Pazmat

[Wattmann]

Well, when I first came here, I was ready to be all serious and nice, but then Darkgamma recogmized me and I ended getting into deep shit due to our old grudge,

Combine that with this forum's hostility to newbies, an eventually I just "snapped" and tried to be so violently hostile and trollish to get banned.

Except I didn't, and the high from being a cunt has just died down.

You could try to be nice, you know? And give your posts a look before you hit "submit" - it does wonders, especially when posting about your language.
Or leave the board - that works better than a ban.

[Chagen]

I really have no idea why I'm replying seriously to this, but here goes:
______________________________________________________________________________

Care to describe your cases further? How they're used, and also why you picked the names for them? From what you've said so far I'm a bit confused as to their actual uses, by their names they don't seem to correspond to their usual usages (I'm talking mostly about the absolutive as subject of 'ergative' verbs and ergative as subject of passive verbs here primarily, though if there's 'oddities' in the Nom/Acc usages feel free to discuss those as well), but without examples it's impossible to say anything for sure, of course.

Also, if you have both Nom/Acc and Erg/Abs alignments in different parts of the language, how is that handled in the verbal system? For example, is the verb give in the masked man gave the man a dog conjugated any differently in who was that masked man who gave the man a dog?

Okay.

The names from from when Pazmat was much different. As time went on, I added thigs to, and shoved the uses to Ergative and Absolutive. That is how they ended up with these immensly strange uses.

The Ergative's main feature is to form passive constructions:

Wen thi.
[1.SG.NOM see-1.SG.DEF]
"I see".

Wir thiya.
[1.SG.ERG see-INFIN]
"I am seen"

And relative clause:

Qixūx na wol thiya.
[Man-ERG REL 1.SG.ABSOL see-INFIN]
"The man who saw me"

The absolutive is used for ergative verb, as I said:

"Wol qunzji."
[1.SG.ABSOL fall-PST-1.SG.DEF]
"I fell."

As well as the relative clause thing mentioned above. 

Those are the main wierd cases, besides locative, which is used for obliques:

Xi Roxēm.
[in book-LOC]
"In the book."

Nothis Qixhīdh.
[above man-LOC]
"Above the man".

And as a dative:

Wen Roxos Gjmcīdh venu.
[1.SG.NOM book-ACC woman-LOC give-1.SG.INDEF]
"I gave a book to the woman".

Genitive is for simple genitive constructions:

"Yeda cor"
[sword-GEN blade]
"The sword's blade."

And compound nouns:

"Yedaqix"
[Sword-GEN-man]
"Swordsman".

The nominative and accusative are relatively normal.

I cannot anser your second question at this time, but I will work on an answer for it.

[finlay]

I really have no idea why I'm replying seriously to this, but here goes:
______________________________________________________________________________

Care to describe your cases further? How they're used, and also why you picked the names for them? From what you've said so far I'm a bit confused as to their actual uses, by their names they don't seem to correspond to their usual usages (I'm talking mostly about the absolutive as subject of 'ergative' verbs and ergative as subject of passive verbs here primarily, though if there's 'oddities' in the Nom/Acc usages feel free to discuss those as well), but without examples it's impossible to say anything for sure, of course.

Also, if you have both Nom/Acc and Erg/Abs alignments in different parts of the language, how is that handled in the verbal system? For example, is the verb give in the masked man gave the man a dog conjugated any differently in who was that masked man who gave the man a dog?

Okay.

The names from from when Pazmat was much different. As time went on, I added thigs to, and shoved the uses to Ergative and Absolutive. That is how they ended up with these immensly strange uses.

The Ergative's main feature is to form passive constructions:

Wen thi.
[1.SG.NOM see-1.SG.DEF]
"I see".

Wir thiya.
[1.SG.ERG see-INFIN]
"I am seen"

And relative clause:

Qixūx na wol thiya.
[Man-ERG REL 1.SG.ABSOL see-INFIN]
"The man who saw me"

The absolutive is used for ergative verb, as I said:

"Wol qunzji."
[1.SG.ABSOL fall-PST-1.SG.DEF]
"I fell."

You mean, intransitive verbs?

To be honest, it does seem quite interesting and realistic, and I'm not quite sure what I'd actually call those two cases – I don't think erg/abs is quite right for the names. If you use the abs for the subjects of intransitive verbs, then you have a tripartite system, with a different case for subjects and objects of transitive verbs (your nom/acc) and subjects of intransitive verbs (your abs) – and I think I would call the three erg/acc/abs instead of nom/acc/abs. I would be inclined to call your ergative some kind of passive case, perhaps. I haven't heard of this sort of thing in natlangs, though.

Still, I think you need to work on your tact... you know, calling everyone fuckers doesn't really help your cause much.

[Chagen]

Thanks.

However, the absolutive is not used with just intransitive verbs. It's used with ergatives. An example with "vanya" (to cook):

Gjmcri vanzja.
[woman-ABS cook-PST-3.SGF]
"The woman cooked."

Gjmc cebvos vanzja.
[woman.NOM ceb-PLU-ACC cook-PST-3SGF]
"The woman cooked the cebs*".

*: The ceb is a fruit that grows in Pazmat's eastern valleys. It has a near metal-hard exterior that must be cooked off in order to eat the fruit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative_verb

[Pole, the]

Wir thiya.
[1.SG.ERG see-INFIN]
"I am seen"

I is patient here (it undergoes the action; except if the construction is valid only for the verb to see and not the default passive construction).
Ergative is not a case of patient.

Gjmcri vanzja.
[woman-ABS cook-PST-3.SGF]
"The woman cooked."

The same.

The woman is agent here.
Absolutive is not a case of agent.

---

Does every intransitive clauses use absolutive?

[Chagen]

Does every intransitive clauses use absolutive?

Nope. Those use nominative.

Your comments about the cases are why I am hesitant to name them that, but I can't figure out a new pseudo-Latin name for them.

[Pole, the]

(Please correct me, if I am wrong somewhere.)

So, for intransitive verbs:
· the case A (so-called nominative) is used as a subject with, say, type I
· the case B (sc. absolutive) is used as a subject with, say, type II

And, for transitive verbs:
· the case A is also an agent for transitive verbs (both types)
· the case C (sc. accusative) is a patient for transitive verbs (both types)
· the case D (sc. ergative) marks subject-patient for transitive verbs, type III, in passive
· the case B marks subject-agent for transitive verbs, type IV (or ergative), in antipassive

---

A.
The case of subject (intransitive) and agent (tr. active). nominative

B.
The case of subject (intransitive), also subject-agent in antipassive voice of some verbs. something like nominative, maybe nominative II

C.
The case of patient (tr. active). accusative

D.
The case of subject-patient in passive voice of many verbs. something like absolutive or just "passive case"

[Chagen]

That's mostly correct, except the antipassive. I wouldn't say that Pazmat has an antipassive (though it can e replicated somewhat). What made you come to that conclusion?

[Pole, the]

Hmm... That's about ergative verbs: when you have both arguments, you put agent in Nom and patient in Acc. But then of you have only an agent - as it's single argument - it is no longer in Nom, but in the second case. That reminds the idea of antipassive, even if marked on the noun, not on the verb.

Maybe that's not antipassive, but something similar.

Gjmcri vanzja.
[woman-ABS cook-PST-3.SGF]
"The woman cooked."

Gjmc cebvos vanzja.
[woman.NOM ceb-PLU-ACC cook-PST-3SGF]
"The woman cooked the cebs*".

[Chagen]

Ah. That's makes sense.

[Pole, the]

BTW, if gjmcri is [dʑmkri], I like its sound.

[Chagen]

It is, indeed.

The plural is Gjncri, it uses an irregular, old style of forming plurals with ablaut. The normal style today is to add "-vo". This -vo tends to collapse into other case endings:

Yed-vo-os becomes "Yedvos", for example.

Other forms are:

Lengthing the first vowel (Rox "book", Rōx "books")

Hardening a final sound (Qix "Man", Qic "Men")

First consonant mutation (VERY rare, and slowly being phased out due to analogy (Peth "God", Ceth "Gods")


-----
I think I may actually consider the Ergative verb construction to be an antipassive of some sort. However, this may be over-loading the morphology.

[Chagen]

Matzjikantor.
[Mat-zj-i-ko-bant-to-ar]
[Speak-PST-1.SG-PERF-start-SUB-DESIDER]
"If I had wanted to start talking".

Thiorebentu.
[Thi-or-fe-bent-u]
[See-FUT-2.SG-CESS-OPA]
"You will stop your wish to see/You will stop wishing to see".

A taste of the near limits of Pazmat's TAM system. You can also see the fusion of morphemes very clearly here.

[Chagen]

I made this big post on another forum and I might as well post it here too:

Anyway:

Pazmat distinguishes 5 aspects and 5 moods. They are affixed after the person marker in the order of "Aspect-Mood". Multiple aspects and mulitple moods can be on the same verb.

The 5 aspects of Pazmat:

Aorist: Not really an aspect, this nonetheless denotes when a verb has no aspect marked:

"Mati."
[Mat-i]
[Speak-1.SG]
"I speak"

Perfect: The first "real" aspect. This one is just like a normal perfect in other languages. It is denoted with "-co".

"Matico."
[Mat-i-co]
[Speak-1.SG-PER]
"I have spoken"

Imperfect: Just a normal imperfect. Is somewhat like a progressive as well. Denoted with "-ō".

"Medhfeō"
[Medh-fe-ō]
[Ask-2.SG-IMPER]
"You are asking."

Inchoative: Describes that an action is beginning, starting, commencing, or what have you. Denoted with "-bant".

"Plnscibant."
[Plnsc-i-bant]
[Patrol-1.SG-INCH]
"I am beginning to patrol."

Cessative: Opposite of the inchoative, the cessative describes that an action is finished, ending, or whatever (depending on the other aspects it is with). Denoted with "-bent".

"Conobent."
[Con-o-bent]
[Think-3.SGM-CESS]
"He stops thinking."

"Plnsczjacent."
[Plnsc-zj-tha-co-bent]
[Patrol-PAST-3.SGF-PERF-CESS]
"She has finished (her) patrolling."

Ladent cjidōbent.
[ladent cjid-ō-bent]
[ladent be.3.SGNEU-IMPER-CESS]
"The Ladent is ending."

Continuative/Durative: Describes that an action is going on and will go on. Best translated as "keeps" if used with the imperfect, and as "continues to" if used with the perfect. Denoted with "-tto".

"Medhatto."
[Medh-tha-tto]
[Ask-3.SGF-DUR]
"She's always asking."

"Matōtto."
[Mat-o-ō-tto]
[Talk-3.SGM-IMPER-DUR]
"He keeps talking."

Qetanc ghescjicotto.
[qetanc ghes-cjid-co-otto]
[qetanc play-3.SGNEU-PERF-DUR]
"The Ladent band continues to play."

------

Pazmat distinguishes five moods: Subjunctive, Opatative, Deotonic, Inferential, and Desiderative.

Subjunective: Like any other subjunctive. . Denoted with "-to".

"Torfeto."
[Tor-fe-to]
[Hit-2.SG-SUBJ]
"If you hit..."

Opatative: Wishes. Otherwise, nothing special. Also takes the duty of a conditional. Denoted with "-u".

"Matguxu."
[Mat-gux-u]
[Speak-3.PL-OPA]
"They wish to speak/They would speak."

If you want to say "X wishes that Y....", then use a relative clause with "Seya" (to have).

"Siu nan ozjoco."
[Se-i-u nan o-zj-o-co]
[have-1.SG-OPA REL do-PST-3.SGM-PERF]
"You wish he did it/You wish that he had done it/You wish that he did it."

Deotonic: Denotes the way things should be. Denoted with "-im".

"Plnsceōm!"
[Plnsc-fe-ō-im]
[Patrol-2.SG-IMPER-DEO]
"You should be patrolling!"

Inferential: Asks questions. Denoted with "-sō".

"Iicj sethasō?"
[iicj se-tha-sō]
[what have-3.SGF-INFER]
"What does she have?"

"Oguxōsō?"
[o-gux-ō-sō]
[do-3.PL-IMPER-INFER]
"Are they doing it?"

Desiderative: Wants, never needs. Denoted with "-ar":

"Yedapazex uar!"
[yed-a-paz-ex u-ar]
[sword-GEN-person-ACC be.1.SG.INDEF-DESI]
"I want to be a fencer one day!"


-------

Man, that took FOREVER to type.

As a little note: Pazmat also has a negative mood, denoted with "-ix".

"Mato"--"He speaks."

"Matoix"--"He doesn't speak."

"Matocottix."
[mat-o-co-otto-ix]
[speak-PST-3.SGM-PER-DUR-NEG]
"He has not spoken for a while."

[Chagen]

Moving on to adjectives and adverbs! Don't worry, I'm working on the moods too, but I can't just ignore this after just finishing it.

Adjectives and adverbs are not very complicated in Pazmat.

Adjectives do not agree with their nouns in case or number (they were planned to, but I cannot make it look nice at all). They can be derived from other word classes by adding "-ni".

Adjectives (and adverbs, but more on them later) take 5 cases of comparison:

Comparative: X-er than... (*r/ir)

Superlative: X-est (*sur/usur)

Inferiorative: less X than.../not as X as... (*m/om)

Inferiorlative: least X (*rst/orst)

Equative: just as X as/equally X (*th/eth)

The endings depend on the adjective in question. If it ends with a vowel, said vowel is inserted where the asterix is. If the adjective ends in a consonant, it takes the second ending.

Therefore, "Dica" ("large/big") and Von ("strong/powerful") in the comparative are "Dicar" and "Vonir". Speaking of, this is their full inflection paradigms:

Dica: large
Dicar: larger
Dicasur: largest
Dicam: less large
Dicarst: least large
Dicath: equally large

Von: powerful
Vonir: more powerful
Vonusur: most powerful
Vonom: less powerful
Vonorst: least powerful
Voneth: equally powerful

"than" sentences simply use the locative:

"Yed vonir Pāzīdh cjid".
[sword.NOM powerful-COMP person-LOC be.3.SG.DEF]
"The sword is more powerful than the person."

There is a word meaning "than--it is "cwix", but is only used if there's a relative clause somewhere.

-----

Adverbs:

Adverbs can be formed from adjectives/nouns through two ways:

The first is to add "-us" to the end. This deletes ending vowels:

"Dica" (large) / "Dicus" (largely)

The second is to add "-arx", this still deletes ending vowels:

"Zjōni" (magical) / "Zjōnarx" (magically)

Adverbs can also take the same degrees of comparison as adjectives. The endings are almost exactly the same, except for the Inferiorlative, which uses "-ū" (this is mainly because the ending of "-orst" would result in absurdly long words). Using "Dica" and "Von" from before:

Dicus: largely
Dicusir: more largely
Dicusur: most largely
Dicusom: less largely
Dicusū: least largely
Dicuseth: equally largely

Vonarx: powerfully
Vonarxir: more powerfully
Vonarxur: most powerfully
Vonarxom: less powerfully
Vonarxū: least powerfully
Vonarxeth: equally powerfully

[Whimemsz]

I like the look of a lot of this. The fusion of TAM morphemes is a particularly nice touch, I think. It seems quite naturalistic in its details.

I wonder if you could explain the use of the aspects and moods a little more? Things like "perfect" and "subjunctive" and the like have quite broad meanings, and different languages use categories which are given those labels in somewhat different ways. What's "subjunctive" in one language might be "indicative" in another.

There is a word meaning "than--it is "cwix", but is only used if there's a relative clause somewhere.

Could you give an example?

[Chagen]

An example;

Moci nocir cwix Pazūx nan Itan averius prestzjoco dezja.
[Moci fast-COMP than Man-ERG REL 3.SGF.ABSOL previously beat-PST-3.SG-PERF run-PST-3.SGF]
"Moci ran faster than the man who had previously bested her."

Man that was a complicated sentence.

[Wattmann]

An example;

Moci nocir cwix Pazūx nan Itan averius prestzjoco dezja.
[Moci fast-COMP than Man-ERG REL 3.SGF.ABSOL previously beat-PST-3.SG-PERF run-PST-3.SGF]
"Moci ran faster than the man who had previously bested her."

Man that was a complicated sentence.

That's not particularly useful.

[Chagen]

And how?

It has a full gloss and translation.

The word <cwix> is used when the thing beig compares is not a single noun, but a whole clause. This is because the thing being compared normally has to be in Locative. However, a relative clause MUST be in the Erg-Absol system (cases don't stack in Pazmat). Therefore, the word "cwix" is used because there's no longer a word in the Locative to compare.

And now, you're just going to say "that doesn't make sense", but hey, I tried.

[Wattmann]

And how?

It has a full gloss and translation.

The word <cwix> is used when the thing beig compares is not a single noun, but a whole clause. This is because the thing being compared normally has to be in Locative. However, a relative clause MUST be in the Erg-Absol system (cases don't stack in Pazmat). Therefore, the word "cwix" is used because there's no longer a word in the Locative to compare.

And now, you're just going to say "that doesn't make sense", but hey, I tried.

GOD, you're so annoying when you say something like the last sentence.

You just gave us a sentence and a gloss - that's useless; you should explain the usage instead of just letting us figure it out and then telling us it's wrong later on.

[Chagen]

"And":

Another little tidbit of info. These little posts really help keep me motivated~

Anyway, if you want to say "X and Y" in Pazmat, you have not one, but three words to do:

"N" (it's just a syllabic /n/) is the most common. It has no soecial connontation. It just means "X and Y".

"R" also means "and", but is has the meaning "these two things are togther, but they're not really expected to be together..."

"Ce" means "these two things are together, as they should. Where there's smoke, there's fire".

An example:

"Gux Gjnc n Qic." ("There are women and men.")

"Gux Gjnc r Qic." ("Wierd. There's women and men there...")

"Gux Gjnc ce Qic." ("Well, there's men and women there, why wouldn't there be?)

[Ngohe]

Adjectives do not agree with their nouns in case or number (they were planned to, but I cannot make it look nice at all). They can be derived from other word classes by adding "-ni".

There are different kinds of adjectives that can be derived from the same noun. Suppose we have the nouns "X". What would "X-ni" mean? "Richly endowed with X"? "Pertaining to X"? "In the manner of X"? Or something else?

If you, say, have a word for "sun", would the derived adjective mean "sunny", "solar" or "sun-like"?

[Left]

-------------

[Chagen]

Adjectives do not agree with their nouns in case or number (they were planned to, but I cannot make it look nice at all). They can be derived from other word classes by adding "-ni".

There are different kinds of adjectives that can be derived from the same noun. Suppose we have the nouns "X". What would "X-ni" mean? "Richly endowed with X"? "Pertaining to X"? "In the manner of X"? Or something else?

If you, say, have a word for "sun", would the derived adjective mean "sunny", "solar" or "sun-like"?

How could I forget...

There are multiple ways of derivin adjectives. One of these is the aforementioned "-ni". It's the "normal" way of "pertaining to X".

"Oma" is "Sun". "Omani" is "sunny".

There's also "-tī". That's used for scientific terms. "Omatī" is "solar". The Pazmat Linguistical term for "Conditional" is "Sasjdotī", from "Sasjod", which means "The invisible and hypotheical link between two related events where the second one relies on the first one happening".

[Wattmann]

There's also "-tī". That's used for scientific terms. "Omatī" is "solar". The Pazmat Linguistical term for "Conditional" is "Sasjdotī", from "Sasjod", which means "The invisible and hypotheical link between two related events where the second one relies on the first one happening".

How did the "-tī" arise?
Why is there no <o> in "Sasjdotī"? The expected form is *"Sasjodtī" - which gives you some weird, unexplained vowel-null alterations.