Polysynthetic Conlang

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:29 pm

Dudicon wrote:Do you think it would be possible, Jeff, to list the exact processes you went through to derive medials from verbal nominals, or at least provide a few annotated examples?

Eventually, but the notes on initial formation are in that stack of morphology papers I showed you.

Dudicon · Post by **Dudicon** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:35 pm

jburke wrote:
Dudicon wrote:Do you think it would be possible, Jeff, to list the exact processes you went through to derive medials from verbal nominals, or at least provide a few annotated examples?
Eventually, but the notes on initial formation are in that stack of morphology papers I showed you.

Ah, too bad--that's one of the things I'm most looking forward to seeing.

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 9:02 am

How does possession work in your conlang, Jburke? I'm thinking about a major overhaul of mine.

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:46 am

Eddy the Great wrote:How does possession work in your conlang, Jburke? I'm thinking about a major overhaul of mine.

Noyatukah has two forms of possession, alienable and inalienable (not what you probably think; "inalienable" means that the nominal must always have a possessor--e.g., an arm). I think I posted the chart of the possessives somewhere in this thread (or a related one) not long ago; I don't have the big chart handy to reproduce here at the moment (I'm at my studio, not home).

Possessives infix to the final of stand-alone nominals, but otherwise can attached to initials as prefixes or suffixes.

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:09 pm

So you'd have an affix on the possessor that indicates the number, noun class, and person of what it possesses?

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:12 pm

Eddy the Great wrote:So you'd have an affix on the possessor that indicates the number, noun class, and person of what it possesses?

No, the possessive goes on the possessed nominal.

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:16 pm

Does it agree with the possessor?

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:20 pm

Eddy the Great wrote:Does it agree with the possessor?

Yes, it reflects the person and animacy of the possessor (and sometimes the number).

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:23 pm

I'll take your system into account. It will help me fix some problems. Can something be marked for possession by more than one thing?

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:25 pm

Eddy the Great wrote:I'll take your system into account. It will help me fix some problems. Can something be marked for possession by more than one thing?

Like "John and Mark's car?" Yes, but complex subjects and objects is a complicated area of the morphology, and not easily explained in a small space.

But here are the Noyatukah possessives:

INALIENABLE

1st singular: -n?-
1st pl. inc: -w?-
1st pl. exc. -ni-
2nd formal: -w?-
2nd informal: -m?-
3rd animate: -s?-
3rd inanimate: -m?-
4th: -s?-
Indefinite: -n?-

ALIENABLE

1st singular: -?no-
1st pl. inc: -?ya-
1st pl. exc. -?ni-
2nd formal: -?ye-
2nd informal: -?mo-
3rd animate: -?se-
3rd inanimate: -?me-
4th: -?so-
Indefinite: -?ne-

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:33 pm

Like "John and Mark's car?" Yes, but complex subjects and objects is a complicated area of the morphology, and not easily explained in a small space.

You're going to have to explain it to me sooner or later. Could I do it like this?

K'?la'ik?alamino.
K'?la-'ik?-a-la-mi-no.
house-make-past-3SOI-3SSA-4SSI.
He and it built the building.

Yeah, I know. All my examples involve a house being built.

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:36 pm

Eddy the Great wrote:
Like "John and Mark's car?" Yes, but complex subjects and objects is a complicated area of the morphology, and not easily explained in a small space.
You're going to have to explain it to me sooner or later. Could I do it like this?

K'?la'ik?amini.
K'?la-'ik?-a-mi-ni.
house-make-past-3SSA-3SSI.
He and it built the building.

Yeah, I know. All my examples involve a house being built.

I'm not going to be goaded into this one. Sorry. Wait for the Noyatukah grammar.

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:28 pm

K'?la'ik?alamino.
K'?la-'ik?-a-la-mi-ni.
house-make-past-3SOI-3SSA-4SSI.
He and it built the building.

The multiple subject agreement markers.

Mecislau · Post by **Mecislau** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:30 pm

Eddy the Great wrote:K'?la'ik?alamino.
K'?la-'ik?-a-la-mi-ni.
house-make-past-3SOI-3SSA-4SSI.
He and it built the building.

The multiple subject agreement markers.

Well, that's what my conlang N?yanla does. Except it would be:

Xela?inpharalwawe?o
Xe-la?in-pharal-wa-we-?o
{trans}-building-make-3SSA-3SSI-3SOI
He and it are building the building.

(With diacritics dropped out for ease of typing)

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 5:17 pm

K'?la'ik?alamino.
K'?la-'ik?-a-la-mi-no.
house-make-past-3SOI-3SSA-4SSI.
He and it built the building.

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 5:32 pm

Eddy the Great wrote:K'?la'ik?alamino.
K'?la-'ik?-a-la-mi-no.
house-make-past-3SOI-3SSA-4SSI.
He and it built the building.

Complex subjects and objects are not handled morphologically in Mohawk; they're handled by syntax. But you can handle them with the morphology, if you like. Experiment on your own, and keep it simple.

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 5:56 pm

In my conlang, there is an interesting way to distinguish where something occurs, as in "I saw an agent in my backyard". This allows one to tell whether I saw the agent while in the backyard, or I saw an agent that was in the back yard.

Smitamaklets@itl!aalama.
Smita-ma-kle-ts@i-tl!a-a-la-ma.
agent-my-territory-inside-see-past-3SOI-1SSA
I saw an agent in my territory(backyard).

Maklets@ismitaksani tl!aalama.
Ma-kle-ts@i-smita-ksa-ni tl!a-a-la-ma.
my-territory-inside-agent-be-3SSI see-past-3SOI-1SSA.
I saw an agent in my territory(backyard).

Note: The agent is a matrix agent, and is thus refered to as inanimate.

The Mingo site is great.

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 6:18 pm

I wonder if my conlang is too unambigious. English has lots of ambigiuity but my conlang has relatively little. I think it might be too lojbanish.

Dudicon · Post by **Dudicon** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 6:29 pm

A good way to test for ambiguity is to pick lines at random from a book, translate them into the language concerned, and then translate them back to English. If the result is different from what you started with (which it nearly always will be), then you've found your ambiguities, likely.

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:45 am

ran not in wrote:If you're looking for true alienness, it probably has to be even more alien than that.

Let me try quickly with Mandarin:

"No, it's been lousy," said Harry.

“其实一点儿也不好。”哈利说。

"Actually that isn't good at all," Harry says.

Both of those steps were loose translations; I could have done it more tightly/literally, but the Chinese translation would have sounded very unnatural.

Here's a line into Cheyenne and back, as literally as possible:

"I have a headache."

naheme?konomohtahe

'I-have-head-sickness'

Yet this expression would probably strike a Cheyenne as funny because the preverb for 'have' (-he-) is not normally used in expressions like this, but instead in physical possession contexts. You can use it, if you're determined to follow English idiom, but it's not something you'd hear on the reservation.

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:30 am

I have a headache.

Tkatk?ql'?k?ma.

I have a head that is in pain.

I see what you mean.

Dudicon · Post by **Dudicon** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:31 pm

jburke wrote:Yet this expression would probably strike a Cheyenne as funny because the preverb for 'have' (-he-) is not normally used in expressions like this, but instead in physical possession contexts. You can use it, if you're determined to follow English idiom, but it's not something you'd hear on the reservation.

Incidentally, what would you be likely to hear in this context?

jburke · Post by **jburke** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:19 pm

Dudicon wrote:
jburke wrote:Yet this expression would probably strike a Cheyenne as funny because the preverb for 'have' (-he-) is not normally used in expressions like this, but instead in physical possession contexts. You can use it, if you're determined to follow English idiom, but it's not something you'd hear on the reservation.
Incidentally, what would you be likely to hear in this context?

nahtseaonesh?eo 'My-head-hurts'.

Dudicon · Post by **Dudicon** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:23 pm

jburke wrote:
Dudicon wrote:
jburke wrote:Yet this expression would probably strike a Cheyenne as funny because the preverb for 'have' (-he-) is not normally used in expressions like this, but instead in physical possession contexts. You can use it, if you're determined to follow English idiom, but it's not something you'd hear on the reservation.
Incidentally, what would you be likely to hear in this context?
nahtseaonesh?eo 'My-head-hurts'.

Ah, interesting, and I should have figured that, of course.

Aurora Rossa · Post by **Aurora Rossa** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:29 pm

nahtseaonesh?eo 'My-head-hurts'.