No vocabulary, no phonology, no name, just grammar

[TehranHamburger]

Synthetic morphology

First of, the language deals with a number of clitics which can be affixed to certain parts of speech which blur the line between derivation, inflexion and even words on their own as in various cases they can stand without a root morpheme. It can be argued that a 'past tense' is simply a derivation to a new verb which has semantics of a past tense or even that it's a compount verb with a verb that means 'to past'. The clitics can be affixed to each other creating a highly polysynthetic language. Not every clitic can be attached to every part of speech however.

Alignment

For shits and giggles, the language is an active-stative language with certain nominative-accusative elements. There are three main possible cases/verbal arguments. Nominative, stative and accusative. The language operates on a fluid-S system except that it is also marked on intransitive verbs if they take a nominative or stative argument. Verbs can be classified as being either active or stative. Active verbs take a nominative agent, stative verbs a stative one. Active verbs can of course easily be conjugated/derived to stative verbs and vice versa. Furtheremore, verbs can be transitive or intransitive depending on their maximum number of arguments. Transitive stative verbs are also called copulae and have their predicate also in the stative case.

The patient of an active verb can be either stative or accusative. Which is not marked on the verb and is often a question of semantics. An accusative verb tends to imply a completed action or a directly affected patient whereas a stative patient tends to imply an incomplete action or a patient merely used as catalyst. Sometimes this difference is translated into English, sometimes it isn't, for instance:

Code: Select all

man-NOM boy-ACC shoot <-> the man shoots the boy down
man-NOM boy-STAT shoot <-> the man shoots at the boy

man-NOM other man-ACC fuck <-> the man fucks with the other man
man-NOM other man-STAT fuck <-> the man fucks the other man

man-NOM pizza-ACC eat <-> the man eats the pizza
man-NOM pizza-STAT eat <-> the man eats (from) the pizza

However in German:

man-NOM pizza-ACC eat <-> der mann esst die pizza auf
man-NOM pizza-STAT eat <-> der mann esst von der pizza

Some verbs which do not affect their argument like 'to see' or 'to like' will always have a stative patient.

Stative verbs imply actions which are actually things happening to the agent rather than the agent doing it such as falling, or floating or describe states of the agent such as 'being called' (a copula). In some cases, switching between an active or stative verb may change the meaning subtly:

Code: Select all

man-NOM move <-> the man moves
man-STAT move-STAT <-> the man moves (implying not by his own instrument of walking "the man is being moved")

man-NOM boy-ACC kill <-> the man kills
man-STAT boy-INSTR kill-STAT <-> the man causes the boy's death

Nominative cases for inanimate objects in this sense are extremey rare, a box rarely moves out of its own volition. Poison also doesn't really kill as much as causing death.

Nominal phrases

Being that the language is extremely left branching. Dependends always precede the head noun. Noun phrases themselves may carry a number of enclitics which may derive their meaning to something new. Which can be an adverbial or adjectivial construct. As all derivations are enclitic, entire sentences can be derived to noun phrases and entire noun phrases can be derived to say adjectives. For instnace:

Code: Select all

man-NOM boy-ACC tree-BEHIND shoot <-> behind the tree, the man shoots the boy down 
tree-BEHIND man-NOM boy-ACC tree-BEHIND shoot <-> the man behind the tree shoots the boy down

or more extensive:
NOM boy-ACC tree-BEHIND shoot-PAST-PARTICIPLE man-STAT evil deed-INSTR mourn-STAT
<-> The man [i]that[/i] shot the boy down behind the tree mourns his evil deed

Where the sentence:

Code: Select all

NOM boy-ACC tree-BEHIND shoot-PAST <-> the boy was shot down behind the tree

Is converted into an adjective and more naturally translated with a relative pronoun. This example also illustrates how a clitic that marks the nominative can stand without anything in front of it. Seemingly completely leaving out the subject and being best translated with a passive voice into English.

conjunctions

Conjunctions such as 'that' or 'if..then' are again marked by enclitics:

Code: Select all

you-NOM me-ACC strike-IF I-STAT powerful-COMP you-STAT possibly imagine can-STAT-TRANSL come-STAT-FUTURE darth-VOC
<-> If you strike me down, Darth, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine'

The 'you-NOM me-ACC strike-IF' should be self explanatory. The 'powerful-COMP you-STAT possibly imagine can-STAT-TRANSL' is more peculiar. Powerful-COMP essentially makes an adjective comparative and is translated as 'more powerful than ...' 'you-STAT possibly imagine can-STAT' is again a sentence that is translated as 'you can possibly imagine' Making the entire thing an adjective meaning 'more powerful than you can possibly imagine'. Which could theoretically be put in front of anything. However here it is affixed with a translative enclitic and the stative verb for 'to come'. To in total mean 'I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine'. The final enclitic after 'darth' of course simply is used as a form of addresse.

Nuance enclitics

There further exist enclitics which don't specifically alter the meaning of a sentence but apply a certain nuance which is commonly expressed in intonation in English, they can also do things like turn a declarative sentence into an interrogative one or make it out to be a wish or a polite request or even a stirn order:

Code: Select all

You-NOM store-DAT go-WISH <-> Would you be going to the store?

You-NOM store-DAT day-PROX-LOC-NOT go-FUT-STERN <-> You WIL not go to the store TODAY.

You-NOM-ASK store-DAT day-PROX-LOC go-FUT <-> Are YOU going to the store today? (asking if it's not someone else)

[cromulant]

Interesting MSA. Rather than calling it fluid-S, I'd say it's split-S and fluid-O.

What I see here, the way I'm making sense of this, is that you have four core roles: a more-agentive subject/agent (NOM), a less-agentive subject/agent and a less-patientive patient (both STAT), and a more patientive patient (ACC). I like the alternation of STATs two roles.

What sorts of grammatical voices does this lang indulge in?

It can be argued that a 'past tense' is simply a derivation to a new verb which has semantics of a past tense or even that it's a compount verb with a verb that means 'to past'.

You could make this argument about any language's past tense morphemes...but to do so would be perverse! Why take such a convoluted view rather than just saying, 'the language has past-tense morphemes'? What is it about the language that recommends this analysis?

Transitive stative verbs are also called copulae and have their predicate also in the stative case.

That's a very non-standard use of the term "copula" and I would consider having second thoughts about it. And can you elaborate on the case marking for the predicate? I normally think of case marking applying to nouns, and if you're applying it to entire predicates...what does that look like, exactly?

There is a term for what you're calling "nuance": illocutionary force.

[TehranHamburger]

Interesting MSA. Rather than calling it fluid-S, I'd say it's split-S and fluid-O.

What I see here, the way I'm making sense of this, is that you have four core roles: a more-agentive subject/agent (NOM), a less-agentive subject/agent and a less-patientive patient (both STAT), and a more patientive patient (ACC). I like the alternation of STATs two roles.

What sorts of grammatical voices does this lang indulge in?

Well, voice implies an inflexion that makes the grammatical subject the patient rather than the agent. As this language completely blurrs the line between inflexion and derivation. You will simply derive to a new verb which has an inverted meaning for a passive voice. Another thing is that it is always possible to not only drop the object but also the subject of the sentence which effectively creates some applications of a passive voice.

It can be argued that a 'past tense' is simply a derivation to a new verb which has semantics of a past tense or even that it's a compount verb with a verb that means 'to past'.

You could make this argument about any language's past tense morphemes...but to do so would be perverse! Why take such a convoluted view rather than just saying, 'the language has past-tense morphemes'? What is it about the language that recommends this analysis?

You can't because they aren't verbs in their own right that have a full set of inflexions. For isntance, take verb like 'to drive'. Which can derive a participle 'driving', the past tense is 'drove', but you cannot have a participle 'droving' This is the difference between an inflexion and a derivation. The past tense in this sense has every quality of being a verbal stem in itself which can itself be derived to nouns, other verbs, adjectives and so on.

Transitive stative verbs are also called copulae and have their predicate also in the stative case.

That's a very non-standard use of the term "copula" and I would consider having second thoughts about it. And can you elaborate on the case marking for the predicate? I normally think of case marking applying to nouns, and if you're applying it to entire predicates...what does that look like, exactly?

Well, it just happens to be that copulae in effect come down to stative verbs which can take two arguments. Which are verbs like 'to be' or 'to look like' or 'to smell like'. Which are also copulae in English. It should be noted that in English something like this happens as well 'I smell good', vs 'I smell well', an adjective vs an adverb. If an adjective is used it seems to have some copulative qualities. 'good' in this sense does not modify the verb but rather seems to function as a predicate to 'I', unlike 'well'.

Case marking for adjectives is actually something that happens in many languages. You're typically told that a copula takes both arguments in the nominative case (in classical grammar) but this isn't entirely true, it takes both arguments in the same case. Which 99% of the time is the nominative. But consider the Latin sentence: dico marcum esse bonum. I say that Marcus is beautiful, or more literally 'I state Marcus to be beautiful'. One of the rare cases of both arguments of a copula being accusative.

Case markings in Latin however aren't clitics and are applied to nouns and not to phrases. In this language you would have marcus-STAT beautiful-STAT be-COP as an entire phrase be a stative object of something someone says. So you'd get: I marcus-STAt beautiful-STAT be-COP-STAT say

[Ser]

You can't because they aren't verbs in their own right that have a full set of inflexions. For instance, take a verb like 'to drive'. Which can derive a participle 'driving', the past tense is 'drove', but you cannot have a participle 'droving' This is the difference between an inflexion and a derivation. The past tense in this sense has every quality of being a verbal stem in itself which can itself be derived to nouns, other verbs, adjectives and so on.

Okay, you still didn't answer the question. Yes, no participles is derived in English from the past tense stem, like the *droving example you give, but how does this bear on your analysis of the past tense in your conlang's verbs as "derivations"?

So far it seems to me that you just have irregular past inflections in the verbs, whose bases (stems) you can also take to derive stuff from (like how in Latin you can derive infinitives from both present and perfect bases: uīu-ere live-PRES.INF from the present base uīu-, uīx-isse live-PRF.INF from the perfect base uīx-). Same goes for your passives, the verbs seem to just have irregular passive inflections.

I mean, you could analyze the perfect inflections of Latin as verbs derived from the present inflections, but to do so seems unnecessary,compare to saying they have irregular bases...

Case marking for adjectives is actually something that happens in many languages. You're typically told that a copula takes both arguments in the nominative case (in classical grammar) but this isn't entirely true, it takes both arguments in the same case. Which 99% of the time is the nominative. But consider the Latin sentence: dico marcum esse bonum. I say that Marcus is beautiful, or more literally 'I state Marcus to be beautiful'. One of the rare cases of both arguments of a copula being accusative.

No generalization exists for all languages for how case marking for predicative adjectives happens ("classical grammar"...?): in Standard Arabic, predicative adjectives are always in the nominative if there's an instance of zero copula, but always in the accusative if there's an actual copula, regardless of what the subject's case is. A copula takes both arguments in whatever cases a language sees fit.

[Pinetree]

Code: Select all

man-NOM pizza-ACC eat <-> the man eats the pizza
man-NOM pizza-STAT eat <-> the man eats (from) the pizza[/quote]

It's acceptable (if biblically archaic) to say "the man eats [i]of[/i] the pizza", and I believe that carries the same distinction.

e: http://youtu.be/Tzis9M3F5J0?t=1m4s

[TehranHamburger]

You can't because they aren't verbs in their own right that have a full set of inflexions. For instance, take a verb like 'to drive'. Which can derive a participle 'driving', the past tense is 'drove', but you cannot have a participle 'droving' This is the difference between an inflexion and a derivation. The past tense in this sense has every quality of being a verbal stem in itself which can itself be derived to nouns, other verbs, adjectives and so on.

Okay, you still didn't answer the question. Yes, no participles is derived in English from the past tense stem, like the *droving example you give, but how does this bear on your analysis of the past tense in your conlang's verbs as "derivations"?

Because that's the definition of a derivation as opposed to an inflexion. A derivation creates a new stem of a word altogether, which may be derived itself, an inflexion does not.

So far it seems to me that you just have irregular past inflections in the verbs, whose bases (stems) you can also take to derive stuff from (like how in Latin you can derive infinitives from both present and perfect bases: uīu-ere live-PRES.INF from the present base uīu-, uīx-isse live-PRF.INF from the perfect base uīx-). Same goes for your passives, the verbs seem to just have irregular passive inflections.

Not sure how you arrive at irregular since I haven't even given any actual words yet. Latin past forms are inflexions in any sense because they do not generate new verbal stems which themselves have every form of a verb.

To give an absurd example. You can grammatically have a 'quadruple past form' if you want, semantically it doesn't make a lot of sense but you can have 'drive-PAST-PAST-PAST- -PAST'

I mean, you could analyze the perfect inflections of Latin as verbs derived from the present inflections, but to do so seems unnecessary,compare to saying they have irregular bases...

Nope, because they don't have all forms of a verb themselves. It's the definition of the difference between an inflexion and derivation. An inflexion is a form of a word based on its grammatical function, a derivation is a new stem itself which is potentially in a different part of speech but needn't be. In Finnish it is extremely productive to derive verbs to new verbs for instance: 'nähdä/to see' -> näki/he saw' (inflexion), yet 'näkyä/to be seen/visible' is a new verb in its own right with 'näkyi/he was seen/visible'. Or 'syödä/to eat' -> 'söi/he ate' and 'syöttää/to feed' -> 'syötti/he fed'.

Case marking for adjectives is actually something that happens in many languages. You're typically told that a copula takes both arguments in the nominative case (in classical grammar) but this isn't entirely true, it takes both arguments in the same case. Which 99% of the time is the nominative. But consider the Latin sentence: dico marcum esse bonum. I say that Marcus is beautiful, or more literally 'I state Marcus to be beautiful'. One of the rare cases of both arguments of a copula being accusative.

No generalization exists for all languages for how case marking for predicative adjectives happens ("classical grammar"...?): in Standard Arabic, predicative adjectives are always in the nominative if there's an instance of zero copula, but always in the accusative if there's an actual copula, regardless of what the subject's case is. A copula takes both arguments in whatever cases a language sees fit.

True, but I'm addressing the point that case markings supposedly don't apply to the predicates of copulae. Which they tend to.

Classical grammar's just a term for how some prescriptivists model English after Latin which nowadays is less than completely accurate. ('It is I' rather than 'me'')

[WechtleinUns]

This looks really interesting! I'm especially interested in the flexibility of the clitic-system. I'll admit, I didn't understand all of it completely, but it looks similiar to systems I've seen/used before. Also, you're using case marking! Yes! At long last, I don't have to see another poly-agglutinative conlanguage!(Unless those have somehow become 'out', in the time I was away from the forum.)

There's lot's of good information in your opening post, so I'll just be wading through it all for a bit. Thanks, TehranHamburger! :D

[TehranHamburger]

This looks really interesting! I'm especially interested in the flexibility of the clitic-system. I'll admit, I didn't understand all of it completely, but it looks similiar to systems I've seen/used before. Also, you're using case marking! Yes! At long last, I don't have to see another poly-agglutinative conlanguage!(Unless those have somehow become 'out', in the time I was away from the forum.)

Well, it is very poly agglutinative, extremely very. Like I said, it blurrs the line between derivation and inflexion.

Honestly, I think I'm going to further develop this language in this very thread, transparent conlang developing should be a pretty interesting thing. I'm actually sort of making this up as I go along:

animacy:

Animacy destinctions are kind of cool. So I'm going to make the active marker available only for animate concepts or things perceived as animate for the sake of the conversation. Which kind of makes sense since inanimate objects don't tend to have volition. For inanimate objects, another concept has to be used.

Code: Select all

man-ACT dog-STAT see-ACT
camera-STAT dog-INSTR see-STAT

The stative intransitive variant of 'to see' in this sense doesn't actually mean 'to see' and might be translated as 'detect'. Seeing implies some kind of conscious awareness or intend.

Apart from that, I'm going to give animate objects only a grammatical plural marker which active verbs agree with in their subject. Inanimate nouns have an optional collective marker which may be used for emphasis but does not grammatically change the number which is always considered singular for inanimate nouns. Adjectives agree in animacy and number.

Distance, person, and pronouns.

I'm going to give it an extremely weak form of 'person', in effect technically everything is third person. First person semantics can be achieved by using an animate proximal. In effect saying 'This walks' can be interpreted as 'I walk'. Second/third depends on context based on distal and indexal distances. Typically indexal ('that over there') can be used for third person and distal ('that') can be used for second person but this line is very blurred. 'Person' in this sense is typically continued in a conversation. If the speaker referred to himself with 'this', this may further in the conversation be used for the speaker, effectively becoming second person.

'pronoun like' nouns can be used to destinguish between people and serve as pronouns.

Enclitics which mark distance also agree with animacy and number and can also stand alone.

Adverbial cases:

The enclitics to mark adverbial cases such as instrumentals and locatives are to some extend polysynthetic and can be combined with each other to change nuance. When these enclitics are used adjectivially they agree with the animacy of the noun they modify. If they are used adverbially they agree with the activeness of the verb

- a simple genetive enclitic which serves a mostly adjectivial role. It is also identical to the accusative case possibly betraying a shared origin.

Code: Select all

'man-GEN book' <-> 'the book of the man'.

- a standard locative which can be translated as 'at', but also as 'as' depending on context and can even serve as 'since'. It is not at all that difference from the Finnish essive case. Also serves as a temporal clause.

Code: Select all

'this-ACT child-AT play-INF love-PAST-ACT' <-> 'I loved to play as a child'
'this-ACT home-AT play-INF love-PAST-ACT' <-> 'I loved to play at home'

- another locative which can better be translated as 'in' or 'during'.

Code: Select all

'prox-ACT weekend-IN play-INF love-PAST-ACT' <-> 'I loved to play during weekends'
'war-COL-IN-EMPH law-COL-STAT silence-STAT-BECAUSE' <-> 'for during war, the laws are silent'

- a general instrumental marker which describes the means by which something is done or even a cause of something, can also be used to form material adjectives. Translated as 'through' 'by', 'from', 'with'

Code: Select all

wood-INSTR plate <-> a wooden plate
'all holy-COL-INSTR-DISJ, enemy-there-indexal-STAT-INTER-EMPH dist-ACT see-ACT' <-> 'By all that is holy, do you see that enemy over there?!?'
prox-ACT dist-ACC bare hand-INSTR kill-FUT-ACT <-> I will kill you with my bare hands
prox-STAT honour-GEN code-INSTR live-STAT <-> I live by my code of honour

- commitative marker, translated as 'with' or 'near' or 'together' with or even 'and'.

Code: Select all

rome-COMM city <-> a city near rome
prox-ACT sister-COMM walk-ACT <-> I walk with my sister
prox-ACT dist-IN-COMM ever-IN-TO live-INF want-ACT <-> I want to live together with you forever (IN-COMM implies more intimacy than just COMM)

- absentive marker signalling 'without'

- Most of these can further be modified by directional markers like to and from. IN-TO of course means 'into' IN-FROM means 'out of'. They can also be modified by markers carrying nuances like 'under' or 'above'.

Next up, I might even work on phonology and make actual words.

[TehranHamburger]

Okay, phonology. I decided to make a very rich system of constant gradation and umlaut which is meant to be historically plausible. For inspiration I decided to look to Sanskrit, Finnish, Old English and Latin.

Syllabic structure:

A syllable can contain one or two morae. A two-moraic syllable is called a heavy syllable, a one moraic one a breve syllable, this is important for constonant gradations. A breve syllable is of the form (C)V(C). A heavy syllable is of the form (C)V(S)(C) where S can be any sonorant including a vowel. Two vowels in a syllable are realized phonetically as long vowels or diphthongs but phonemically are simply a succession of two vowels. If the next syllable starts with the same consonant as the older syllable ended on it is germinated.

Vowels:

Decided to stick to a low amount of vowels. We have father. bet, /i/, bot and /u/. e and i are considered recessive vowels, a, u and o are considered dominant vowels which is important in umlaut and morphology in general.

constonants:

Aspiration is phonemic while voicing is not. Aspirated stops are simply written as voiceless stops in English are.

stops: g, k (x), b, p (f), d, t (þ)

fricatives: h (voiced h), s (z)

approximants: r, j , l, v (as in Finnish or Dutch/German w)

nasals: m, n, q (as in the velar nasal)

Allophony rules:

- k, p, t are realized as x, f, þ in the coda of a syllable. iknu is realized as [ixnu].

- h and s are realized voiced intervocalically

Assimilation rules:

- nasals before stops assume their qualities. so always -mb-, -nd- and -qg-, same with aspirated variants.

- -k(t/d/p/b)- -> -h(t/d/p/b)-
- -t(p/b) -> s(p/b)
- r,j,l,v in the coda of a syllable become e, i, o and u respectively

Contraction rules:

- A syllable cannot have 3 sonorants in succession, only two, in which case the recessive vowel is first deleted, if there is no recessive vowel the first vowel is deleted. For instance 'goiri' means dog, its plural is 'gorjan' because 'goirjan' is illegal and the i is the recessive vowel.

Consonant gradatin rules:

Consonant gradation applies in the face of a breve syllable. The follwing gradations occur in that case:

- -ds- -> -dd-
- -td- -> -dd
- -dd- -> -d-
- -tt- -> -t-
- -d- -> -r-

- -gh- -> -gg-
- -kg- -> -gg-
- -gg- -> -gg-
- -kk- -> -k-
- -g- -> -Ø-

- -pb- -> -bb-
- -bb- -> -b-
- -pp- -> p
- -b- -> -v-

For instance, katsaan means 'persons', it's singular form is 'kadda' (person) instead of 'kadsa' as 'sa' is a breve syllable forcing the transformation.

Umlaut rules:

Recessive vowels are weak to take over qualities of vowels in the next syllable. If the first dominant vowel of the next syllable is an u then e will become i, if the first dominant is an a or o, then i will become e. For instance 'Moidi' means 'cat', cats becomes 'Moedjan'.

As in, it becomes extremely hard to still recognize words at first.

[Hallow XIII]

Interesting MSA. Rather than calling it fluid-S, I'd say it's split-S and fluid-O.

What I see here, the way I'm making sense of this, is that you have four core roles: a more-agentive subject/agent (NOM), a less-agentive subject/agent and a less-patientive patient (both STAT), and a more patientive patient (ACC). I like the alternation of STATs two roles.

What sorts of grammatical voices does this lang indulge in?

Well, voice implies an inflexion that makes the grammatical subject the patient rather than the agent. As this language completely blurrs the line between inflexion and derivation. You will simply derive to a new verb which has an inverted meaning for a passive voice. Another thing is that it is always possible to not only drop the object but also the subject of the sentence which effectively creates some applications of a passive voice.

No, actually, voice implies shifting the role of the focus between S, A and P away from its default position. Let's not forget the middle, the antipassive, the reflexive, the...

[TehranHamburger]

Interesting MSA. Rather than calling it fluid-S, I'd say it's split-S and fluid-O.

What I see here, the way I'm making sense of this, is that you have four core roles: a more-agentive subject/agent (NOM), a less-agentive subject/agent and a less-patientive patient (both STAT), and a more patientive patient (ACC). I like the alternation of STATs two roles.

What sorts of grammatical voices does this lang indulge in?

Well, voice implies an inflexion that makes the grammatical subject the patient rather than the agent. As this language completely blurrs the line between inflexion and derivation. You will simply derive to a new verb which has an inverted meaning for a passive voice. Another thing is that it is always possible to not only drop the object but also the subject of the sentence which effectively creates some applications of a passive voice.

No, actually, voice implies shifting the role of the focus between S, A and P away from its default position. Let's not forget the middle, the antipassive, the reflexive, the...

Well, clearly, this is a definition thing. But I've always learnt that a 'voice' implies an inflexion. Some languages manage passiveness without voices. For instance in Finnish and Japanese, passives aren't voices, you derive a completely new verb which inverts the meaning. siirtää -> 'to move (something else)', siirtyä -> 'to be moved, to move (yourself)'. Theoretically you could derive siirtyä again into siirtyttää which literally means 'to make something be moved' or 'to move (something else). These are passive and causative derivations, not voices in my book.

Again, it's a definition thing though.

Anyway:
Okay, let's start with giving some of the initial morphomes form and using template nouns.

Active marker:

The clitic that marks a noun phrase as active is -ka. It is rarely applied to non animate noun phrases and if it is it personifies them such as a small child talking about their plush dolls. A couple of model nouns:

Code: Select all

gali (child) -> gaoka. Stem is kalj. Contracted to galka finally to gaoka.
kadda (person) -> kaddaka.
gaojan (children) -> gaojaqka
kadsaan -> kadsaaqka ->

Stative marker:

-Ø or optionally -ini, in rare cases, usually the stative case is unmarked. If it is ever marked, it is usually on animate nouns.

Code: Select all

mudda (stone) -> mudda
kadda -> kadda/kadsaini

accusative marker:

For shits and giggles, the accusative marker is different for animate and inanimate noun phrases. For inanimate phrases it is always identical to the genitive, for animate noun phrases it is identical to the active. The genitive marker is -ta

Code: Select all

gali -> gaoka
mudda -> muddata
kadsaan -> kadsaaqka
kogi (tree) -> kohta

Active marker on verbs:

The marker which marks verbs as active is -no.

Code: Select all

kaddaka teehno <-> the person moves (out of his own volition)
kadsaini/kadda tiig <-> the person moves / the person is moved
kogi tiik <-> the tree moves
kaddaka kogi maesno <-> the person sees the tree
gamera maid <-> the camera watches

tense markers on verbs:

-ip for past, -ik for future.

Code: Select all

kaddaka tiikipno <-> the person moved (out of his own volition)
kadsaini/kadda tiikik <-> the person will move / the person will be moved
koki tiikip <-> the tree moved
kaddaka koki maidikno <-> the person will see the tree
gamera maidip <-> the camera watched

simple derivation suffixes for verbs

(this is where we see these things are derivations, not inflexions)

- causative: -tai (to cause to x)

Code: Select all

- gali murdda -> the child dies
- gaoka murddano -> the child ends his life
- kaddaka gaoka murddataikno -> the man will murder the child
- kaddaka goaka murdsaiktaino -> the man causes the child to die in the future. (reversing the order of ik and tai makes a causative verb out of murdsaik (to die in the future/to will die).

- passive: -noe, reverses object and subject

[TehranHamburger]

More on nominal morpholgy.

As hinted above, plural markers for animate nouns is -an. I also take something back I did above. I forgot that I wanted to make active verbs agree with the subject in number and distance so that's what I'm going to do. Distal markers come after the plural marker and are -di for proximal, -ni for distal and duo for indexal on animates as well as. -huo, -nuo and -duo for inanimates.

There is also a collective marker -um, using this automatically makes something inanimate. The difference between plural and collective can be considered as 'persons' to 'people' or 'christian' vs 'christendom'. Collective markers can also be applied to inanimates. As in 'a/the religion' vs simply 'religion'.

Code: Select all

kadda (person) -> kadsaan (persons) -> kadsaum (people)
kaddani (this person, sometimes I) -> kadsaanni  (these persons) -> kadsaunni (this people)
kaddadi (that person), kadsaanduo  (those persons [over there])

kogi (tree) -> kogjum (trees/forrest)
kohvo (this tree)
kohnuo (that tree)
kohduo (that tree (over there)
kogiuqhuo (this forrest)
kohoum (the trees here, illustrating a different meaning if the order between -huo and -um is switched)

Adjectivial agreement.

Adjectives agree with the number of animate nouns, adding -a in singular and -an in plural

Code: Select all

porddi mudda <-> big stone
pordsea kadda <-> big person
pordsean kadsaan <-> big persons

verbal agreement:

Active verbs agree with their nominative argument in number, stative verbs show no agreement. For singular subjecs, the active marker on verbs is -no, for plural it is -nun.

Code: Select all

pordsea kaddaka kogi maesno <-> the big man sees the tree
kadsaaqka porddi kogjum maisnun <-> the big men see the forrest

Contuining aspect

The continuing aspect of a verb replaces the present continuous as well as perfective aspects and marks a duration of an action. It is formed by -udsa which defaults to -udda in a lot of cases due to the breve syllable:

Code: Select all

gaoka gattrano <-> the child walks
gaoka gattrauddano <-> the child is walking

gaoka gattraepno <-> the child walked
gaoka gattraipuddano <-> the child has been walking
gaoka gattraudsaepno <-> the child was walking

gaoka gattraekno <-> the child will walk
goaka gattraikuddano <-> the child will have been walking
gaoka gattraudsaekno <-> the child will be walking

participle derivation

more complicated things than just verbs may derive to participles. Any sentence without a subject may. The basic suffix to derive to participle is -eim. The tense and aspect of the verb itself determine the meaning of the participle.

Code: Select all

kaddaka gaoka murddataeno <-> the man kills the child
gaoka murddataenoema kadda <-> child killing man
kaddaka kogjum raahno <-> the man loves the forest
kogjum raahnoima gali <-> forest loving child
galini murdsaip <-> the child died
murdsaepeeman galjan <-> the children that died.
murdsaudsaikeeman galjan <-> the children that will be dying

infinitive derivation:

infinitives simply take the verbal stem and affix -ja. They're mostly used for forming concatenative verbs.

Code: Select all

dika ellaja haddano <-> I want to live
kadsaum murddaja bosda <-> a man can die (kadsaum instead of kadda is used because this statement applies to all men and not a specific one).

refixive derivation

An active verb can be derived to a reflexive verb which simply means 'to x oneself' by adding -va. As such murdda means dying and is static. Murddataeno means killing and is active and murddataivano is active and means 'to kill oneself' or 'to commit suicide'.

Code: Select all

gali virdsaiqguek murdsaudda <-> the child is dying from poison
gaeka suerddagu murddataivaepno <-> the child killed himself with a sword
koirka lahdatai ehtauddano <-> the dog drinks the milk
kaddaka koirka lahdagu ehtataeno <-> the man feeds the dog milk.
ka koirka ehtataeno <-> the dog is gettng fed

Adjectivial/adverbial clitics.

These clitics when used adjectivially agree with the animacy and number of the noun like they normally would with a/an. Furtheremore they also agree with the activity of the verb if used as adverbials. Gaining the ending -j in the case of active verbs. I've also decided to revisit the use of -ta as a stative marker for inanimates and instead make it -tai, since it's meant to historically be a genitive used that way which shows alignment with an active verb.

- instrumental: -gu, used to denote the means by which something is done, also used to create material adjectives as well as in some cases the cause of something (with, through, by, due to, from)

Code: Select all

kehdium suerddagu ella <-> a knight lives by the sword

- locative: -ne, used for temporal and locative clauses as well as essive functions as well as a limited causal use. (as, at, in, since)

Code: Select all

deka gaonei beeldaja hadsaipno <-> I wanted to play as a child
deka tomunei nikuai ellaja haddano <-> I want to live at home with you
di, haitaa ni, haitaane <-> I am happy, since you are happy

- commitative: -kua, used to say soemthing is in the company of something. (with, together with, near, by)

Code: Select all

korkkuaa gali <-> a child with/and its dog
di amiuqkua murdsaik <-> I will die in the company of the friends
amiuqkuaa kadsaum murdda <-> a man's friends die with him

- absentive: -nao, ('without')

Code: Select all

suerddanao kehdium nihli <-> a knight without his sword is nothing
deka neka araunnao murddataikno <-> I will kill you without weapons
gaonao kadda, ellautnao kadda <-> a man without his child is a man without a life
galjunnao kadda, ellautnao kadda <-> a man without children is a man without a life

Adverbial clitics can also be extended by directional markers 'tu' for 'towards', 'ek' for 'from' 'sa' for 'in'. For instance 'to rome' would be 'romanitu', using an instrumental with ek implies more of a cause than a means

Code: Select all

gali virdsaiqguek murdsaik <-> the child will die from poison
deka sisbanitu vennaja haddano <-> I want to go to my sister
di, haitaa ni, haitaaneek <-> I am happy, because you are happy
duo murdsaepeema diguek <-> he's dead because of you.

[WechtleinUns]

Well, it is very poly agglutinative, extremely very. Like I said, it blurrs the line between derivation and inflexion.

Honestly, I think I'm going to further develop this language in this very thread, transparent conlang developing should be a pretty interesting thing. I'm actually sort of making this up as I go along:

Haha, no worries. My conlang, Teune, is actually very similiar in terms of blurring the line between polyagglutination and isolation. Although I must say that it looks like your language is a lot more developed. I'll be keeping tabs on this conlang. I might even want to learn it!

[TehranHamburger]

Well, it is very poly agglutinative, extremely very. Like I said, it blurrs the line between derivation and inflexion.

Honestly, I think I'm going to further develop this language in this very thread, transparent conlang developing should be a pretty interesting thing. I'm actually sort of making this up as I go along:

Haha, no worries. My conlang, Teune, is actually very similiar in terms of blurring the line between polyagglutination and isolation. Although I must say that it looks like your language is a lot more developed. I'll be keeping tabs on this conlang. I might even want to learn it!

Well, it's just a start, I'm making it up as I go along, don't have a lot of words and mostly a sketch of the grammar.

Anyway, I'm going to actually swap things around. I said before I was making the accusative case resemble the genitive to betray a common origin but it makes far more sense the stative case and genitive have a common origin. It can be compelling that a stative verb without intend is basically 'of the box it moves' versus 'the human being moves' same with when they are used as objects. 'I eat of the bread' vs 'I eat the bread'.

To that end, I'm essentially going to reverse the morphology of the stative and accusative case:

- The stative case can be unmarked. Or marked with -ta in the case of inactive verbs and -tai in the case of active verbs.
- The accusative case gains a new marker: -de
- The genitive is marked by -ta or can be unmarked in certain cases:

Code: Select all

- kehdeka rahdea(taa) gali/gaetai maesno <-> the knight sees the child of the king
- kehdeka rahdea(taa) gaede murddataekno <-> the knight will kill the child of the king
- kehdi/kehdeta murdda  <-> the knight dies

Also, some idioms:

Code: Select all

mennidiguek <-> in my opinion <-> mind-ANIM-PROX-INSTR-FROM <-> 'by/from this mind'
sudadikuasaek <-> with empathy/concern <-> heart-ANIM-PROX-COMM-IN-FROM <-> out of with this heart

[TehranHamburger]

Language history:
As it looks now. I've envisioned the language to have evolved from a nominative-accusative like language where the nominative and accusative were syncretic for inanimate. Adverbial use of a genitive-like marker has evolved over time in another verbal argument to create impersonal verbs. Literally saying like 'of the dog, it moves' rather than 'the dog moves' or creating a partial object when using it in lieu of an object. 'The man sees of the dog' rather than 'the man sees the dog'. However since adverbial cases agree with the animacy of the subject which no longer exists in the former case, it has developed into 2 different endings for both situations. The genitive is historically also an ending that can easily be dropped and implied by context.

- NOM: -ka (active subject)
- ACC: -de (total object)
- STAT: -ta/-Ø (stative subject)
- PART: -tai/-Ø (partial object)

In historical times, this was:

- NOM (animate) -ka
- NOM (inanimate) / ACC -de

-STAT/PART isn't marked in a lot of cases, think of it as a zero relative or zero copula.

Over time, the use of the syncretic nominative for inanimate subjects fell out of use but it can still be seen in fixed expressions and idioms. 'mennihuode kadraudda' for instance is archaic for 'My mind is walking' and means 'I can't keep focussed' but in modern language is as ingrammatical as 'methinks' without understanding the etymological origins of the. language. In modern language it would be expressed as 'mennihuo(ta) kadraudda'.

[TehranHamburger]

Colloquial language vs formal:

In vernacular use, effective 1/2 person personal pronouns have formed which are never used as such in formal use where they are fluid. In colloquial use they may be rigid.

Code: Select all

kaddi <-> 'I' from kaddadi (this person)
kaandi <-> 'we', from kadsaandi (these persons)

kadni <-> 'thou' from kaddani (that person)
kaanni <-> 'you', from kadsaanni (those persons)

Colloquial use also uses the distal particle as a definite article. In formal use it can only be used as a stressed definite article. In various cases the distal particle has also supplanted the indexal participle.

In colloquial use, a copula is sometimes in between both its arguments. This never happens in formal use where the copula is at the end of the sentence or at the start when made disjoint or accentuated.

Adjectives and verbs in colloquial do not always agree with number. The collective marker can also function as a plural marker on inanimate nouns and is rarely used on animate nouns.

The accusative case is often used in place of the nominative. Especially on inanimate nouns used with active verbs. This is never allowed in formal language where they must be declined as if they were animate or an alternate construct must be used.

Code: Select all

formal:
virdsain(ta) kaddagutu murddataip <-> poison caused the death of the man
virdsaiqka kaddade murddataipno <-> poison killed the man (personifying it as an animate object)
kaddaka gaede murddataipno <-> the man killed a child

informal:
virddainde kaddade murddataip <-> poison caused the death of the man
(sometimes)
virddainde kaddade murddataipno <-> poison killed the man (personifying it as an animate object)
(even rarer)
kaddade gaede murddataipno <-> the man killed the child

Consonant gradition is also sometimes not properly applied in informal language.