Balog: a strictly monovalent conlang
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:07 am
Hello. So, I'm on-again-off-again working on a language that has some pretty weird features and I'm really curious if the strict monovalency thing/lack of syntactic transitivity has been anadewed. (Anadew is a transitive verb now, OK?) I haven't done a thread for one of my languages for years and years, and I basically just want to talk about a couple of features, but for anyone interested, there's a loose description of the (stupid) setting and not terribly-exciting phonology in here:
Monovalency:
The equivalent of transitivity is formed by juxtaposition of clauses. Most sentences follow a somewhat ergative pattern, with many verbs with a rather passive meaning being used (be.killed, be.consumed, be.built etc.), however instead of an ergative case to introduce the agent as an argument of that verb, the agent is the subject of a separate clause clause with rather instrumental meaning that tells how the action was done.
Nounlessness:
Another feature is one that's common to virtually all of my conlangs but AFAIK not conclusively demonstrated in any natlang: a lack of a lexical distinction between nouns and verbs. (Salishan languages come close but some content words apparently need to be marked for some syntactic positions that other content words don't need to be marked for. Lojban doesn't have a lexical distinction between verbs and nouns though.) For convenience sake, I call the content words "verbs" simply because they can be unmarked in predicates but are marked as subjects by one of a set of clitics that attach to the front of the subject phrase. (These are the things glossed as "DEF(x)=" here. The letter in brackets will be explained below under Rank.) Each verb is also its own agent noun, but because the relationship is consistent, calling it zero-derivation would essentially just needlessly double the size of the lexicon. Alternatively, you could regard all the content words as nouns and regard the predicates as containing a zero copula, which is indicated by the absence of the subject marker, but that's getting a bit convoluted. It's the same thing, just a less parsimonious description and calling them verbs is simpler than going to Lojban route and calling them something like brivla.
This means that you can swap the elements in a clause and change topic and focus without altering any semantic information.
Functions associated with nominal or verbal morphology are not restricted to either the subject or the predicate of a clause, nor to use in conjunction with a subset of the category of verbs based on semantic criteria. For example, TAM markers, when present, are not restricted to predicates or to use with semantically "verby" verbs. The structure of a predicate phrase and a subject phrase differs only in the presence or absence of a subject marker, which provides information about definiteness, specificity and rank.
Rank:
A rank is assigned to every subject of a clause in Balog. Rank is used to differentiate between multiple referents and the assignment of rank to a referent is not fixed but is, rather, a flexible assignment that varies according to the context and the other referents in the discourse. Rank applies not only to third person referents, but also to first and second persons. Within a discourse, as far as possible, each rank level should have no more than one referent. When there are more than five referents in a discourse, some doubling up is necessary, however this requires repetition of lexical verbs within the subjects, just as, in English, a story about two men tends to necessitate more use of their names because the referent meant by "he" or "him" is not always clear.
The five ranks are indicated by the vowels in the following order: u, a, o, e, i. As clitic prefixes, these are glossed as DEF(a), DEF(b), DEF(c), DEF(d) and DEF(e) respectively. Clitic prefixes cause gemination of the following consonant, except when attached to a verb that consists only of a single consonant, in which case, the vowel is lengthened instead. For example, an A-ranked Balog would be referred to as ubbalog, but would be addressed in the second person as uul. The number-neutral third person pronouns are, respectively, uu, aa, oo, ee, ii.
The main metric, according to which rank is assigned is: Who would win in a physical fight. Physically larger, stronger, more combat-capable individuals are always assigned higher rank in discourse than less combat-capable individuals. Inanimate objects that are incapable of effecting any consequences are thus generally assigned E-rank (marked by the vowel i-) although of course, if I say that I was injured by a burning tree that fell on me, the the tree would be ranked higher than me and the fire would be ranked higher than the tree. If it was me who started the fire, when I refer to my lighting of the fire, I would rank myself higher than the fire and then reassign ranks when talking about the consequences. E.g. something like:
Also, note that I marked myself with i= (rank E) in the second sentence. This was not necessary because rank D (e=) was available. However, by marking myself with i=, I have also conveyed that I am pathetic (and as ineffectual as an inanimate object can be, far less effectual than the fire and the tree), a way of acknowledging that I was stupid for getting injured by a situation that I caused.
The metric of physical effectuality doesn't always apply in instances where there is a clear imbalance of political power or formal rank. If you could clearly beat someone in a fight but they could end you because of money or connections or they are higher (formally) ranked than you, you would assign them a higher rank than you. Within the hierarchy of the militaristic Balog empire, higher (formally) ranking Balog will always be referred to with higher (linguistic) ranks and non-Balog are always assigned lower ranks than Balog, but same-(formally-)ranked individuals will assign rank based on perceived physical combat ability. Where two individuals in a discourse do not agree to their rankings in each other's speech, the matter may be settled physically.
When assigning rank to a sole individual without others (yet) in the discourse a rough guess is made as to the rank the referent is likely to be assigned in the context of others. Thus, a judgement is made of someone any time they are referred to, even in the absence of other referents to be compared with. Generally, without context, the A-rank (u=) is assigned to indicate political, finantial or social power. Someone who just looks like a badass would default to the B-rank (a=). An average-Joe would default to the C-rank (o=) and a weakling to the D-rank (e=). The E-rank (i=) is by default, occupied by inanimates, but it is also frequently used as a way of talking down to people perceived as especially lowly. The context of the speaker also plays a role here. A Balog would always refer to a non-Balog by default with e= or i= as, by Balog standards, all non-Balog are essentially physically ineffectual. A non-Balog speaking Balog to another non-Balog would (at least when within earshot of Balog) always refer to a Balog with u= by default.
Inspiration for rank:
Propositional:
In addition to the subject clitics u=, a=, o=, e=, i=, there is also the complementiser clitic ä=, which I gloss as DEF(p). P stands for for propositional as C for complementiser was already taken, the contrast between DEF(c) and DEF.C might get confusing, and simply using C on its own is not an option because this also changes to show definiteness and specificity. It also can't be glossed as a complementiser when used in the third person pronominal form ää as that simply translates to "it", referring to a mentioned proposition rather than a single tangible referent.
Here is an example of the difference between the definite, specific complementiser ä= (DEF(p)=) and the indefinite, non-specific complementiser ähä= (NSPC(p)=).
____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Sorry about all the awkward uses of the word "status" as a verb here. I initially called this "rank" rather than status, but because there is also formal rank in the militaristic sense, I decided to change it to status, but it doesn't have the nice range of uses that "rank" has. I also keep finding myself writing rank when I mean status, so I just did a search and replace and made a mess of it and now I think I'll just call status "rank" and call actual rank "formal rank" or whatever. Urgh.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: I fixed all mention of status to rank and changed formatting of examples and added extra syntactic sentence breakdowns hidden in "more" tags to show the parts of sentences.
More: show
Monovalency:
The equivalent of transitivity is formed by juxtaposition of clauses. Most sentences follow a somewhat ergative pattern, with many verbs with a rather passive meaning being used (be.killed, be.consumed, be.built etc.), however instead of an ergative case to introduce the agent as an argument of that verb, the agent is the subject of a separate clause clause with rather instrumental meaning that tells how the action was done.
Tsag uvvaŋ, mol essanok.
The hunter killed the pig (for food) (by stabbing it with a spear). |
More: show
Kqal uvvaŋ, magaz iddauz.
The hunter cut the tree down (with an axe). |
More: show
B'uvvaŋ, magaz iddauz wettsik.
The hunter pushed/pulled the small tree over (by hand). |
More: show
Wež oož, b'uvvaŋ, magaz iddauz.
I saw the hunter topple the tree by hand. |
More: show
Nounlessness:
Another feature is one that's common to virtually all of my conlangs but AFAIK not conclusively demonstrated in any natlang: a lack of a lexical distinction between nouns and verbs. (Salishan languages come close but some content words apparently need to be marked for some syntactic positions that other content words don't need to be marked for. Lojban doesn't have a lexical distinction between verbs and nouns though.) For convenience sake, I call the content words "verbs" simply because they can be unmarked in predicates but are marked as subjects by one of a set of clitics that attach to the front of the subject phrase. (These are the things glossed as "DEF(x)=" here. The letter in brackets will be explained below under Rank.) Each verb is also its own agent noun, but because the relationship is consistent, calling it zero-derivation would essentially just needlessly double the size of the lexicon. Alternatively, you could regard all the content words as nouns and regard the predicates as containing a zero copula, which is indicated by the absence of the subject marker, but that's getting a bit convoluted. It's the same thing, just a less parsimonious description and calling them verbs is simpler than going to Lojban route and calling them something like brivla.
This means that you can swap the elements in a clause and change topic and focus without altering any semantic information.
Magaz iddauz.
The tree fell over. |
More: show
Dauz immagaz.
be.tree DEF=fall.over "What fell over was a tree." |
More: show
Functions associated with nominal or verbal morphology are not restricted to either the subject or the predicate of a clause, nor to use in conjunction with a subset of the category of verbs based on semantic criteria. For example, TAM markers, when present, are not restricted to predicates or to use with semantically "verby" verbs. The structure of a predicate phrase and a subject phrase differs only in the presence or absence of a subject marker, which provides information about definiteness, specificity and rank.
Rank:
A rank is assigned to every subject of a clause in Balog. Rank is used to differentiate between multiple referents and the assignment of rank to a referent is not fixed but is, rather, a flexible assignment that varies according to the context and the other referents in the discourse. Rank applies not only to third person referents, but also to first and second persons. Within a discourse, as far as possible, each rank level should have no more than one referent. When there are more than five referents in a discourse, some doubling up is necessary, however this requires repetition of lexical verbs within the subjects, just as, in English, a story about two men tends to necessitate more use of their names because the referent meant by "he" or "him" is not always clear.
The five ranks are indicated by the vowels in the following order: u, a, o, e, i. As clitic prefixes, these are glossed as DEF(a), DEF(b), DEF(c), DEF(d) and DEF(e) respectively. Clitic prefixes cause gemination of the following consonant, except when attached to a verb that consists only of a single consonant, in which case, the vowel is lengthened instead. For example, an A-ranked Balog would be referred to as ubbalog, but would be addressed in the second person as uul. The number-neutral third person pronouns are, respectively, uu, aa, oo, ee, ii.
The main metric, according to which rank is assigned is: Who would win in a physical fight. Physically larger, stronger, more combat-capable individuals are always assigned higher rank in discourse than less combat-capable individuals. Inanimate objects that are incapable of effecting any consequences are thus generally assigned E-rank (marked by the vowel i-) although of course, if I say that I was injured by a burning tree that fell on me, the the tree would be ranked higher than me and the fire would be ranked higher than the tree. If it was me who started the fire, when I refer to my lighting of the fire, I would rank myself higher than the fire and then reassign ranks when talking about the consequences. E.g. something like:
- use.hand o=I, come.into.being e=fire, location i=base of tree
(I started a fire at the base of the tree.)
consume a=fire, be.burnt o=tree, fall.over oo, be.injured i=I
(The fire burnt the tree and caused it to fall over and injure me.)
Also, note that I marked myself with i= (rank E) in the second sentence. This was not necessary because rank D (e=) was available. However, by marking myself with i=, I have also conveyed that I am pathetic (and as ineffectual as an inanimate object can be, far less effectual than the fire and the tree), a way of acknowledging that I was stupid for getting injured by a situation that I caused.
The metric of physical effectuality doesn't always apply in instances where there is a clear imbalance of political power or formal rank. If you could clearly beat someone in a fight but they could end you because of money or connections or they are higher (formally) ranked than you, you would assign them a higher rank than you. Within the hierarchy of the militaristic Balog empire, higher (formally) ranking Balog will always be referred to with higher (linguistic) ranks and non-Balog are always assigned lower ranks than Balog, but same-(formally-)ranked individuals will assign rank based on perceived physical combat ability. Where two individuals in a discourse do not agree to their rankings in each other's speech, the matter may be settled physically.
When assigning rank to a sole individual without others (yet) in the discourse a rough guess is made as to the rank the referent is likely to be assigned in the context of others. Thus, a judgement is made of someone any time they are referred to, even in the absence of other referents to be compared with. Generally, without context, the A-rank (u=) is assigned to indicate political, finantial or social power. Someone who just looks like a badass would default to the B-rank (a=). An average-Joe would default to the C-rank (o=) and a weakling to the D-rank (e=). The E-rank (i=) is by default, occupied by inanimates, but it is also frequently used as a way of talking down to people perceived as especially lowly. The context of the speaker also plays a role here. A Balog would always refer to a non-Balog by default with e= or i= as, by Balog standards, all non-Balog are essentially physically ineffectual. A non-Balog speaking Balog to another non-Balog would (at least when within earshot of Balog) always refer to a Balog with u= by default.
Inspiration for rank:
More: show
Propositional:
In addition to the subject clitics u=, a=, o=, e=, i=, there is also the complementiser clitic ä=, which I gloss as DEF(p). P stands for for propositional as C for complementiser was already taken, the contrast between DEF(c) and DEF.C might get confusing, and simply using C on its own is not an option because this also changes to show definiteness and specificity. It also can't be glossed as a complementiser when used in the third person pronominal form ää as that simply translates to "it", referring to a mentioned proposition rather than a single tangible referent.
Here is an example of the difference between the definite, specific complementiser ä= (DEF(p)=) and the indefinite, non-specific complementiser ähä= (NSPC(p)=).
M'oož, nam ämmelets eel.
I'm glad you're happy. I like that you're happy. |
More: show
M'oož, nam ähämmelets eel.
I like the idea of you being happy. |
More: show
*Sorry about all the awkward uses of the word "status" as a verb here. I initially called this "rank" rather than status, but because there is also formal rank in the militaristic sense, I decided to change it to status, but it doesn't have the nice range of uses that "rank" has. I also keep finding myself writing rank when I mean status, so I just did a search and replace and made a mess of it and now I think I'll just call status "rank" and call actual rank "formal rank" or whatever. Urgh.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: I fixed all mention of status to rank and changed formatting of examples and added extra syntactic sentence breakdowns hidden in "more" tags to show the parts of sentences.
I was wondering about everything marked as definite. Are there any indefinites besides that clitic ähä? (I didn't quite understand that part of the grammar btw.)
I’m not strong at all. (I had to transport a table downstairs today and could barely carry it even with help.)
) If I instead simply have a verb for "who" or a means of deriving question words within a verb phrase (not relying on the nominaliser), then it's easy and they can be in whichever clause element makes sense. (Potentially gravitating towards the predicate as that is more focusy and the subject is more topicky, although I haven't been super consistent with that.) 