zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:32 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:22 pm 
Sanno
Sanno

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:30 am
Posts: 939
Location: Tübingen, Germany
This is most impressive. Not just a very detailed language with lots of interesting features, but also a well-written description. (One simple but very effective thing I'm definitely going to steal is the additional gloss line for syntactic function on pp. 37-38.)

Rock on!

_________________
Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:50 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Neek wrote:
TomHChappell wrote:
I'm looking forward to section 7.3.2 "Complex Sentences". You have not put much in there yet about biclausal and multiclausal constructions.

I'm not sure what else to put there, Tom! (Sorry for the late response). I've begun a slight note about how the language deals with multiple subjects, and so far the answer is fairly simple. If you have any suggestions on what other avenues I should approach, I'll be more than happy to proceed.


You've handled (and adequately so, ANAICT) clauses-used-as-adjectives, that is, relative clauses.
You might want to distinguish between attributive RCs and restrictive RCs, or say why you don't and don't need to.
You might do a little more about how the RC is headed, that is, how it is shown which nominal in the matrix clause it modifies, and what role that nominal's referent participates as in the RC.
See WALS.info features 90A through 90G for inspiration.

You've started on clauses-used-as-nouns, with the indirect speech. Can you handle complement clauses in general? See WALS.info features 121A through 128A for inspiration. When you wish something or want something, what you wish or want may be a complement clause, mightn't it?

You haven't mentioned clauses-used-as-adverbs at all. Look at WALS.info for a partial list of certain kinds; purpose clauses and reason clauses, for instance. "While" and "whenever" and "as often as" and "just as surely as" clauses, also, modify the TAM of the matrix clause. Some of them also are mentioned in WALS.info.

(Almost) finally, how are conditionals handled? Is there a special "mood or mode or modality" for the protasis? Is there a special m/m/m for the apodosis? Is the apodosis treated differently depending on whether the protasis is realis or irrealis? Is the future tense special for either of them, the protasis or the apodosis?

Finally (I really mean it this time), what about "relative tense" -- anterior and posterior and simultaneous? (Subordinate clauses, at least if they don't tell the TAM of the main clause, often have "relative tense" instead of "absolute tense"; -- the speaker tells whether the SC happened before or after or during the MC, not before or after or during the speech-act.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:22 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:13 pm
Posts: 356
Location: im itësin
TomHChappell wrote:
You've handled (and adequately so, ANAICT) clauses-used-as-adjectives, that is, relative clauses.
You might want to distinguish between attributive RCs and restrictive RCs, or say why you don't and don't need to.
You might do a little more about how the RC is headed, that is, how it is shown which nominal in the matrix clause it modifies, and what role that nominal's referent participates as in the RC.
See WALS.info features 90A through 90G for inspiration.


Turns out this isn't necessary: Relative adverbs head relative clauses, but they cannot act as constituent arguments for a verb; the language is pro-drop, so this might lead to some nominalization of relative adverbs down the road. As a result, however, relative clauses demand a noun, even if it is a placeholder. As for attributive and restrictive, I'll have to get that once I figure that one out.

Quote:
You've started on clauses-used-as-nouns, with the indirect speech. Can you handle complement clauses in general? See WALS.info features 121A through 128A for inspiration. When you wish something or want something, what you wish or want may be a complement clause, mightn't it?


I've devised two constructions for this: Verbs of emotion, such as like, love, or hate, are placed in the avalent voice and used as adverbs. Verbs can also be placed in the avalent voice and used for purposeful adverbs in verbs of motion. The other construction is similar to a relative clause, with a few minor alterations.

Quote:
[You haven't mentioned clauses-used-as-adverbs at all. Look at WALS.info for a partial list of certain kinds; purpose clauses and reason clauses, for instance. "While" and "whenever" and "as often as" and "just as surely as" clauses, also, modify the TAM of the matrix clause. Some of them also are mentioned in WALS.info.


I would say, purely, that relative clauses being headed by an adverb allows them the comfort of being used adverbially: All you have to do is place it in the adverb slot, or after the final constituent argument. I shouldn't have problems putting this together for examples.

Quote:
(Almost) finally, how are conditionals handled? Is there a special "mood or mode or modality" for the protasis? Is there a special m/m/m for the apodosis? Is the apodosis treated differently depending on whether the protasis is realis or irrealis? Is the future tense special for either of them, the protasis or the apodosis?

Finally (I really mean it this time), what about "relative tense" -- anterior and posterior and simultaneous? (Subordinate clauses, at least if they don't tell the TAM of the main clause, often have "relative tense" instead of "absolute tense"; -- the speaker tells whether the SC happened before or after or during the MC, not before or after or during the speech-act.)


For the former, I have not but can get to that. For the latter, this is already covered: The language encodes tense adverbially, and there are relative tense adverbs that can be used to contrast with one another. In addition, conjunctive adverbs can be used to provide a sequence of events. I'll cover more on that later.

_________________
KneeQuickie | Proto-Deithas Reference Grammar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:35 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
That reminds me to work on my own grammar again some time … and incorporate all the changes I've made and described in my blahg postings of the last 3 months.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:14 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:13 pm
Posts: 356
Location: im itësin
Guitarplayer wrote:
That reminds me to work on my own grammar again some time … and incorporate all the changes I've made and described in my blahg postings of the last 3 months.


You really should. Your grammar is a far superior beast from mine, and I'd love to see more in it.

_________________
KneeQuickie | Proto-Deithas Reference Grammar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:54 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
BTW can you do the Proto-Deithas version of:

Quote:
This is Jack.

This is the House
That Jack built.

This is the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Cat,
That killed the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Dog,
That worried the Cat,
That killed the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the Dog,
That worried the Cat,
That killed the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Maiden all forlorn,
Who milked the Cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the Dog,
That worried the Cat,
That killed the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Man all tattered and torn,
Who kissed the Maiden all forlorn,
Who milked the Cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the Dog,
That worried the Cat,
That killed the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Priest, all shaven and shorn,
Who married the Man all tattered and torn,
To the Maiden all forlorn,
Who milked the Cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the Dog,
That worried the Cat,
That killed the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Cock
That crowed in the morn
That waked the Priest all shaven and shorn,
Who married the Man all tattered and torn,
To the Maiden all forlorn,
Who milked the Cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the Dog,
That worried the Cat,
That killed the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.

This is the Farmer
Who sowed the corn,
That fed the Cock
That crowed in the morn,
That waked the Priest all shaven and shorn,
Who married the Man all tattered and torn,
To the Maiden all forlorn,
Who milked the Cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the Dog,
That worried the Cat,
That killed the Rat,
That ate the Malt,
That lay in the House
That Jack built.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:09 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Posts: 639
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
That's realllly long.

_________________
vec


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:51 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
vecfaranti wrote:
That's realllly long.

Why I reduced the size.
If we had that "spoiler" thing (which hides text unless the reader clicks on it) on the ZBB that they have on the CBB, I would have used that, too.

___________________________________________________________________

@Neek: In 7.3.2.1 you call the complement clause of an indirect quotation a relative clause.
It's not a relative clause, is it?
Isn't it a a complement clause instead?
It's a complement (namely, an object) of the verb-of-saying or verb-of-speaking or whatever of the main clause, right?

If it's a relative clause, what nominal does it modify?

As I understand, all subordinate clauses in your conlang are introduced by subordinating "adverbs"; the particular adverb used can tell not only whether the subordinated clause is a complement clause, or a relative clause, or an adjunct clause, but also other details as well (such as, whether it's a purpose clause, or an indirect quotation, or whatever). So you don't have to have "complementizers", "relativizing pronouns", etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:21 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:13 pm
Posts: 356
Location: im itësin
TomHChappell wrote:
vecfaranti wrote:
That's realllly long.

Why I reduced the size.
If we had that "spoiler" thing (which hides text unless the reader clicks on it) on the ZBB that they have on the CBB, I would have used that, too.


I don't think I'll get to that soon. But I do believe Proto-Deithas is at a level of complexity wherein it is entirely possible.

[/quote]@Neek: In 7.3.2.1 you call the complement clause of an indirect quotation a relative clause.
It's not a relative clause, is it?
Isn't it a a complement clause instead?
It's a complement (namely, an object) of the verb-of-saying or verb-of-speaking or whatever of the main clause, right?

If it's a relative clause, what nominal does it modify?[/quote]

The description given there needs some fine work, however here are the basics: If we define complement clause not by syntactical construction, but rather purely by function, then it is a relative clause. Plain and simple. However, the construction for complement clauses are much different than in indirect speech: This construction is limited to verbs of speaking, because other complement clauses are introduced much differently (generally with ap). This clause in question opens with a relative adverb: sántr̥, now, which is a temporal relative adverb, "at this time."

Here's a little tip to help you out: On an underlying level, adverbs in Proto-Deithas modify clauses, not verbs. I use the term "adverb", as opposed to "adclause" because it's more accepted to use that term (this concept, of course, is partly inspired by Homeric Greek "prepositions", which modified clauses, not arguments. I just took it a step further). Therefore, all relative clauses are adverbial clauses, and there is no indication of what nominal it modifies, if any. The type of adverb used says everything that needs to be said about the clause. How the main clause and these adverbial clauses interact is what provides an idea of function and semantics. There's a reason there are three third person pronouns (general, obviative, and proximate), as well as definite/indefinite agreements: It all provides the information that a relative clause would otherwise need.

Quote:
As I understand, all subordinate clauses in your conlang are introduced by subordinating "adverbs"; the particular adverb used can tell not only whether the subordinated clause is a complement clause, or a relative clause, or an adjunct clause, but also other details as well (such as, whether it's a purpose clause, or an indirect quotation, or whatever). So you don't have to have "complementizers", "relativizing pronouns", etc.


That is correct. This has made things easier, to be honest, because it reduces the number of specialized circumstances that these can appear. A lot of things hold true, however: The subjunctive marks a clause as a subordinating (because there are overlaps in the adverbial schema). This also allows me to play with a different feel of subordination down the road, to avoid typical IE subordinations.

_________________
KneeQuickie | Proto-Deithas Reference Grammar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:03 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Neek wrote:
Here's a little tip to help you out: On an underlying level, adverbs in Proto-Deithas modify clauses, not verbs.
So, they're all "sentential adverbs", not "ad-verbal adverbs". (Nor "ad-adjectival adverbs" either, I take it.)


Neek wrote:
I use the term "adverb", as opposed to "adclause" because it's more accepted to use that term (this concept, of course, is partly inspired by Homeric Greek "prepositions", which modified clauses, not arguments. I just took it a step further). Therefore, all relative clauses are adverbial clauses, and there is no indication of what nominal it modifies, if any.

'Cause it doesn't modify a nominal; it modifies a clause.


Neek wrote:
The type of adverb used says everything that needs to be said about the clause. How the main clause and these adverbial clauses interact is what provides an idea of function and semantics. There's a reason there are three third person pronouns (general, obviative, and proximate), as well as definite/indefinite agreements: It all provides the information that a relative clause would otherwise need.

I think I get it.


Neek wrote:
me wrote:
stuff

That is correct. This has made things easier, to be honest, because it reduces the number of specialized circumstances that these can appear. A lot of things hold true, however: The subjunctive marks a clause as a subordinating (because there are overlaps in the adverbial schema). This also allows me to play with a different feel of subordination down the road, to avoid typical IE subordinations.

I'd like to hear more sometime about what you're avoiding and what you can have instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group