Axunashin

Post by **zompist** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:28 pm

The Axunashin grammar is up, a mere ten years after I started it.

There's one minor thing left to do-- a table of the syllabary. That will be up soon.

By the way, I've changed a lot of pages lately, and the grammar required a lot of piddly html wrangling. If you see things that look wrong, tell me. Don't tell me about pages that lack the new nav bar or aren't Unicoded yet, though; I know about those.

Whimemsz · Post by **Whimemsz** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:34 pm

*confetti*

Bout time, Mark.

*Rushes to read it*

Mecislau · Post by **Mecislau** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:39 pm

Yay!!

I only had time to skim through it right now, but I am wondering what exactly "verbal intensity" is...

(sorry if you answered that somewhere before

)

I can't wait to see the syllabary too

DF · Post by DF » Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:49 pm

Hah, I was beginning to wonder if we'd ever see it.

Cool stuff.

Warmaster · Post by **Warmaster** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:53 pm

my goodness, two pages in a week, i feel all of a flutter at that!

this is really cool mark. not that i can get really into the langs off hand. i still put forward my request that my most wanted lang is Chia-sha and my most wanted info is on thje skourenes. however, i'll certainly make do with this lot for now!

Well done, ten years is a hell of a long time to keep up something, thats for sure!

Nuntar · Post by **Nuntar** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:29 pm

*throws wild party*

Just shows how subjective time is, doesn't it? Axunashin has been legendary ever since I joined the board, so I've always thought of it as one of those intriguing unwritten mysteries like the lost cases of Sherlock Holmes...... and here it is and I'm looking at it! I can't believe how lucky I am.

Nuntar · Post by **Nuntar** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:30 pm

EDIT:

and the waiting wasn't in vain! After being on tenterhooks over that X...... it really is a thirty-sixth sound different from any other use I've seen!

alephnaught · Post by **alephnaught** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:57 pm

The link on the main page seems to point to http://zompist.com/meshaism.html, whereas it should be http://zompist.com/meshaism.htm.

vlaran of verduria · Post by **vlaran of verduria** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:10 pm

AllICanSayIsOhMyGod(MySpacebar'sBroken)

pharazon · Post by **pharazon** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:19 pm

Awesome. I like the focus on syntax, because it's one thing I need to learn more about. Also, the nom/acc dominant/subordinate distinction is something cool that had never occurred to me (admittedly, I get a certain delight from any feature that would give Eddy a seizure...) Was it inspired by any natlangs?; it seems a likely enough shift of meaning.

Maknas wrote:I only had time to skim through it right now, but I am wondering what exactly "verbal intensity" is...

Maybe you've already gone back and read more thoroughly, but http://zompist.com/axunashin.htm#intensive.

Drydic · Post by **Drydic** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:48 pm

:emits high-pitched shrieks:

:logs off computer with a copy of grammar to read:

:wonders when Xurn?? will be out:

Shm Jay · Post by **Shm Jay** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:06 pm

My wait is for the list of Cadhniorian emperors.

Twpsyn Pentref · Post by **Twpsyn Pentref** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:52 pm

Eugapae!

I too have been long anticipating this. I shall now proceed to frolic and jump as I excitedly skim!

Post by **zompist** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 11:22 pm

The syllabary page is up too. When it rains it pours!

More than half the grammar is devoted to syntax; this is partly to serve as a good example. Glancing at people's conlangs, I get the impression that you all are mastering phonology and morphology, indeed you deploy arcane features in both areas that conlangers of a previous generation wouldn't have even been able to name. But I still see very cursory descriptions of syntax-- a couple of paragraphs on word order and relativization and that's it. Hopefully the Axunashin grammar will show that syntax is as rich a subject as morphology.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 11:37 pm

I have to admit that I, too, was quite startled to see two new Almean pages in quick succession! Good work!

Some initial reactions to Axunashin:

1. As you note, the connections to the other Eastern languages are not hard to see, although the grammar seemed to become more unique (and "weirder") as it went along.

2. I liked the concept of verb intensity; the multiple functions of normal vs. intense verbs reminded me a great deal of the different roles played by imperfective vs. perfective verbs in different contexts in Russian.

3. Likewise, I found the nom/acc to dominant/subordinate distinction intriguing, as well as the way that it developed. I would like to repeat pharazon's question: are there any natlang examples of this kind of phenomenon? With regard to the way that the Axunai rationalized it in terms of their social structure, it would certainly seem to be a case of language and culture influencing each other (and fairly deliberately on the part of the speakers at that).

[Side note: It also reminded me of one of my own conlanging ideas--that of a language evolving from an ancestor with a "Fluid-S" active structure (in which the agent/patient distinction varies depending on context), to a daughter language with a Split-S structure (in which this distinction is fixed for each verb; other daughters went other directions). I don't know whether there are any natlang examples for this phenomenon either.]

4. I agree that focus on syntax and transformations was a welcome aspect; like many folks here, I ought to learn more about this topic. (Indeed, I ought to read Mark's Axunashin example(s) more carefully.)

5. The syllabary will be particularly welcome when it appears; the Axunaic writing system is sufficiently complex that I wasn't sure we would ever see it in concrete form. Looking forward to it.

***
Like Ben and Jay, I have had my own Almean features that I've waited to see appear; these include some, like Elkaril, Flaidish, and Meshaism, that have already done so. (Others include Arashat/Eledhat and Endajue, and more on the Skorene kingdoms; in the past, I'm also on record as expressing an interest in The Biology of Almea. Info on modern-day life in Verduria and Xurno is always welcome as well...in short, anything that helps me to better imagine the world of Almea, its lands, and its people.)

Thanks again; take care!

p@,
Glenn

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 11:53 pm

EDIT: I correct myself: the syllabary has arrived! Good gracious!

I'd been pretty sure that the page would only include the syllabic signs, not the 770 word glyphs (that would be expecting a little too much

). I was glad, however, to see both the Wede:i signs from which the Axunai syllabics were derived, and the modern Xurnese cursive forms as well. Overall, I'm impressed; working out the whole thing must have required quite a bit of time and energy.

Looking forward to more (someday)...

p@,
Glenn

Space Dracula · Post by **Space Dracula** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:04 am

Whimemsz wrote:*confetti*

Bout time, Mark.

*Rushes to read it*

Kinlin Slingthower, Dudicon's old alias, wrote: *throws confetti in the air*

Post by **zompist** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:28 am

Glenn Kempf wrote:3. Likewise, I found the nom/acc to dominant/subordinate distinction intriguing, as well as the way that it developed. I would like to repeat pharazon's question: are there any natlang examples of this kind of phenomenon? With regard to the way that the Axunai rationalized it in terms of their social structure, it would certainly seem to be a case of language and culture influencing each other (and fairly deliberately on the part of the speakers at that).

I'm not aware of a natlang that's reinterpreted nom/acc cases in that way. The two halves of the complex are attested, however.

For reinterpretation of cases we need look no further than French, which in part reinterprets the nom/acc pronouns as cliticized and stressed. Reinterpretation of various features to reflect social hierarchy is also common-- e.g. the common European tendency to reinterpret plural pronouns as polite forms. And lexicalization of polite forms is common in Japanese-- honorific prefixes can simply become part of the root.

dunomapuka · Post by **dunomapuka** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:56 am

I knew this was imminent after reading the Meshaism page.

yay!

Shm Churmey · Post by **Shm Churmey** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:07 am

I'm just posting here to say, that, well I had been waiting for it for 2 years, and I'm honestly, not disappointed at all.

zompist wrote: More than half the grammar is devoted to syntax; this is partly to serve as a good example. Glancing at people's conlangs, I get the impression that you all are mastering phonology and morphology, indeed you deploy arcane features in both areas that conlangers of a previous generation wouldn't have even been able to name. But I still see very cursory descriptions of syntax-- a couple of paragraphs on word order and relativization and that's it. Hopefully the Axunashin grammar will show that syntax is as rich a subject as morphology.

That's a good thing; the Erdanic syntax is what I've been working the hardest on, and an example of how things can be done is extremely valuable help. Thanks!

Ghost · Post by **Ghost** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:49 am

Fuck me, I didn't think you meant quite this soon.

...

That's all I have to say for now. I shall return once I've actually read the damned thing.

Ghost

butsuri · Post by **butsuri** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 8:04 pm

A couple of possible errors in this from the phonology - I've had to convert your caharcters to Unicode, I hope I've interpreted them correctly.

This could mean that it was /?/, but I prefer to reconstruct /J/ (like the ch in German Bach, but voiced) or /?/, which is closer to *?; this also fits in better with borrowings like Munjaz << Munkhâsh.

Firstly: does /J/ mean a voiced palatal fricative? If so, why J? The IPA character would be ?, "small letter j with crossed tail". I can't see an unmodified capital J anywhere on the IPA chart of pulmonic consonants (it's used for the palatal nasal (?) in X-SAMPA). Of course, ? is rather difficult to display, but you used graphics for ? and ?.

Secondly, wouldn't the ch in standard German Bach be velar (ach-laut) rather than palatal (ich-laut)? I don't speak German, so I could be wrong, but that's how I've always understood it to work.

Also:

Some scholars have argued that all three were affricates. t ks d/ or fricatives /ç x J/

There's a missing /. And isn't an affricate homorganic by definition?

I'm about half-way through the grammar now. Fine work. I'm looking forward to the syntactic section... perhaps I'll have samething more to say once I've finished.

Post by **zompist** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:28 pm

butsuri wrote:Firstly: does /J/ mean a voiced palatal fricative? If so, why J? The IPA character would be ??, "small letter j with crossed tail".

Well, now it is. Previously (and thus, on the charts in most of my linguistics books) there was no special symbol for a voiced palatal fricative; small capital J was a common substitute.

Secondly, wouldn't the ch in standard German Bach be velar (ach-laut) rather than palatal (ich-laut)? I don't speak German, so I could be wrong, but that's how I've always understood it to work.

Right-- typo.

I have some sources that seem to define 'affricate' more loosely, but my phonetics book doesn't, so I'll correct that.

Twpsyn Pentref · Post by **Twpsyn Pentref** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:08 am

It must be quite a boost to your self-esteem to have fifty or so people constantly lauding your work, Zomp.

butsuri · Post by **butsuri** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:17 am

Oh, you need to change the word order of the gloss on "Zalai empoji tinaya ?enkirtuim koribimutu" in the section on clause reversal.

Is subordination with tinaya more marked than with naya? Is there a difference in emphasis?