b) =1S Code: Select all
1 [SENTENCE1_________________________________________________________________________________]
2 [CLAUSE1_______] [CLAUSE2__________________________________________________________________]
3 [PRED___] [SUBJ] [PRED_] [SUBJ_____________________________________________________________]
4 [VP_____] [NOM_] [VP___] [NOM___] [SENTENCE2_______________________________________________]
5 [VB_____] | [VB___] [COMP__] [CLAUSE3_______________] [CLAUSE4________________________]
6 | | | | [PRED______] [SUBJ_____] [PRED] [SUBJ____________________]
7 | | | | [VP________] [NOM_] [VP] [VP__] [NOM_] [VP_______________]
8 | | | | [ADV] [VB__] | [VB] [VB__] | [VB__________] [VP]
9 | | | | | | | | | | | [VB]
10 mul aa ŋeb ää= he beg ee= l das ii= ban -uu= n
11 use.mouth DEF(a) be.said DEF.COMP=SUBJ depart DEF(d)=2S origin DEF(e)=house-DOM.POSS=3SI prefer just plain SS and DS for glossing.Imralu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 2:27 amDamn, I didn't think of it that way. Thanks! They're the other way around though. As a mnemonic, the 1 and the 2 refer to how many entities are mentioned. With CN1, there's only one entity. CN2 references two different entities. I suppose I could also gloss them as CNV.SS and CNV.DS, but that's longer.
On the other hand, there’s a reasonable argument that if something differs enough from the prototypical ‘verb’ or ‘noun’, then it’s best to find a different term to avoid confusion. ‘Content word’ seems a better label here.At the end of the day, they're just words. Verbs in one languages are not the same as verbs in another, etc. etc. They're just labels that we apply to classes and the classes can vary quite a bit. I could have gone the route Lojban took and just use the language's own terms for these words, but I'm sure 70% of the reason I don't understand Lojban grammar better is because my eyes glaze over when I start reading bridi, lujvo, sumti, selbri, brivla, gismu, fu'ivla, rafsi. I remember brivla is short for bridi valsi, but what that is .... predicate word? The only one I really remember is gismu because the gismu list is pretty good as a word list for conlanging purposes. If I did this with Balog, I'm sure I'd even confuse myself and use the wrong word all the time. I do that enough as is.
Yes, you get it! And this applies to SVCs especially, which blend into all sorts of other categories. (In fact, some recent writers have given up on the term altogether.) I feel there’s still a coherent nucleus of SVCs with shared properties, though.Yeah, I got that. Languages literally just do what they do. Things are how they are. We come up with names for phenomena and then also have to define where the boundaries of what is covered by that name are. Some people seem not to get that; as soon as there is a name for something, they assume that it's a natural phenomenon with hard boundaries, as if all we've done is labelled a platonic ideal that has its own edges rather than create a label for a area of land that blurs into its neighbouring areas without any hard boundaries until we decide on them ... and where those boundaries are can be arbitrary as fuck and different according to different authorities or in different contexts.What they’re getting at there is, essentially, that no-one can agree on the criteria for defining SVCs. Personally I consider inflection more or less irrelevant for defining the concept.
That’s not quite right. What I meant was that a particular construction in a language can only be termed a ‘serial verb construction’ proper when clausal negation has scope over the whole construction. (Lexical negation via e.g. an ‘un-’ prefix would be fine, though.)So "lie roll not-sleep" (for "have insomnia") would not be an SVC, but "lie roll fail sleep" or "lie try sleep fail roll" would be?This immediately disqualifies it from SVC-hood, though, since almost all definitions I’ve seen forbid negation of only one verb in an SVC.There are two types of negation: with the adverbial particle kqa, only the immediate clause is negated. With the verb kq followed by the complementiser ä(ä)=, negation can spread across the whole sentence.
I was referring to this:Did I? I'm struggling to understand how that applies to Balog. I feel like I probably said something worded slightly differently which I imagine very differently from what I imagine reading those words.But you just said it’s common to subordinate verbs across two clauses!
So almost literally what I said you said — ‘it is … common to [subordinate verbs] across two clauses’.
Hmm. If I see that though, I probably assume that it’s finite. I guess it’s clear from the context though. I'm not sure it’s classic switch reference though. I came up with them just because I wanted to prevent consonant clusters within clauses, so it was first just a linking element. I couldn’t really find an English word for that and only know Fügen-S in German, so I just decided on “connector”. Then I decided I wanted to mark a distinction there so it’s not just a whole syllable doing nothing at all.
Yeah. Content word is just too long and annoying though. AFAIK, there’s no diagnostic that shows that these aren’t verbs (or nouns).On the other hand, there’s a reasonable argument that if something differs enough from the prototypical ‘verb’ or ‘noun’, then it’s best to find a different term to avoid confusion. ‘Content word’ seems a better label here.
More generally, I strongly feel it’s important to be accurate in the terminology you use, especially in linguistics where definitions are vague to begin with. Doing otherwise invites confusion: not just when communicating to other people, but also on one’s own part when thinking about things. I can think of times when I’ve gotten myself quite muddled about particular topics, only to suddenly realise they make a lot more sense when you restrict a term or two to have more focussed and coherent meanings.
If a prefix like un- is completely productive and can be used with every root, does that disqualify it? I distinguish the negative kqa from the opposite/reversive dze, but both share the same scope of negating only a single verb-phrase. These contrast with the negative verb kq that can negate an entire sentence, depending on where it’s placed.That’s not quite right. What I meant was that a particular construction in a language can only be termed a ‘serial verb construction’ proper when clausal negation has scope over the whole construction. (Lexical negation via e.g. an ‘un-’ prefix would be fine, though.)
Omg, LMAO! I get where the confusion is from. By “do it”, I didn’t mean “subordinate verbs”. I just meant do the thing, achieve the same goal, express that. I didn’t even realise that would be interpreted as anaphora. In “I want, I leave”, there’s no subordination (semantically sure, but not syntactically), which is kind of the whole thing I was trying to say.I was referring to this:Did I? I'm struggling to understand how that applies to Balog. I feel like I probably said something worded slightly differently which I imagine very differently from what I imagine reading those words.But you just said it’s common to subordinate verbs across two clauses!
So almost literally what I said you said — ‘it is … common to [subordinate verbs] across two clauses’.
Some languages do have an ‘SVC marker’ which is functionally useless — I seem to recall Khoekhoe, Yimas and Hup here, though at the moment I can’t access my resources to double-check.Imralu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:53 pmHmm. If I see that though, I probably assume that it’s finite. I guess it’s clear from the context though. I'm not sure it’s classic switch reference though. I came up with them just because I wanted to prevent consonant clusters within clauses, so it was first just a linking element. I couldn’t really find an English word for that and only know Fügen-S in German, so I just decided on “connector”. Then I decided I wanted to mark a distinction there so it’s not just a whole syllable doing nothing at all.
Yes, but only because Balog has no distinction between ‘verbs’ and ‘nouns’ in the first place! I don’t see why you need to assign a specific name to a word class when there’s no need to be that specific.AFAIK, there’s no diagnostic that shows that these aren’t verbs (or nouns).
This is interesting… at that point, I’d say you have to use language-internal factors to determine whether that counts as ‘inflection’ or ‘derivation’. But then again, my impression is that languages with morphological negation are also the ones with single-word SVCs.If a prefix like un- is completely productive and can be used with every root, does that disqualify it?That’s not quite right. What I meant was that a particular construction in a language can only be termed a ‘serial verb construction’ proper when clausal negation has scope over the whole construction. (Lexical negation via e.g. an ‘un-’ prefix would be fine, though.)
Oh, whoops, sorry! I struggle to read that without anaphora.Omg, LMAO! I get where the confusion is from. By “do it”, I didn’t mean “subordinate verbs”. I just meant do the thing, achieve the same goal, express that. I didn’t even realise that would be interpreted as anaphora. In “I want, I leave”, there’s no subordination (semantically sure, but not syntactically), which is kind of the whole thing I was trying to say.I was referring to this:Did I? I'm struggling to understand how that applies to Balog. I feel like I probably said something worded slightly differently which I imagine very differently from what I imagine reading those words.
So almost literally what I said you said — ‘it is … common to [subordinate verbs] across two clauses’.
It would be nice not to have to assign names to anything, but to talk about it, it needs a name and "content word" is such an annoying name. And they're words that can be used alone to form a predicate and must be preceded by something (a nominaliser) to be used as a subject, so why not verb?
What's a single word SVC? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?This is interesting… at that point, I’d say you have to use language-internal factors to determine whether that counts as ‘inflection’ or ‘derivation’. But then again, my impression is that languages with morphological negation are also the ones with single-word SVCs.
Yeah, don't be sorry, lol. I think it's just a weird idiolect thing of mine. I can totally see how your interpretation makes sense and I was just like "But people use 'do it' like that all the time ... and by people I mean ... maybe just me."Oh, whoops, sorry! I struggle to read that without anaphora.
Hmm, I didn’t realise they required nominalisers… though then again, even the name ‘nominaliser’ presupposes a distinctively ‘nominal’ word class! You could just as well call them ‘articles’ and on that basis call the content words ‘nouns’, which can be used alone in a monovalent ‘copular construction’.Imralu wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 9:12 amIt would be nice not to have to assign names to anything, but to talk about it, it needs a name and "content word" is such an annoying name. And they're words that can be used alone to form a predicate and must be preceded by something (a nominaliser) to be used as a subject, so why not verb?
This may actually be the best option.I might just be an absolute fuckwit and call that part of speech veb in Balog and then just call them vebs
No, since you can have multiple roots within a word. You did it yourself with words like ŋelonam and ŋeletlev. Here’s a bigger example from Hup (A Grammar of Hup, Epps 1973:389):What's a single word SVC? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?This is interesting… at that point, I’d say you have to use language-internal factors to determine whether that counts as ‘inflection’ or ‘derivation’. But then again, my impression is that languages with morphological negation are also the ones with single-word SVCs.
Hmm, yeah, I just called them that because subjects are an archetypally nominal role, just as the predicate is an archetypally verbal role. In languages that have the distinction (i.e. basically every natlang), anything that appears in the subject has to be nominalised (whether that means turning a verb into a gerund or agent noun or a clause into a complement clause - even when this is done through zero-derivation) and even though it's incredibly common to allow parts of speech other than verbs to head the predicate, for some stupid reason, in typology, people uses the labels S, O and V rather than S, O and P.
Code: Select all
Lexical categories:
- noun
- verb
- adjective
- ... Code: Select all
Syntactic roles:
- predicate
- argument (subject, object OR agent, patient etc.)
- adjunctCode: Select all
Verbal interpretation Nominal interpretation
magaz fall(er).over = verb = noun (bare noun indicates underlying copula)
i= DEF(RANK:e) = subject marker/nominaliser = subject marker/article
/pronoun (heads rel. clause) (indicates no underlying copula)
dauz (be).tree = verb = noun
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
magaz falls over (is a) faller over
i= the one that the
dauz is a tree treeYeah, I said exactly that a couple of posts ago.
Imralu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 2:27 amFor example, I'm calling the content words verbs because they are unmarked in predicates and marked by a nominaliser in subjects, but another way to look at it would be to call them nouns. When appearing in a subject, they are preceded by an article. The lack of an article indicates the predicate and one could posit an underlying, unexpressed copula. The end result is exactly the same structure though, and it's simply easier to call them verbs (for me anyway), although there are follow-on effects. Once I call them verbs, then things like VERB CN1 VERB become descriptions of converbs, whereas if I were calling these nouns, they would just be compounds or analagous structures.
I've tentatively called that part of speech vun.This may actually be the best option.I might just be an absolute fuckwit and call that part of speech veb in Balog and then just call them vebs
Oh lol, Yeah, I forgot about those.No, since you can have multiple roots within a word. You did it yourself with words like ŋelonam and ŋeletlev. Here’s a bigger example from Hup (A Grammar of Hup, Epps 1973:389):What's a single word SVC? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?This is interesting… at that point, I’d say you have to use language-internal factors to determine whether that counts as ‘inflection’ or ‘derivation’. But then again, my impression is that languages with morphological negation are also the ones with single-word SVCs.
- yɨ́t
- then
- tɨh
- 3sg
- hi-jʼɨ̃p-ʔé-w-ǎn
- FACT-tie-PERF-FLR-OBJ
- tɨy-hi-jʼap-bʼuy-dʼəh-ye-yɨ́ʔ-ay=mah
- push-FACT-snap-throw-send-enter-TEL-INCH=REP
- baʔtɨ̌bʼ-ɨ́h
- evil.spirit-DECL
Then, to that which she had caused to be tied up (i.e., the door), (he) pushed it until it snapped, threw it out of the way, and entered, they say, (did) the evil spirit!
(Sometimes people call these ‘verb compounds’, though multi-word SVCs occasionally get called that too.)