cursed natlang features

Natural languages and linguistics
Post Reply
User avatar
Man in Space
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:05 am

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by Man in Space »

Why isn’t “-ing” just “progressive”?
bradrn
Posts: 6230
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:25 am

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by bradrn »

Man in Space wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:34 am Why isn’t “-ing” just “progressive”?
For that matter, ‘passive’ doesn’t use the same verb form as ‘past’ — e.g. I sang a song vs The song was sung. (It uses the same verb form as the perfect, but then the diagram would lose its symmetry.)
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices

(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Creyeditor
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:15 am

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by Creyeditor »

German has something similar

werden 'to become' + infinitive = future, sein 'to be' + infinitive = absentive
werden 'to become' + p. participle = passive, sein 'to be' + p. participle = the other passive
zompist
Site Admin
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:46 am
Location: Right here, probably
Contact:

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by zompist »

Verbal agreement in Sumerian is pretty cursed.

Person is marked on the verb, with prefixes and suffixes; the suffixes also mark plurality.

For intransitives, agreement is easy— you use the suffixes.

For transitives:
* in the perfective, agreement is ergative
      - prefixes mark the agent
      - suffixes mark the patient
* in the imperfective, agreement is accusative
     - prefixes mark the patient
     - suffixes mark the agent
- but also plurality of the patient

For added fun, the affixes are not always written, but can be revealed by sandhi phenomena.
bradrn
Posts: 6230
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:25 am

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by bradrn »

zompist wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:42 pm For intransitives, agreement is easy— you use the suffixes.

For intransitives:
* in the perfective, agreement is ergative
      - prefixes mark the agent
      - suffixes mark the patient
* in the imperfective, agreement is accusative
     - prefixes mark the patient
     - suffixes mark the agent
- but also plurality of the patient
Ooh, this one is fun! (I’m assuming the second paragraph is supposed to be ‘for transitives’.)

In a way this reminds me of Mayan languages, which also have aspect-driven ergativity or accusativity in their person markers… except there, it’s the intransitive person-marker which switches, while the transitive markers stay the same. I’ve been wondering for some time what the reverse system would look like (where the transitive markers are the ones which vary), and this appears to be it.
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices

(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
User avatar
salem
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:40 pm
Contact:

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by salem »

foxcatdog wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 6:39 pm Image
"I will be walked" and "I am walked" are correct English, and mean the same as "I will be taken for a walk" and "I am taken for a walk".
User avatar
foxcatdog
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:49 pm

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by foxcatdog »

true but i forget english grammar all the time
User avatar
foxcatdog
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:49 pm

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by foxcatdog »

granted its not productive *i will be runned is incorrect
User avatar
Raphael
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:36 am

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by Raphael »

salem wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:17 pm

"I will be walked" and "I am walked" are correct English,
Probably only accurate if dogs start to talk, though.
User avatar
salem
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:40 pm
Contact:

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by salem »

foxcatdog wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:20 pm granted its not productive *i will be runned is incorrect
That's because runned is incorrect, of course? "I will be run" sounds a bit strange if it's a person saying it, but "the program will be run" is perfectly fine.
Raphael wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:23 pm
salem wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:17 pm

"I will be walked" and "I am walked" are correct English,
Probably only accurate if dogs start to talk, though.
Nah, it's normal with appropriate context: walking a child to school, walking your grandma to the bank, that sort of thing.
User avatar
Man in Space
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:05 am

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by Man in Space »

salem wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:43 pm "I will be run" sounds a bit strange if it's a person saying it
“At this rate, I will be run out of business in a matter of weeks!”
“He said I will be run out of town if word gets out.”
“I will be run ragged by the end of this.”
User avatar
salem
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:40 pm
Contact:

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by salem »

Man in Space wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 9:04 pm
salem wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:43 pm "I will be run" sounds a bit strange if it's a person saying it
“At this rate, I will be run out of business in a matter of weeks!”
“He said I will be run out of town if word gets out.”
“I will be run ragged by the end of this.”
Actually very true, you got me there.
zompist
Site Admin
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:46 am
Location: Right here, probably
Contact:

Re: cursed natlang features

Post by zompist »

Are people finding that mysterious? There's an invisible causativizer going on here. "Run" and "walk" are normally intransitive. But like many verbs they can be used as transitive with causative meaning, that is, "made to run", "made to walk". Thus "we ran him out of town", "I walked the dog."
Post Reply