Zompist Bboard Again

Sakha is a language that I'm (actually still developing). I try to incorporate some features from that sprachbund into this language:

1. Negative Indefinite
2. Fusion on case and number (Two cases: active and stative, two number: singular and plural)
3. Fusion on TAM and person-number (But only part of TAM and the person has shifted to egophoricity, the person marking is now done via agglutinative prefixes)
4. Definite article and indefinite article (The distribution is quite different than in English. For example, you can use that together with the demonstrative pronoun. Also, indefinite article's meaning is more like "a certain" than simply "a")
5. Particle comparative. (i.e. using than. The suffix -er or word more is translated to an affix identical in form to very, though. And the preposition itself can be used in verbal way to mean "to beat (in competence)". The superlative is translated as -er than all)
6. No inclusive-exclusive distinction
7. SVO word order

I decide not to incorporate these features

1. Passive via copula + past participle. (I think this grammar is just dumb)
2. Perfect periphrasis with have. (I want to use this, but I'll use it in a language that requires verb "to have" to translate something like "someone", and it's more like experimental perfect, rather than more general usage of English perfect)
3. Relative pronoun. (My language's voice system is too robust to enable this)
4. a prominence of anticausative verbs in inchoative-causative pairs. (Thanks for interference from my language, it almost consistently uses causative instead. The verb like "to eat" uses anticausatives instead. However, the verb "to cook" is actually "to be cooked" + causative)
5. a preponderance of generalizing predicates to encode experiencers. (Also, thanks for almost consistent causative usage, the experiencers tends to be object instead.)
6. There is no reflexive pronoun. Reflexive voice is used instead.
7. Phrasal adverb
8. Strict agreement with subject and verb. (Obviously, being head-marked language. In fact, case-marking don't even match consistently)
9. Verb initial order for asking (Another stupid idea)
10. Conjunction have different syntax (A-and B-and)
11. Instrumental and Comitative cases are separate (via preposition)
12. Absence of contrast between alienable and inalienable possession
13. No converb, or nonfinite verbs at all.

Reduplication does exist, but only on noun. Also, this language is much more head-marked than average SAE languages.

Example (in ):

I am committing suicide: 3SG-self-kill-PROG.SG.ALO
I am killing a monster: monster 1SG-kill-PROG.SG.ALO or 1SG kill-PROG.SG.ALO monster.
A monster is killing me: monster 1SG-kill-INV-PROG.SG.ALO or 1SG kill-INV-PROG.SG.ALO monster.
He has killed a monster: monster 3SG-kill-TEL.SG.ALO
He usually kills a monster: monster 3SG-kill-ITR.SG.ALO
The person who kills that monster is very strong: 3SG REL-3SG-kill-TEL.SG.EGO monster very-be.strong-SG.ALO
Kwats and Loba plants/has planted maize on the farm. Kwats-A-and Loba-A-and maize-plant-TEL.SG.ALO
Loba cooks a tamale: Loba-A be.cooked-CAUS-PROG.SG.ALO a tamale-P.SG
Loba cooks three tamale: Loba-A be.cooked-CAUS-PROG.PL.ALO a tamale-P.PL REL-be.three-PL.EGO
The aspects:

1. Telic: Used for an action that yields result
2. Momentane : Used for an action that is done for short time.
3. Continuous : Used for an atelic action that is ongoing
4. Progressive : Used for a telic action that is ongoing.
5. Iterative : Used for action that is done repeatedly. The resulting verb is atelic.

How to make this language not to seem lazy, despite of SAE features
Also, does possession via noun incorporation counts as external possessor?

Some of the things you mention are common---no one should bat an eye at SVO word order, fusion of TAM and person marking, or a lack of an inclusive/exclusive distinction. It's not as if you're talking about a "have" perfect or inflecting relative pronouns.

Maybe the closest you come to something someone might question is with the negative indefinites and adjectives with inflected comparative forms. But it doesn't really seem like a big deal.

Anyway if people are worried about SAE features, it's usually because someone who only knows French or German or English (say) will tend to use features from their own languages without really understanding what the options are. That's not your situation at all. I mean, if you use inflecting relative pronouns, I guess it's because you encountered them in some language and thought they were cool, not because all your first languages had them and you take them for granted. The situation is a lot more like an English speaker learning some Cantonese and wanting to play with sentence-final particles. Which of course you can do well or poorly, and it would be a bit dull to just copy Cantonese, but I think that's usually a different issue.

Akangka wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:29 pm Also, does possession via noun incorporation counts as external possessor?

Like in "I cake-stole him" for "I stole his cake"? I'd assume that gets counted as external possession; certainly it contrasts with the sort of dative external possessor that's considered SAE. (You can also call this pattern possessor raising.)

Sakha...

Also the name of a real-world language, fwiw.

Akangka wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:29 pm How to make this language not to seem lazy, despite of SAE features

One simple way could be to add lots of non-SAE features too — there’s no reason for a conlang to have only SAE or only non‐SAE features. I see you've already started doing this:

Reduplication does exist, but only on noun. Also, this language is much more head-marked than average SAE languages.

Off the top of my head, here’s some other ideas:

• Inclusion of non-SAE phonemes, like /q/ or /ɸ/ or /ħ/. Possibly add a whole series, like ejectives or implosives or back unrounded vowels.
• Complex morphosyntax
• Non-SAE grammatical features, like dual or noun incorporation or transitivity marking.

just don't use SAE pragmatics. IIRC you're a native speaker of a non-IE language, yes? If you're maximally lazy and just adapt your native language's pragmatics you'll clear that particular bar very easily

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:15 am

• Inclusion of non-SAE phonemes, like /q/ or /ɸ/ or /ħ/. Possibly add a whole series, like ejectives or implosives or back unrounded vowels.
• Complex morphosyntax
• Non-SAE grammatical features, like dual or noun incorporation or transitivity marking.

Phonologically, this is not SAE at all, though. Only grammar. The consonant inventory is /t k kʷ b~m d~n~r tʰ kʰ kʼ ts tɬ tɕ tsʼ tɬʼ tɕʼ s z ɬ l ɕ ʑ~j x ɣ xʷ w ʔ h/
Non-SAE grammatical features: noun incorporation is already present. I also have presented inverse marking, although working partially like Indonesian voice system, though (the noun to be relativized must be proximate). There is also egophoricity. I also borrowed some features from Indonesian(applicative voice, stative verbs, the fact that inverse marking works like symmetric voice except when first person or second person argument is present, preposition acts like a verb, possessive affix, pluractionality). However, this language has polypersonal agreement and serial verb construction.

Akangka wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:34 am Phonologically, this is not SAE at all, though. Only grammar. The consonant inventory is /t k kʷ b~m d~n~r tʰ kʰ kʼ ts tɬ tɕ tsʼ tɬʼ tɕʼ s z ɬ l ɕ ʑ~j x ɣ xʷ w ʔ h/
Non-SAE grammatical features: noun incorporation is already present. I also have presented inverse marking, although working partially like Indonesian voice system, though (the noun to be relativized must be proximate). There is also egophoricity. I also borrowed some features from Indonesian(applicative voice, stative verbs, the fact that inverse marking works like symmetric voice except when first person or second person argument is present, preposition acts like a verb, possessive affix, pluractionality). However, this language has polypersonal agreement and serial verb construction.

Honestly, with features like this, I would never even consider this language to be SAE!

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:19 am

Akangka wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:34 am Phonologically, this is not SAE at all, though. Only grammar. The consonant inventory is /t k kʷ b~m d~n~r tʰ kʰ kʼ ts tɬ tɕ tsʼ tɬʼ tɕʼ s z ɬ l ɕ ʑ~j x ɣ xʷ w ʔ h/
Non-SAE grammatical features: noun incorporation is already present. I also have presented inverse marking, although working partially like Indonesian voice system, though (the noun to be relativized must be proximate). There is also egophoricity. I also borrowed some features from Indonesian(applicative voice, stative verbs, the fact that inverse marking works like symmetric voice except when first person or second person argument is present, preposition acts like a verb, possessive affix, pluractionality). However, this language has polypersonal agreement and serial verb construction.

Honestly, with features like this, I would never even consider this language to be SAE!

The problem is how not to make the SAE features of this language look lazy.

How is any of this lazy in the first place?

maybe do it grammatical-wise, if you already want some non-European phonology.

However, some of the SAE grammatical features, like definite article and SVO word ordrr, are not uniquely European.

Some(but probably not all) more distinctively are particle comparative with the use of inflected comparative and superlative, and the use of relative pronouns.

As others have said, a lot of these features aren't especially SAE-specific - I doubt anybody would look at a language like this and notice it as particularly SAE-like. Ultimately though I think not looking lazy when presenting a constructed language is often more about the finer details than the really obvious features. Something like zompist's Verdurian is fairly European-esque (a lot more than what you seem to be going for, I think) but doesn't seem "lazy" because he really thinks about lots of little details of grammar, presents the history of the language etc.