zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:13 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:28 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
This is not meant to be competition with Neek, however I thought I might do the same for my grammar. Neek and I have started to write a reference grammar for our conlangs at about the same time IIRC, and I thought it would be nice if people could maybe point out inconsistencies and plain mistakes in my grammar as well. The problem with everything is that you, as an author, often overlook mistakes. I can't promise to do much work on the grammar in the foreseeable future, though, since uni will start again next week.

Without further ado, here is the grammar: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8026017/Ayeri%20grammar/grammar.pdf Discuss!


Last edited by Jipí on Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:54 am, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:45 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:31 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Lund
In section 7.2 on existential constructions, I don't think it's made clear enough why example (94b) is marked as ungrammatical. I think that example should be moved to after the paragraph introducing (95a), or removed entirely.

In 7.3, I'd like a more elaborate description on the difference between using the 'have' verb and a predicate construction; semantic, syntactic, pragmatic, dialectal, whatever it might be.

I only read the parts that I'm particularly interested in cross-linguistically, so I don't know about the other sections.

It would be great if you (and anyone posting grammars) could point toward any specific sections that you're especially proud of or want feedback on!

_________________
Attention, je pelote !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:27 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:13 pm
Posts: 356
Location: im itësin
I need to read through it. You have a lot more interesting stuff in your language than I do!

_________________
KneeQuickie | Proto-Deithas Reference Grammar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:55 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
Dingbats wrote:
In section 7.2 on existential constructions, I don't think it's made clear enough why example (94b) is marked as ungrammatical. I think that example should be moved to after the paragraph introducing (95a), or removed entirely.

I think what I wanted to illustrate here is the difference from English. You can't use the verb that sometimes corresponds to English "be" in this situation. Instead, you'd have to say Koyareng yayam, otherwise it would mean that it exists for him, not that it supposed to be given to him.

Quote:
In 7.3, I'd like a more elaborate description on the difference between using the 'have' verb and a predicate construction; semantic, syntactic, pragmatic, dialectal, whatever it might be.

I need to think about that. Sometimes I make stuff up as I go when I discover holes. This was such one. I think (99b) might be more informal than (99a).

Quote:
It would be great if you (and anyone posting grammars) could point toward any specific sections that you're especially proud of or want feedback on!

Well, what is slightly troubling me is whether chapter 8 gives enough information. Descr. Morph. doesn't demand much to write here on itself actually. Most things just strike me as not detailed enough. On the other hand, the language is very regular because I didn't care to create an ancestor language to include some more irregularity caused e.g. by sound changes. As a result, there are only few to no exceptions to discuss.

Another section desperately in need of elaboration is 2.2.1, because I don't know according to which criteria I should analyze stress patterns. Stress is not necessarily fixed, and I think at least sometimes it's predictable. Just I don't know how to figure out the rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:47 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 159
Location: Fnuhpolis- The City of Fnuh
I don't have the time to read this closely at the moment. I really like the extensive footnoting and inclusion of spectrograms. It makes this look a lot like a real natlang grammar, very cool.

There are some places where your English is a little unusual. Page 4 has "morphologic marking" where "morphological marking" would sound more natural. And speaking of that section, are there any cases of long vowels occuring where they are not underlyingly two identical short vowels? If not, it seems a little odd to talk about "long vowels" as a particular thing in the langauge rather than a regular morphophonological process. And why doesn't /u:/ (or [u:]) occur? Also, I would say "romanization" rather than "Transcription into Latin". "Transcription into Latin" sounds like you are writing your grammar in Latin, and it is not the 19th century anymore we don't need to do that :)

Your explanation of stress is kind of lacking, but you also have yellow highlighting there, so maybe you're intentionally marking that area of the grammar as incomplete?

_________________
con quesa- firm believer in the right of Spanish cheese to be female if she so chooses

"There's nothing inherently different between knowing who Venusaur is and knowing who Lady Macbeth is" -Xephyr


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:13 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Guitarplayer wrote:
I cannot see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:47 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
Thanks Quesa, I'll have a look at that. There are some cases of a long vowel having been lexicalized. /uː/ is indeed a kind of gap. There are no affixes beginning with -u, and only few words beginning with/ending in u. Ruling it out completely isn't doing it justice because at least in theory you could have words where -u + u- becomes -ū- in compounds, but in all the years it's never occurred.

Tom: People on #isharia have pointed out that they couldn't open the file in their browser either when they tried. Right-click, save-as should help. If that still doesn't work, replace the .pdf with .html, and there'll be a page with the link to the file again which is reported to work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:20 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
OK, I've tried to quickly address some of the issues noted above. #isharia tells me neek and I need to compete more in anticipation of this year's ZBB Awards. Oh well.

And yes, the sections highlighted in yellow are incomplete.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:12 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Guitarplayer wrote:
Right-click, save-as should help.

That worked. I'll tell you what I think when I read it. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:49 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:01 pm
Posts: 387
Location: Hyperborea
Looks cool, spectrograms and all. I don't have much to add, but I feel very inspired.

_________________
My conlang lessons
My problem blog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:52 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
I've added the Swadesh List (Appendix C, page V of the Appendix). This generated about a dozen new words, yay :D Also I've corrected two examples (21a and 84a).

I should also add a description of how larger numerals are composed, so not only list the morphemes, but also describe how you'd verbalize e.g. 285 (menang sam henlan-iri) and why you'd compose it that way. I don't think this becomes clear at all from the example of the huge-ass number I give.

Also, concerning footnote 9 on page 38 – where should I put verb-derivation (from adjectives in this case) according to Describing Morphosyntax's outline scheme? Under verbs? Under adjectives? Should I make a separate chapter on derivational morphology (there isn't much)? ← ANYONE?

Also, with Relay 18 upcoming, I have a new motivation to get some work on this done during the Christmas break.

EDIT:

Quote:
<guitarplayer> viewtopic.php?p=829112#p829112 <- oh c'mon people :o Nobody has a suggestion how to proceed?
<Nae> Verb derivation eh.
<Nae> I'd have a section for all derivation
<Nae> and then have "verbalizers" and "nominalizers" in their own chapters
<guitarplayer> myeah
<Nae> or maybe "derived from verbs" and "derived from nouns"
<Nae> depending if that distinction is important
<guitarplayer> DM has nominalization and denominalization in the chapter on noun morphosyntax though
<guitarplayer> :|
<Nae> yeah well Hakulinen has the system i mentioned
<Nae> *shrugs*
<Nae> i haven't even seen a copy of DM in ages
<Nae> i should buy a copy
<Nae> except they cost megabuck$$
<Legion> DM isn't always good from what I've gathered


Ah well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:05 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Look at
What possibilities exist for deriving members of one category from those of the same or another category? For each pair of categories, indicate the formal means of derivation, and their semantic correlates. Are any of these processes iterative (e.g. double diminutive, causative of causative)? Indicate the degree of productivity of each process, and of its semantic regularity.
  • 2.2.1. nouns
    • 2.2.1.1. nouns from nouns
    • 2.2.1.2. nouns from verbs
      • 2.2.1.2.1. To what extent is the syntax of deverbal nouns similar to that of a sentence, and to what extent like that of a nonderived noun?
    • 2.2.1.3. nouns from adjectives
      • 2.2.1.3.1. To what extent is the syntax of deadjectival nouns similar to that of a sentence, and to what extent like that of a nonderived noun?
    • 2.2.1.4. nouns from adverbs
    • 2.2.1.5. nouns from any other category
  • 2.2.2. verbs
    • 2.2.2.1. verbs from nouns
    • 2.2.2.2. verbs from verbs (see also the section on voice, 2.1.3.1 )
    • 2.2.2.3. verbs from adjectives
    • 2.2.2.4. verbs from adverbs
    • 2.2.2.5. verbs from any other category
  • 2.2.3. adjectives
    • 2.2.3.1. adjectives from nouns
    • 2.2.3.2. adjectives from verbs
    • 2.2.3.3. adjectives from adjectives
    • 2.2.3.4. adjectives from adverbs
    • 2.2.3.5. adjectives from any other category
  • 2.2.4. adverbs
    • 2.2.4.1. adverbs from nouns
    • 2.2.4.2. adverbs from verbs
    • 2.2.4.3. adverbs from adjectives
    • 2.2.4.4. adverbs from adverbs
    • 2.2.4.5. adverbs from any other category
  • 2.2.5. any other possibilities
  • 2.2.6. adpositions and compounds
    • 2.2.6.1. Describe the possibilities for forming complex pre-/postpositions.
      • 2.2.6.1.1. two prepositions (distinguish genuine compound prepositions of the type on to from sequences resulting from cases where a preposition has as its argument a prepositional phrase, e.g. from behind. In English these can for example be distinguished by means of the modification, e.g. from ten yards behind the car, *on ten yards to the table)
      • 2.2.6.1.2. nominal formations, e.g. in front of
      • 2.2.6.1.3. verbal formations, e.g. depending on
      • 2.2.6.1.4. adjectival formations
      • 2.2.6.1.5. other types
    • 2.2.6.2. Are there simple derived prepositions?
      • 2.2.6.2.1. denominal
      • 2.2.6.2.2. deverbal, e.g. given
      • 2.2.6.2.3. deadjectival, e.g. like
      • 2.2.6.2.4. others
    • 2.2.6.3. Compound morphology
      What possibilities exist for compounding members of the same or different categories, and what semantic value(s) does each have? Answer for each of the combinations in 2.2.1-5. Indicate whether the components of a compound word may themselves be compound (e.g. English blackboard eraser).


It's pretty obvious that 2.2.5. and 2.2.6., especially 2.2.6.1 and 2.2.6.2 and 2.2.6.3, need to be re-organized, re-numbered, and/or otherwise improved. But you don't have to worry about that because you're looking at deriving nouns or verbs or adjectives from nouns or verbs or adjectives, so 2.2.x.y., where each of x and y go from 1 to 3 will cover what you're interested in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:10 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Posts: 639
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
I've always been a fan of Ayeri and I really like where it's at. In general, I like what you have. I'm going to apologise for mostly writing down my criticisms here, rather than all the praise I could give you if I had the time.

Basically, everything I have to say has to do with presentation thus far. I didn't get to reading the syntaxy bits, getting a little tired, but I promise to keep reading soon and I will get back to you on those.

Here goes:

Overall, the structure of the grammar is a little too unconventional for me. I like the old phonology, morphology, syntax kind of structure. I realise such divisions are not always practical, I know from experience; but I do wonder if perhaps you could do: phonology, nouns, verbs etc. I find that the way the document is structured right now, it's jumping from topic to topic a little bit.

And while I'm definitely a fan of being thorough, chapter 3 is a little off for me. I wish you could work it into the text later or just feature it as an appendix. I want to get to the actual morphological system before I go into this kind of analysis. Or it could just be a little shorter. It just seems a little-off pace right now. And I know it's a little weird to criticise the pace of a grammar but hey, in every other way, you're doing a very good job. So maybe it's mainly this chapter that's causing the feeling of "unconventionality". I have to wonder, how interesting is it to know how common suffixation is unless I know something about the suffixes, know what I mean? Also, Prefixation is a second common pattern in Ayeri on page 9 would sound better and clearer as "Prefixation is the second most common method of affixation in Ayeri" in my opinion.

Ajām on page 12 is confusing to me, is that supposed to be Ayām or did I miss there being a j in the romanisation scheme? Or is it a loan? Following it are several Cs all over the document. Are they supposed to be there? What's going on?

In 4.3 I'd like a little footnote explaining crasis because I can't remember what that means. In 4.4.1, there should not be a comma following the en-dash. Further down in example (36), I'd rather say "*anl-vang (bring-2S.A) → anl-a-vang" than "anl-vang (bring-2S.A) → anlavang (*anlvang)", ie. noting the ungrammatical form as ungrammatical right away and dispense with the repeated note that it is ungrammatical afterwards. It seems clearer. Those Js keep on popping upp in the numeral section. Really confusing.

More later.

_________________
vec


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:01 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
vecfaranti wrote:
I've always been a fan of Ayeri and I really like where it's at. In general, I like what you have. I'm going to apologise for mostly writing down my criticisms here, rather than all the praise I could give you if I had the time.

Thanks for having a look! Criticism is what I need. Praise without explanation of faults is nice, but not useful if you're trying to hunt down mistakes or awkward passages.

The structure is taken from Describing Morphosyntax, and yes, I've also found it a little jumpy at times. Its division kind of makes sense, though, as it's going from small units to larger units. So first you get how sounds combine to morphemes, then how morphemes combine to words, then you get to syntax, then pragmatics.

As for example 23b, it says Ajām (also spelled Agyām 'the playful one' IIRC) is a name. I did not yet want to get into detail with glossing, so it's not indicated that there is a covert copula. Why there are several Cs all over the document I don't know, they aren't supposed to be there if it's just single letters scattered all over the page.

As for spelling things with ‹c› and ‹j›, did I forget to mention that ky ty > c [ʧ]; gy dy > j [ʤ]? Would it be less confusing if I gave more etymologic spellings instead? It's purely aesthetic (and how I've decided it's pronounced).

Also I've just noticed, the enummeration of Chapter 4 is off. Certainly, "The structure of the noun word" should be a subheading of "Nouns"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:33 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Posts: 639
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
Yes, you forgot to mention that :) I would prefer etymological, actually, but it's your language. By using a single letter you make it seem like a phoneme in it's own right. Which might be a valid analysis, but I find that it is conflicting with the more conservative analysis of them being allophonic, which is what you present us with in your phonology chapter.

_________________
vec


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:48 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
I've just done a quick corpus analysis, and there are a few cases where [ʧ] < [kj tj] and [ʤ] < [gj dj] are in fact phonemic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:39 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
Quote:
<CUM_quesa>the verb phrase?
<CUM_quesa> er, no, noun phrase
<CUM_quesa> it'd be nice if you had a translation of the four words in those sentences
<guitarplayer> ?
<guitarplayer> context please
<CUM_quesa> I mean, state explicitly that nanga = house and veno = beautiful etc.
<CUM_quesa> like maybe add an english gloss "The beautiful old Prihaytam house" or "the old beautiful Prihaytam house" where appropriate
<CUM_quesa> I don't think english makes that fine a distinction in adjective ordering
<guitarplayer> I don't think my conlang does either
<guitarplayer> actually I don't know how to handle that :(
<CUM_quesa> well, it seems like Ayeri allows every possible order
<CUM_quesa> whereas English coudln't really have "The Prihaytam old beautiful house"
<CUM_quesa> I'd have to think about what orders are okay or not
<CUM_quesa> but definitely not all of them are in English
<CUM_quesa> the beautiful old Prihaytam house is the most natural
<CUM_quesa> the beautiful Prihaytam old house is not very good
<CUM_quesa> anyway, the point is if you just permitted every order that'd be interestingly different from english
<CUM_quesa> and it seems that's what you're doing already
<CUM_quesa> I don't understand "Possessive pronouns are esssentially handled like adjectives"
<CUM_quesa> they're clearly not exactly equivalent to adjectives
<CUM_quesa> since you cna't drop them in the middle of a group of adjectives
<CUM_quesa> like you could with yet another adjective
<CUM_quesa> are you saying there's no distinction between 60a and 60b?
<CUM_quesa> re: rel clauses, is it optional/required not to mark case if there's only the head noun and the rel clause?
<CUM_quesa> like "the house of which I told you"
<CUM_quesa> also don't say "unreasonable" say "ungrammatical"
[...]
<guitarplayer> <CUM_quesa> whereas English coudln't really have "The Prihaytam old beautiful house" <- I think this stems from a discussion with miekko, where he mentioned that head-first languages usually have freer adjective order than head-last languages
<guitarplayer> quesa, let me take a minute to sort out the things you've mentioned...
<CUM_quesa> I don't think that syntactic phenomenon arose in the ENglish language merely because you had a discussion with miekko :|
<CUM_quesa> I don't know much about adjective order cross-linguistically, I know there's been a fair amount of work on it
<guitarplayer> CUM_quesa: I mean my decision to allow every possible order
<guitarplayer> as compared to english which doesn't allow that
<CUM_quesa> I don't see it as something that a language in principle coudln't do
<CUM_quesa> maybe there's a typological assymetry there, I don't know enough about the subject to judge
<guitarplayer> also, adjective heaps generally occur only rarely, and often their somehow modifying each other I think, instead of truly being coordinate.
<guitarplayer> of course, my list only includes coordinate ones
<guitarplayer> also, I can't say "adjective order does not matter", since in the next half of the sentence I explain that it does
<CUM_quesa> it's not that adjective order doesn't matter in Ayeri, it's that there are no orders that are ungrammatical
<CUM_quesa> which is not the case in English
<guitarplayer> ok, I've corrected some things now
<guitarplayer> also, I haven't yet got to the chapter on relative clauses
<guitarplayer> also, I think it'd be easier if I gave the spelling of each sound in the phonemic inventory


Also I've added some explanatory paragraphs to the numbers section, and I've made [ʧ ʤ] proper phonemes now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:52 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Posts: 639
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
Reminds me, I gotta get on reading some more.

*goes to read*

_________________
vec


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:59 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
Quote:
Subject: Re: Adj-Adj order in head-initial languages?
From: Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:54:49 +0100

Hm, OK. So considering what you wrote and what Christophe wrote about French, I guess I should rewrite that section and require that adjectives be coordinated either by "and" or by using a relative clause. That's probably most feasible:

    nanga tado (old house)
    nanga tado (nay) maka (old (and) white house)
    nanga (si) tado, maka nay larau (house (which is) old, white, and nice)
    nanga tado si maka nay larau (old house which is white and nice)
    ...

Actually, chains of more than two consecutive adjectives are fairly rare anyway. At least we were told that in English lessons when we dealt with adjective order.

Carsten

Am 09.01.2011 23:37, schrieb Roger Mills:
> Indonesian is N-Adj. I don't recall encountering long series of adjs.
> following a noun. There would be a tendency, I think, to put some of
> the descriptors into a relative clause.

--
Ayeri Grammar (under construction): http://bit.ly/9dSyTI (PDF)
Der Sprachbaukasten: http://sanstitre.nfshost.com/sbk

Haven't changed that yet in the .odt/.pdf. Gonna do it with the next batch of corrections (Veg?). Also I still need to reorganize the contents on word-class derivation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:24 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Posts: 639
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
4.1
In example (28): This is just a comment but I to me "I like slowly walking" only works if it's followed by another adjunct: "I like slowly walking down the stairs" where I think down the stairs is able to "push" slowly over the verb.
At the end of 4.1 you say "Again, it can be stated that gerunds are neither fully like nouns, nor are they like verbs in spite of their verbal origin, which makes their exact state as regards parts of speech not fully determinate." I find this a little clunky, especially the last clause. I sympathise, I like longwinded sentences like that, too. But I would suggest "The conclusion, then, is that gerunds are neither fully like nouns, nor are they fully like verbs, despite their verbal origin. Which part of speech they belong to is therefore to is indeterminate." But there are many possibilities and you can probably think of something even better. I just wanted to make a suggestion since I was criticising.

4.1.1
And I go on, "Recurring to example 19:" sounds odd and I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I think you must be using "recur" incorrectly. Do you mean "repeating" or "going back to", maybe?

4.1.2
Is there a way of making inherently plural words singular? Numerals, perhaps? Or something else?
How does inherent plurality manifest grammatically, if at all? Is there any kind of plural marking somewhere else than on the noun? I forget.

4.2
This is actually not the only place in the text where this occurs but I remembered it now: I get confused by your use of = and – to mark morpheme boundaries. Are IND and DIM proclitics rather than prefixes?

4.3
Now you call the case marker enclitic rather than a suffix. Which is it?

4.3.4
"or only for" > "except for"

4.4.3
"Tuyayam is, strictly speaking, a gerund in this case, though." That is already clear. I don't understand what you mean. Should we expect it not to be?

4.5.1
I assumed that AF stood for agent focus, was I right? I think it might be included separately in the list of abbreviations.

4.5.3.4
I personally would use disposition rather than stance.

5.3
What is Prihaytam, what is nanga, veno and tado? What does the phrase mean as a whole?

5.4
Here I get confused – how are these prepositional if there is no preposition. I would call them "oblique constituents", "adjunct constituents", "obliques" or "adjuncts". Also, why did you choose the term benefactive over simple dative?
At the end, could you maybe add some kind of explanation of what yam and na mean? I can't remember.

6.1
In (72), how is devo a verb?
I'd like to see an example of the borderline cases of compounding.
Finally, I think that not only euphonic changes could result in opposite compound orders, it might also just be remnants from an older stage when the order was different or less strict?

6.4.1
In (76a), you write harbor, then harbour.

6.4.3
I'd love to see an example with light verbs.

6.4.4
I think you should include examples of the genitive of origin.

6.4.5
"spacial" > "spatial"


I'm going to have to call it a night, now. I'll try to get 7 onwards to you soon. Sorry to get to this so late :) I have always been a fan of Ayeri and I enjoy it more and more.

_________________
vec


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:33 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
vecfaranti wrote:
In example (28): This is just a comment but I to me "I like slowly walking" only works if it's followed by another adjunct: "I like slowly walking down the stairs" where I think down the stairs is able to "push" slowly over the verb.

This stems from the chapter in Descr. Morph., and I haven't gerunds fully sorted out yet, tbh.

Quote:
At the end of 4.1 you say "Again, it can be stated that gerunds are neither fully like nouns, nor are they like verbs in spite of their verbal origin, which makes their exact state as regards parts of speech not fully determinate."

Yeah, that is a bit meh to read. Thanks for your suggestion. I guess it would be more flowing if you moved "as regards..." elsewhere or rewrote that a little.

Quote:
And I go on, "Recurring to example 19:" sounds odd and I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I think you must be using "recur" incorrectly. Do you mean "repeating" or "going back to", maybe?

"Getting back to", yes.

Quote:
Is there a way of making inherently plural words singular? Numerals, perhaps? Or something else?
How does inherent plurality manifest grammatically, if at all? Is there any kind of plural marking somewhere else than on the noun? I forget.

Yeah, you have to say "one of..." Hey, you could even maybe drop the "one" part and just have a grammaticized genitive thing there. Number is morphologically marked by verb agreement, but then only for the Agent. It can also be marked on nouns, however it is not marked there when it would be in agreement with another determiner/particle/something indicating plurality: inun 'fish'; inunye 'fishes'; *inunye kay, inun kay 'three fishes'; *inunye-aril, inun-aril 'some fishes'

Quote:
This is actually not the only place in the text where this occurs but I remembered it now: I get confused by your use of = and – to mark morpheme boundaries. Are IND and DIM proclitics rather than prefixes?

I use = where there is a dash in the orthography. I think it's mentioned in the abbreviations list at the beginning. I don't have the grammar in front of me right now, so I'll have to look up what is up with IND and DIM.

Quote:
Now you call the case marker enclitic rather than a suffix. Which is it?

Oops. If it was enclitic, it could attach to basically anything, couldn't it? Well, it is a suffix that goes with nouns.

Quote:
"Tuyayam is, strictly speaking, a gerund in this case, though." That is already clear. I don't understand what you mean. Should we expect it not to be?

Have to look it up later

Quote:
I assumed that AF stood for agent focus, was I right? I think it might be included separately in the list of abbreviations.

Yes. It says in the abbreviations list that -F is 'focus', however, which is why I've not seen any reason to list AF, PF, etc. seperately.

Quote:
What is Prihaytam, what is nanga, veno and tado? What does the phrase mean as a whole?

Was raised before, working on it (see email above).

Quote:
Here I get confused – how are these prepositional if there is no preposition. I would call them "oblique constituents", "adjunct constituents", "obliques" or "adjuncts".

English-influenced terminology I guess. I guess you're referring to the chapter on the use of -na and -yam as kinda-prepositions – that is, you'd use prepositions in English there. Ah well.

Quote:
Also, why did you choose the term benefactive over simple dative?

Good question. Probably because it felt akward to use dative with agent/patient. On the other hand, I use genitive already.

Quote:
At the end, could you maybe add some kind of explanation of what yam and na mean? I can't remember.

I'll look at it.

I'll get back here later. Thanks for your keen eye!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:47 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Posts: 2633
Location: Netherlands
Guitarplayer wrote:
I use = where there is a dash in the orthography.

Assuming this is about glossing, I think glosses should not follow any ortographic rules. According to the LGR, = should be used with clitics, and - with morphemes. If your ortography also indicates clitics with a dash, the 1-to-1 correspondence between - (ortography) and = (gloss) is justified, but they have then a common origin (showing clitics), and not a causal connection ("= wherever -").


JAL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:36 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
Hm, in this case the quantifying suffixes need to be indicated with dashes (they are clitic and can attach probably to all kinds of content words), as do the demonstrative pronouns, which may attach at least to both nouns and verbs. I've always hyphenated from the (inflected) main words in orthography. In so far my use of = is justified, but my reasoning to do so was faulty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:24 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 45
Location: Wish Greece, the home land
i just stumbled across this, and
A Grammar of Ayeri wrote:
6.7 Diminuition

Should be "6.7 Diminution" according to Describing Morphosyntax.

_________________
Legion wrote:
[triangular slavery] > [african polyrythms] + [western folk music] (+ (sometimes) [western art music]) = [biggest explosion in diversity since the Cambrian]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:07 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:48 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: Litareng, Keynami
OK, I added the batch of corrections now and rewrote some passages (like the ones under the chapter on Noun Phrases that deals with adjective order). Also, Vec, you seem to have completely ignored the footnotes. I know there's a lot of them and often they're just "See section X, page Y", but sometimes they contain additional explanation. Also, if you had followed some of the cross-references, you would've seen that some things you pointed out you've forgotten what they mean are actually explained in a more detailed way.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group