Zompist Bboard Again

Teeny-tiny question: how do you keep changing the thread name to reflect the most recent update? What's the function for it?

You can edit the title of the first post in the thread.

Thanks!

Topic and comment - part 2

Before looking at how Telpahké marks non-core arguments of a verb as the topic, it is worth looking at how Telpahké marks non-core arguments when they aren't the topic, as it were.

As in many languages, non-core arguments in Telpahké are marked by adpositions. Telpahké being happily head-final, these of course are postpositions. Telpahké has two species thereof: simple and compound.

There are five simple postpositions. I prefer to label these using case names rather than attempting to map them onto English prepositions, because they don't line up easily:

• mɛ 'directive' (DIR) - indicates motion towards, marks the recipient of an indirect object.
• rɛ 'ablative (ABL) - indicates motion away from, the instrument with which an action is performed, the agent of a benefactive verb, composition, manner.
• sɛ 'locative' (LOC) - indicates location at which, time during which, the standard of comparison.
• pa 'sociative' (SOC) - easily translates English "with" in a comitative sense (although not an instrumental sense), also marks inalienable possession.
• ka 'genitive' (GEN) - marks alienable possession, source/origin.

Compound postpositions are made up of a nominal and a simple preposition, frequently one of the three local/motion cases, with the modified noun in the accusative case: kɔmpɔrɛ́ eθúǝ sɛ 'in front of the palace' (lit 'at the eye of the palace').

So, back to topic-marking: unlike Philipine-like Terrestrial languages, which have instrumental, benefactive voices etc marked morphologically on the verb, Telpahké makes use of a set of particles[1], which trigger a change in word order in the clause. There are five of these particles, corresponding to the five simple prepositions: ɔn directive, ɔr ablative, úǝs locative, ohpá sociative and oká genitive.

Let's look at a few sentence pairs where the first has a core argument as the topic and the second has the same arguments, but an oblique argument topicalised (I've been lazy here and conflated topic with definiteness.):

Unergative intransitive:

Mɔhlayé sɛ hehyá i sáral.
mɔhlay-é sɛ hehy-á i sáral-Ø
market-ACC LOC shit-AV AUX dog-ABS
"The dog shits in a marketplace."

Hehyá sáral úǝs i mɔhlíǝ.
hehy-á sáral-Ø úǝs i mɔhlay-Ø
shit-AV dog-ABS LOC.PTC AUX market-ABS
"A dog shits in the marketplace."

Unaccusative intransitive:

Fɔrmanɛ́ rɛ tekíl i łɛ́hkar.
fɔrman-ɛ́ rɛ tek-íl i łɛ́hkar-Ø
plague-ACC ABL die-PV AUX old.man-ABS
"The old man dies of a plague."

Tekíl łɛ́hkar ɔr i fárma.
tek-íl łɛ́hkar-Ø ɔr i fɔrman-Ø
die-PV old.man-ABS ABL.PTC AUX plague-ABS
"An old man dies of the plague."

Transitive, patient-voice:

Tarkunɛ́ mɛ sɔrúnaθ wehsíl i pallú
tarakun-ɛ́ mɛ sɔrun-aθ wehs-íl i pallun-Ø
banker-ACC DIR slave.dealer-ERG sell-PV AUX slave-ABS
"A slave-dealer sells the slave to a banker."

Sɔrúnaθ wehsíl pallú ɔn i tarakú
sɔrun-aθ wehs-íl pallun-Ø ɔn i tarakun-Ø
slave.dealer-ERG sell-PV slave-ABS DIR.PTC AUX banker-ABS
"A slave-dealer sells a slave to the banker."[2]

Transitive, agent-voice:

Ohtúǝ ka artehɛ́ lofá i mehk.
ohtuǝ-Ø ka arteh-ɛ́ lof-á i mehk-Ø
cup-ACC GEN wine-ACC drink-AV AUX boy-ABS
"The boy drinks wine from a cup."

Artehɛ́ lofá mehk oká i ohtúǝ
arteh-ɛ́ lof-á mehk-Ø oká i ohtúǝ-Ø
wine-ACC drink-AV boy-ABS GEN.PTC AUX cup-ABS
"A boy drinks wine from the cup."[3]

So, what's going on here? Essentially, we have a transformation whereby the oblique argument is extracted from its normal position and placed in the topic position at the rightmost end of the clause. However, we see more rearrangement: the core participants cluster adjacent to the lexical verb (with any non-absolutive argument preceding as usual), and the addition of a particle before the auxiliary.

Schematically, we can describe the transformation something like:

Obl PP (Non-Abs Argument) V Aux Abs[topic] > (Non-Abs Argument) V Abs Particle Aux Obl[topic]

This might be one of the few times that a diagram is useful. So, below are two entirely theory-neutral (arf) tree diagrams of the last two sentences:



and



(I promised syntax trees, and syntax trees you shall have!)


[1] The native term is ohkɛ́ra, which also means 'splice'. The Imparin grammatical tradition derives much of its terminology from shipbuilding, as it happens.

[2] It's Syphax!

[3] Yes, I have spent too much time looking at classics memes.

First, quickly---are you using TreeForm for the diagrams? And what's CP in this context?

Second, maybe a bit more involved. Am I right to think that in a patient voice clause, the patient would end up in the same spot as the agent does in the first tree and the oblique does in the second one? That looks like Spec-TP, which you'd normally think of as the place where the subject goes. Which is to say---this really does look more like a voice alternation than like topicalisation, sort of like an applicative but with the applied argument somehow raising to subject. Does that sound at all right to you?

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:15 pm First, quickly---are you using TreeForm for the diagrams? And what's CP in this context?

Yes! TreeForm is awesome, literally helped me get a first in my syntax modules at Uni.

"CP" in this case is probably inaccurate (maybe?) - essentially "complementiser" is what the particles were historically, and I was at a bit of a loss as to how to label the node.

Second, maybe a bit more involved. Am I right to think that in a patient voice clause, the patient would end up in the same spot as the agent does in the first tree and the oblique does in the second one? That looks like Spec-TP, which you'd normally think of as the place where the subject goes. Which is to say---this really does look more like a voice alternation than like topicalisation, sort of like an applicative but with the applied argument somehow raising to subject. Does that sound at all right to you?

What you’re saying makes sense to me, but I’m writing this on my phone and hence no TreeForm. I’ll be honest, I’m not married to Minimalism or X’ and I haven’t thought extensively about the "deep structure" (note the lack of vP shells etc!) as it were. I’ll reply in more detail when I get home.

OK, so you raise an interesting point. I will confess entirely that I haven't really done any syntactic work since graduating: that was nine years ago. And, furthermore, my area of speciality (as it were) has always been historical linguistics rather than syntactic analysis. As such, I am potentially overly influenced by the prehistory of Telpahké when it comes to analysis.

So, for example, the transitive sentences above in the patient voice, I would diagram like so:



(An irritant with TreeForm is that it doesn't really do the drawing lines for transformations at all well.)

Basically, I would diagram a patient-voice sentence in the same way that I would an agent-voice sentence, because they work in the same way. Unless one insists on something like the below being the underlying structure for all verbs, I don't see how parsimony is served in this case by proposing any other kind of "deep structure".



It is worth, perhaps, examining the predecessor forms; i.e. looking at it from a historical point of view. As I believe I have mentioned before, Telpahké verbal morphology essentially comes from participle constructions. For example, ignoring the oblique arguments of the previous two examples, let's look at what their predecessors were:

*ardisan glupas sī miska
ardis-an glup-as sī miska–Ø
wine-ACC drink-A.PT be.3SG boy-NOM
"The boy is drinking wine."/"It is a wine-drinking boy."

(A.PT here denotes "active participle")

*jārunata ŋecʰīla sī ballun
jārun-ata ŋecʰ-īla sī ballun-Ø
slave.dealer-INST sell-P.PT be.3SG slave-NOM
"The slave is sold by the slave-dealer."/"It is a slave-dealer-sold slave."

(And P.PT indicates "passive participle")

In both cases, the complement of the participle is just that: neither arises any deeper in the structure. The major change from Old Telpahké to Modern Telpahké is, essentially, movement of the topic (the nominative/absolutive argument) to clause-final position. Hence my analysis of the Telpahké forms. However, I would be the first to concede that I'm a happy descriptivist - if multiple vP shells and whatnot are required to justify the surface constructions, I'm not sure I have the time.

dewrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:12 pm (An irritant with TreeForm is that it doesn't really do the drawing lines for transformations at all well.)

(This is more or less exactly why I asked, I was hoping for something that shows movement a bit better and with a bit more flexibility)

dewrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:42 pm What you’re saying makes sense to me, but I’m writing this on my phone and hence no TreeForm. I’ll be honest, I’m not married to Minimalism or X’ and I haven’t thought extensively about the "deep structure" (note the lack of vP shells etc!) as it were. I’ll reply in more detail when I get home.

I'm actually in the process of trying to understand this and related stuff, which maybe is a way of being married to it.

Here are some things that stand out for me in your diagrams.

First, you've got something labeled CP below TP and above VP. Normally you'd expect the complementiser phrase to be above TP (it's generally CP that corresponds to S).

Second, what's distinguishing your different forms is which nominal ends up in Spec-TP---that's to say, which ends up as the grammatical subject. So it really doesn't look like it's about topics. (Topics usually end up in the C domain, I think.)

Third, that looks like really long-distance movement and if you wanted to pursue this sort of thing, you'd want to explain what makes it possible. I don't know enough to say how you'd do that. (Constraints on movement seem a lot simpler in minimalism than they do in GB, but I still don't get it.)

Fourth, it really is standard to think that agents and patients get inserted in canonical structural positions relative to the verb (and its shells), maybe the patient/theme as specifier of the VP and the agent as specifier of an active Voice head (or something like that). While it's true that there's plenty of disagreement over details (like, is the theme the specifier or complement of the verb?), I think it's pretty widely agreed that the theme forms a tighter bond with the verb than does the agent, and that this is somehow represented in syntactic structure.

Selé rɛ masrɛ́ pɔkahtá i túǝn.
siǝl-é rɛ mɛsar-ɛ́ pɔk-aht-á i túǝn
woman-ACC ABL fish-ACC cook-BEN-AV AUX man
"A woman cooks a fish for the man."

So I was looking back - incidentally thank you for my latest fix, I was getting withdrawal symptoms - in the above sentence, the woman (the agent) is ablative. I presume the man here is in the absolutive case. So, assuming I have parsed that correctly what happens if we put the sentence into the patient voice? Outside of the benefactive, the woman (selé) would be ergative and the fish (mɛsar) in the absolutive, but if we use the benefactive then on the basis of what you're saying now I'm not clear on whether I would use rɛ or ɔr to mark the woman agent and how that shifts the word order around.

Verbal morphology

Telpahké verbal morphology, as should be apparent by now, is largely periphrastic in nature: a conjugated verb is made up of a lexical verb which encodes voice and aspect (hereafter the "main verb"), and an auxiliary which provides information about tense, other aspects, mood and number concord.

The main verb

The main verb distinguishes two voices, agent and patient; and two aspects, perfective and imperfective. They are marked by inflections added to the verbal stem, which is in turn derived from the infinitive by removing the ending -ál. Thus, for the verb rakál 'to plough' we have:

	agent voice	patient voice
perfective	rak-á	rak-íl
imperfective	rah-tá	rak-ó

Note the change in the stem in the perfective agent-voice: familiar by now with the persistent habit of allomorphy in Telpahké, this should come as no surprise. However, it is actually relatively uncommon, and largely restricted to a small number of verbs whose stems end in a single consonant. A more regular verb is tehłál 'to kill':

	agent voice	patient voice
perfective	tehł-á	tehł-íl
imperfective	tehł-itá	tehł-ó

For the interested, it is worth noting that the inflection of the main verb derives from Proto-Atzato-Tarian participle morphology.

The auxiliaries

There are four auxiliary verbs, which distinguish singular and plural forms in both past and non-past tenses. These auxiliaries combine with the two aspectual forms of the main verb to produce a number of finer aspectual and modal distinctions. Below, I examine each auxiliary in turn.

I: non-past singular and plural i, in; past singular and plural o, on.

This is the most frequent and least marked auxiliary: it's what we've seen in all the example sentences so far. With a perfective main verb, it forms the present and past perfective tenses, which in my notes I normally refer to as the "simple present" and the "simple past". Without wishing to enter into a lengthy excursus on the definition of perfectivity, it can be baldly stated that the simple present or the simple past presents "the action pure and simple, without any additional overtones" (taken from Comrie's excellent Aspect (1976)):

Fɔinó ɔlmɔlá i híǝnon.
fɔin-ó ɔlmɔl-á i híǝnon-Ø
invocation-ACC chant-AV.PFV AUX priest-ABS
"The priest chants an invocation."

Łoné nɛłt hin rɛ ɔmpesá o sakɛ́r.
łon-é nɛłt hin rɛ ɔmpes-á o sakɛ́r-Ø
year-ACC ten three ABL rule-AV.PFV AUX.PT archon-ABS
"The archon reigned for thirty years."

With an imperfective main verb, we get the present and past imperfective. In contrast to the perfective, the imperfective presents the action with reference to its internal temporal structure, and is often used in conjunction with the perfective:

Pehritá in θamánar osí fɔinó ɔlmɔlá i híǝnon.
pehr-itá in θamánar-Ø osí fɔin-ó ɔlmɔl-á i híǝnon-Ø
play.drums-AV.IMP AUX.PL drummer-ABS and invocation-ACC chant-AV.PFV AUX priest-ABS
"The drummers are playing while the priest chants an invocation."

Łoné nɛłt hin rɛ ɔmpestá o sakɛ́r tíǝs tehłahtíl o fo.
łon-é nɛłt hin rɛ ɔmpes-tá o sakɛ́r-Ø tíǝs tehłaht-íl o fo-Ø.
year-ACC ten three ABL rule-AV.IMP AUX.PT archon-ABS when kill-BEN-PV.IMP AUX.PT 3SG-ABS
"The archon had been reigning for thirty years when he was assassinated."[1]

To quote Comrie again, the distinction between perfective and imperfective is as follows: "the perfective looks at the situation from the outside, without necessarily distinguishing any of the internal structure of the situation, whereas the imperfective looks at the situation from inside, and as such is crucially concerned with the internal structure of the situation, since it can both look backwards towards the start of the situation, and look forwards to the end of the situation, and indeed it is equally appropriate if the situation is one that lasts through all time, without any beginning and without any end."

SÍƏ: non-past singular and plural síǝ, sɛn; past singular and plural sɛθ, sɛθó.

This auxiliary is most frequenly found with imperfective main verbs, and describes a habitual action in the present or in the past:

Mahtanɛ́ sɛ ekantá síǝ ɛsá.
mahtan-ɛ́ sɛ ekan-tá síǝ ɛsá-Ø
noon-ACC LOC eat-AV.IMP AUX 1SG-ABS
"I usually eat at midday."

Aθáθ pɔmó sɛθó ɔθɛ́r, ałái[2]
aθá-θ pɔm-ó sɛθó ɔθɛ́r-Ø, ałái
father-ERG beat-PV.IMP AUX.PT.PL 1PL-ABS alas
"Father used to beat us, alas."

Its uses with perfective main verbs are rather more restricted. In the present tense, it describes a "gnomic" meaning, indicating general truths:

Pɔłomé wɔhká sɛn tɔ́ran.
pɔłomé wɔhk-á sɛn tɔ́ran-Ø
shoreward go-AV.PFV AUX.PL wave-ABS
"Waves come to the shore."[3]

Interestingly, when combined with the discourse particle oyí, the same construction has an almost optative sense, signifying something like "if only!":

Θokúθ letíl síǝ ɛsá oyí!
θokú-θ let-íl síǝ ɛsá-Ø oyí
2SG-ERG love-PV.PFV AUX 1SG-ABS OPT
"If only you loved me!"

In the past tense, síǝ + perfective supplies a counterfactual, which is used as the protasis in counterfactual conditional sentences:

Wetá sɛθ θokú, tokɛθá kúǝ θokú.
wet-á sɛθ θokú-Ø, tokɛθ-á kúǝ θokú-Ø
listen-AV.PFV AUX.PT 2SG-ABS, understand-AV.PFV AUX.PRS 2SG-ABS
"If you had listened, you would understand."

(For the structure of the apodosis, see under kúǝ below.)

NA: non-past singular and plural na, nɛn; past singular and plural nal, nɔló.

This auxiliary has two entirely different meanings when used with perfective and imperfective main verbs. With the perfective, it forms a retrospective aspect (also known as "perfect"):

Ɛyɛsá rɛ srɔmahtíl na łel!
ɛyɛsá-Ø rɛ srɔm-aht-íl na łel-Ø
1PL-ACC ABL sink-BEN-PV.PFV AUX ship-ABS
"The bloody ship has just gone and sunk on us!"

As it happens, this form is also frequently used as a reportative, implying that the speaker has not actually witnessed the event and is therefore doubtful of its veracity. It is, as a result, very common in the (sometimes scurrilous) accounts of the artusí 'newsletters'[4]:

Lehłí rɛ nohó wɔká na sakɛ́r.
lehłí-Ø rɛ noh-ó wɔk-á na sakɛ́r-Ø
concubine-ACC ABS daughter-ACC capture-AV.PFV AUX archon-ABS
"The archon is said to have taken his daughter as a concubine."

With the imperfective, however, we have an inchoative form:

Θokú letitá na ɛsá.
θokú-Ø let-itá na ɛsá-Ø
2SG-ACC love-AV.IMP AUX 1SG-ABS
"I am falling in love with you."

KÚƏ: non-past singular and plural kúǝ, kɔn; past singular and plural kɔθ, koθó.

This auxiliary does not add further aspectual distinctions: rather it gives the subjunctive mood.

Standing alone, the subjunctive forms polite commands and jussive constructions (the true imperative will be covered in a later post):

Artehɛ́ lofá kúǝ wáslo.
arteh-ɛ́ lof-á kúǝ wáslo-Ø
wine-ACC drink-AV.PFV SUBJ 2SG-ABS
"Please, have some wine."

It also expresses an "uncertain future":

Oŋák, parifamé kolá kúǝ ɛsá.
oŋák, parifamé kol-á kúǝ ɛsá-Ø
tomorrow, towards.Paríf go.by.sea-AV.PFV SUBJ 1SG-ABS
"Tomorrow, I may go to Paríf."

The astute will have noticed that there is no morphological future tense: the non-past is used instead. Compare the above sentence with the following:

Oŋák, parifamé kolá i ɛsá.
oŋák, parifamé kol-á i ɛsá-Ø
tomorrow, towards.Paríf go.by.sea-AV.PFV AUX 1SG-ABS
"Tomorrow, I will go to Paríf."

However, the most common use of the subjunctive is in conditional sentences. Telpahké distinguishes three kinds of conditional: the probable, the hypothetical and the counterfactual. Note that Telpahké lacks distinct words for 'if' and 'then'.

Probable conditions use one of the realis forms in both the protasis and the apodosis:

Ɛsá ka yeló ekaná i fo, fon tehłá i ɛsá.
ɛsá-Ø ka yel-ó ekan-á i fo-Ø, fo-n tehł-á i ɛsá-Ø
1SG-ACC GEN chicken-ACC eat-AV.PFV AUX 3SG-ABS, 3SG-ACC kill-AV.PFV AUX 1SG-ABS
"He eats my chicken, I'll kill him."
(I know he's likely to eat my chicken, therefore he's almost certainly going to die at my hand.)

Hypothetical conditions use the subjunctive in both protasis and apodosis:

Ɛsá ka yeló ekaná kúǝ fo, fon tehłá kúǝ ɛsá.
ɛsá-Ø ka yel-ó ekan-á kúǝ fo-Ø, fo-n tehł-á kúǝ ɛsá-Ø
1SG-ACC GEN chicken-ACC eat-AV.PFV SUBJ 3SG-ABS, 3SG-ACC kill-AV.PFV SUBJ 1SG-ABS
"If he eats my chicken, I'll kill him."
(I don't know if he's eaten my chicken or not, and therefore his ultimate fate is as yet undecided.)

Counterfactual conditions, as shown above, use the counterfactual with the past tense of síǝ in the protasis, and the subjunctive in the apodosis:

Ɛsá ka yeló ekaná sɛθ fo, fon tehłá kúǝ ɛsá.
ɛsá-Ø ka yel-ó ekan-á sɛθ fo-Ø, fo-n tehł-á kúǝ ɛsá-Ø
1SG-ACC GEN chicken-ACC eat-AV.PFV AUX 3SG-ABS, 3SG-ACC kill-AV.PFV SUBJ 1SG-ABS
"If he ate my chicken, I'd kill him."
(I know he isn't going to eat my chicken, therefore he is safe for now, but should take this hypothetical situation as a warning.)

The above is, of course, far from being all there is to say about conditional sentences. The subject will be explored at greater length in a later post.

My intention for the next update is to cover a few miscellaneous topics around verbs, such as copular structures, how to indicate possession, non-finite forms and the imperative. After that, we'll mop up on adjectives, numerals and the rest of the pronouns before looking into syntax.


1) Note the malefactive construction here.

2) Oooh, look, an iambic pentameter. As it happens, sequences of iambs sound a bit jarring to the Imparin ear. Note to self: how tf does poetry actually work among the Impar?

3) This is actually an Imparin proverb, meaning something like "your chickens come home to roost" or "what goes around, comes around." Another thing that is worthy of remark here is the word pɔłomé 'shorewards': Telpahké has a fairly large set of paired directional adverbs, indicating motion towards and away from a geographical feature, such as harmé 'to the sea', harɛ́ 'away from the sea'; telemé 'towards the island', telarɛ́ 'away from the island'. Additionally, as we see in a later sentence, most of the islands and city-states have similar adverbs (not dissimilar to the Greek Ἀθήναζε, really.)

4) It is worth mentioning again that the Spice Islands are not some tropical paradise, untouched by modernity. The Impar have enthusiastically embraced printing, and there is a lively journalistic scene in the archipelago: this might be the subject of a later post.

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:54 am

dewrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:12 pm (An irritant with TreeForm is that it doesn't really do the drawing lines for transformations at all well.)

(This is more or less exactly why I asked, I was hoping for something that shows movement a bit better and with a bit more flexibility)

I will admit that it's the only thing that really bugs me about the program.

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:54 amI'm actually in the process of trying to understand this and related stuff, which maybe is a way of being married to it.

Here are some things that stand out for me in your diagrams.

Thank you for your thoughts, they are greatly appreciated! However, if you don't mind, I am going to park a response for now: I want to get the whole of the verb system on paper first and then go back and start attempting to analyse the syntactic structures in depth (for one thing, I need to find/dust off my textbooks to refresh my memory on a course that was quite a few years ago now...)

evmdbm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:05 am

Selé rɛ masrɛ́ pɔkahtá i túǝn.
siǝl-é rɛ mɛsar-ɛ́ pɔk-aht-á i túǝn
woman-ACC ABL fish-ACC cook-BEN-AV AUX man
"A woman cooks a fish for the man."

So I was looking back - incidentally thank you for my latest fix, I was getting withdrawal symptoms - in the above sentence, the woman (the agent) is ablative. I presume the man here is in the absolutive case. So, assuming I have parsed that correctly what happens if we put the sentence into the patient voice? Outside of the benefactive, the woman (selé) would be ergative and the fish (mɛsar) in the absolutive, but if we use the benefactive then on the basis of what you're saying now I'm not clear on whether I would use rɛ or ɔr to mark the woman agent and how that shifts the word order around.

If I understand your question correctly, do you mean how would the sentence look if the woman were the topic rather than the man? If so, the answer is as follows:

Masrɛ́ pɔkahtá túǝn ɔr i síǝl.
mɛsar-ɛ́ pɔk-aht-á túǝn-Ø ɔr i síǝl-Ø
fish-ACC cook-BEN-AV man-ABS PTC AUX woman-ABS
"The woman cooks a fish for a man."

If not, I'm not sure what you mean

dewrad wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:18 am Thank you for your thoughts, they are greatly appreciated! However, if you don't mind, I am going to park a response for now: I want to get the whole of the verb system on paper first and then go back and start attempting to analyse the syntactic structures in depth (for one thing, I need to find/dust off my textbooks to refresh my memory on a course that was quite a few years ago now...)

Of course! Meanwhile I'll be puzzling out how to make syntactic sense of some of my own ideas (no promises of actual diagrams any time soon, though).

...Also, I've been looking at a dissertation about a language, Koro, that apparently has an irrealis particle with some uses that overlap Telpahké's síǝ; what stood out for me is that it's got uses in both habituals and conditionals. Apparently this is because it indicates a non-specific time reference. Anyway it's a striking pattern, I thought. (Cite: Cleary-Kemp Serial Verb Constructions Revisited.)

If I understand your question correctly, do you mean how would the sentence look if the woman were the topic rather than the man? If so, the answer is as follows:

Masrɛ́ pɔkahtá túǝn ɔr i síǝl.
mɛsar-ɛ́ pɔk-aht-á túǝn-Ø ɔr i síǝl-Ø
fish-ACC cook-BEN-AV man-ABS PTC AUX woman-ABS
"The woman cooks a fish for a man."

Yes, it is what I meant, but I think I was expecting the verb in the patient voice. Put differently I was expecting something like
Man-ACC ABL Cook BEN-PV, Fish-ABS, Woman-ERG

(Sorry I don't know how the nominal and verbal morphology would change, but hopefully you can work out what I mean - and more importantly whether it means anything or is ungrammatical gibberish in Telpahke)

*reading many posts of this to try catching up* its quite enjoyable; many kudos to you!

a thought: perhaps the reason why the many islands stay together, even without a unifying body politic/religion/etc...is because of a pride in their ethnogroup, which, if I recall an early post, they do see themselves as having that in common. So a mix of ethnogroup and written script helps counter the potentially divisive forces of dialectalization, perhaps?

regardless, keep up the great work.

I’ve just happened to rediscover this thread, and remember really liking what I saw of it. Do you have any plans to continue on with it?

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:19 am I’ve just happened to rediscover this thread, and remember really liking what I saw of it. Do you have any plans to continue on with it?

I’m glad you remember Telpahké fondly!

To answer your question: yes and no, Since 2018/19, the world in which Telpahké is spoken has undergone a number of substantial revisions. For example, the world now looks very different, and I’m taking the opportunity to revise everything from scratch. Telpahké is from the “modern era” of the conworld, and I’m currently working on the Neolithic/Bronze Age: I’m proud of the work that went into Telpahké, but it might be a while until I get around to revisiting it.

My current project is Qári, which replaces the Qîrian language referenced in the fourth or so post in this thread. I recently posted an introduction to the language on reddit, if you’re interested.

fricatives: /φ θ s h/ f θ s h

This is a very unusual sequence, especially with /φ/