What are your favorite determiner systems?

[Apeiron]

Hey folks,

What is your favorite system for determiners, from either Nat or Con langs?

Thanks!

[Radius Solis]

My favorite determiner system? Well, I suppose that would have to be what I did in one of my own conlangs, Jamna Kopiai. In that language "Determiner" is not a word class, but rather a syntactic position, to which all sorts of elements can be moved that would otherwise be postnominal modifiers. Deictics, adjectives, numbers/quantifiers, possessive phrases, and so forth. Details here. I have no idea if any natlang has a very similar system, but I sorta doubt it.

[Viktor77]

I like Latvian's system. Also Czech's. Every variation of t+vowel is some kind of determiner as there are so freaking many of them. Very cool

[Astraios]

Lakota's system kicks Latvian's butt.

It (sort of) does with a "hypothetical indefinite article" what French does with the subjunctive mood:

Dis-lui qu'un homme est là. = Wičháša waŋ él yaŋká čha ečíya yo.
Tell him that there's a (specific) man there (who really is there).
Dis-lui qu'un homme soit là. = Wičháša waŋží él yaŋká čha ečíya yo.
Tell him that there's a (hypothetical) man there (who may or may not be there).

...and it has two negative indefinite articles, used in negative sentences with a concrete and an abstract NP respectively. And also an anaphoric definite article:

wičháša kiŋ the man
wičháša k'uŋ the (aforementioned) man

Then there's a relativizing article, which functions in exactly the same way as any other article, except it makes the preceding word or phrase into a clause:

Wičháša waŋ héčhuŋ. A man did that.
Wičháša kiŋ héčhuŋ. The man did that.
Wičháša čha héčhuŋ. It was a man who did that.

And there's also the unknown-topic article (how would one call it?), which marks a topic that is unknown to the speaker or the listener:

Táku waŋláka he? What did you see?
Táku waŋží waŋláka he? Did you see anything/something? (< hypothetical indefinite)
Táku kiŋ waŋláka he? Did you see that thing? (< definite)
Táku čha waŋláka he? What is it that you saw? (< relative)
Táku héči waŋláka he? Did you see the thing that I don't know what it was? (< unknown topic)


And the demonstratives are fun for two reasons: firstly, because they're the only class of word whose position in the phrase doesn't change their meaning or render them ungrammatical; they can either immediately precede or immediately follow the NP:

wičháša kiŋ lé this man
lé wičháša kiŋ this man

...and secondly because they squish onto adverbial roots and give them a point of reference:

to- interrogative
e- the one, the proper, the original
le- this, specific, proximal
he- that, specific, neutral
ka- that, unspecified, indefinite, distal
iyé- relating to sb or smth else

Added to the root -khel in xyz way, you get:

tókhel in what way, how
ečhél in the right way
léčhel in this way
héčhel in that way
kákhel in that (unspecified) way
iyéčhel in the same way as sb/smth else

[finlay]

My favorite determiner system? Well, I suppose that would have to be what I did in one of my own conlangs, Jamna Kopiai. In that language "Determiner" is not a word class, but rather a syntactic position, to which all sorts of elements can be moved that would otherwise be postnominal modifiers. Deictics, adjectives, numbers/quantifiers, possessive phrases, and so forth. Details here. I have no idea if any natlang has a very similar system, but I sorta doubt it.

I didn't understand what you were trying to get at in your link, but as far as i'm aware this is quite similar to topicalisation. Possibly the reverse of, because topicalisation tends to introduce new material, whereas definiteness tends to reintroduce old material.

[Apeiron]

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the replies so far.

[Ser]

Dis-lui qu'un homme soit là. = Wičháša waŋží él yaŋká čha ečíya yo.
Tell him that there's a (hypothetical) man there (who may or may not be there).

I don't think the French says that, but rather "tell him that a man should/must be there", being hypothetical in that he currently isn't. At least judging by the semantic difference between Spanish dile que un hombre está ahí / que hay un hombre ahí vs. dile que un hombre esté ahí / que haya un hombre ahí.

[Legion]

Yeah "Dis-lui qu'un homme soit là" is not grammatical, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

[roninbodhisattva]

I'm a big fan of the determiner systems found in a lot of Salish languages.

[Drydic]

I'm a big fan of the determiner systems found in a lot of Salish languages.

Care to explain for those of us without access to info on them?

[Radius Solis]

My favorite determiner system? Well, I suppose that would have to be what I did in one of my own conlangs, Jamna Kopiai. In that language "Determiner" is not a word class, but rather a syntactic position, to which all sorts of elements can be moved that would otherwise be postnominal modifiers. Deictics, adjectives, numbers/quantifiers, possessive phrases, and so forth. Details here. I have no idea if any natlang has a very similar system, but I sorta doubt it.

I didn't understand what you were trying to get at in your link, but as far as i'm aware this is quite similar to topicalisation. Possibly the reverse of, because topicalisation tends to introduce new material, whereas definiteness tends to reintroduce old material.

Unlike in topicalization, the noun phrase doesn't move. The point is that any noun, in any location in a sentence, has a determiner position immediately to its left, as part of the language's standard NP template. FIlling the position makes the noun definite. Demonstrating with English words:

I kick cat green = "I kicked a green cat", i.e. I kicked a cat, which is indefinite, the fact it was green is extra information.
I kick green cat = "I kicked the green cat", i.e. you can identify by color which cat I kicked.

[Astraios]

Yeah "Dis-lui qu'un homme soit là" is not grammatical, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

Hmm. Is "Dis à Pierre qu'il soit là" grammatical? Either meaning "Tell Pierre that he (Pierre) is there", or "Tell Pierre that he (Jean) is there (even though Jean isn't)"?

[Ser]

Yeah "Dis-lui qu'un homme soit là" is not grammatical, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

It is ungrammatical? Following Spanish it would be, it just happens that it wouldn't mean what Astraios was trying to say, and hence I pointed it out.

Yeah "Dis-lui qu'un homme soit là" is not grammatical, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

Hmm. Is "Dis à Pierre qu'il soit là" grammatical? Either meaning "Tell Pierre that he (Pierre) is there", or "Tell Pierre that he (Jean) is there (even though Jean isn't)"?

Same thing, following Spanish it's grammatical but it wouldn't mean what you're trying to say: dile a Pedro que esté ahí would be 'tell Peter that he (Peter) should/must be there", and dile a Pedro que él (Juan) esté ahí would be 'tell Peter that he (John) should/must be there'. Judging by the example above, I've no idea whether it's grammatical in French or not...

[Legion]

Well, maybe not strictly ungrammatical, but it definitively sounds weird and awkward. I'd expect "que" + indicative for a statement, or "de" + infinitive for an order: "Dis-lui qu'il est là" (Tell him he's here) and "Dis-lui d'être là" (Tell him to be there).

The construction "dire" + que + subjunctive as an order is possible with some verbs, but with "être" it sounds weird without at least an additional temporal indication: "Dis-lui qu'il soit là à 8 heures" (Tell him to be there at 8), and I still think that sound very odd compared to "Dis-lui d'être là à 8 heures."

My grammar says that after a statement verb, the subjunctive is used for injunctive phrases, but outside of some common imperative examples like "Dis-lui qu'il vienne" (tell him to come), most of these constuctions sound odd to me. For instance the grammar gives this example: "Je dis qu'il parte" (I say that he be leaving (or something)), but while this is theorically grammatical, I would never produce such a sentence, prefering like "Je dis qu'il doit/peut partir" (I say that he must/can leave) or "Je lui dis de partir" (I tell him to leave); so it is probably to be regarded as an archaic construction outside of some specific cases.

[Astraios]

That's interesting, because it was my (non-native) linguistics module professor who said that the subjunctive makes it hypothetical, as in "(Jean n'est pas encore là, mais) dis à Pierre qu'il (Jean) soit là," as if you're telling the person to lie to Pierre about Jean's being there.

Anyway, it wasn't something I had heard from others or would have used myself before she told us about it though, so maybe she just a) misexplained it and b) neglected to tell us that it's archaic.

[Apeiron]

My favorite determiner system? Well, I suppose that would have to be what I did in one of my own conlangs, Jamna Kopiai. In that language "Determiner" is not a word class, but rather a syntactic position, to which all sorts of elements can be moved that would otherwise be postnominal modifiers. Deictics, adjectives, numbers/quantifiers, possessive phrases, and so forth. Details here. I have no idea if any natlang has a very similar system, but I sorta doubt it.

I didn't understand what you were trying to get at in your link, but as far as i'm aware this is quite similar to topicalisation. Possibly the reverse of, because topicalisation tends to introduce new material, whereas definiteness tends to reintroduce old material.

Unlike in topicalization, the noun phrase doesn't move. The point is that any noun, in any location in a sentence, has a determiner position immediately to its left, as part of the language's standard NP template. FIlling the position makes the noun definite. Demonstrating with English words:

I kick cat green = "I kicked a green cat", i.e. I kicked a cat, which is indefinite, the fact it was green is extra information.
I kick green cat = "I kicked the green cat", i.e. you can identify by color which cat I kicked.

So green switches from adjective to determiner. That's part of the quandary i'm having. The barrier between adjective and determiner is porous. Determiners are adjective-like in that the describe and specify, but some determiners can't appear as straight up adjectives. That's why i want to know about systems other than English, to get ideas. Swedish does something like "bok" = book, "boken" - the book. i like that approach. But i want real adjectives to be separate words that follow the noun.

"A green cat" is like the way kids say "random". "I kicked some random cat that happened to be green." Fascinating, Captain. They are using random as "indefinite article"

Would it be accurate to call 'the green' a determiner phrase? Do you guys have a term for that?

Working on this taught me that possessive marking turns a noun into a determiner. Building a language seems to be an effective way to learn about languages.

Offtopic, but interesting: Firefox highlighted that you spelled topicalization with an s and a z. Heh.

[ná'oolkiłí]

So green switches from adjective to determiner. That's part of the quandary i'm having. The barrier between adjective and determiner is porous. Determiners are adjective-like in that the describe and specify, but some determiners can't appear as straight up adjectives. That's why i want to know about systems other than English, to get ideas. Swedish does something like "bok" = book, "boken" - the book. i like that approach. But i want real adjectives to be separate words that follow the noun.

Note that I've only taken one semester of syntax, so things might be different from a more advanced perspective, but I don't think you could call green here a determiner. The function of a determiner is to give deixis and to show argumenthood; it is a closed functional category. Since determiners head the DP (determiner phrase, whose complement is the NP) there can only be one per DP. Adjectives, on the other hand, are optional, can occur many times, and are an open lexical category. The Jamna Kopiai system is very clever, but I imagine it is an instance of movement of the Adj to D position rather than Adj being generated in D. Furthermore, I'd expect it be possible to say something like "The big green field"—I only skimmed the article, so I don't know if such a case is covered, my guess is "green field big".

"A green cat" is like the way kids say "random". "I kicked some random cat that happened to be green." Fascinating, Captain. They are using random as "indefinite article"

Syntactically I'd still call random an adjective—if it were an article, it couldn't appear with some. Cf. *"I kicked some a cat".

Would it be accurate to call 'the green' a determiner phrase? Do you guys have a term for that?

The DP is all of "the green field". The DP is headed by the determiner and its complement is an NP. I don't think the green could be grouped together as constituents of anything. Bracket diagrams aren't always the clearest, but trees are such a pain to draw on the board.
So "the green field" is [_DP the [_NP [_AdjP green] field]].
I'd expect the Jamna Kopiai example to be [_DP green_i [_NP field [_AdjP t_i]]] (the t stands for trace and marks the original position of a moved element)

Working on this taught me that possessive marking turns a noun into a determiner. Building a language seems to be an effective way to learn about languages.

An interesting way to express definiteness I've come across is in verbal person marking. Compare the following examples from the Bantu language Chingoni. In objects at least (the article I found this in only talks about object marking), an object marker and an explicit object DP mark definiteness, while no object marker marks indefiniteness (an object marker must occur when the object DP is elided).

• Va-geni va-u-guli m-gunda
  CLASS2-guest CL2.SUBJ-CL3.OBJ-bought CL3-farm
  "The guests bought the farm"
  
  Va-geni va-Ø-guli m-gunda
  CLASS2-guest CL2.SUBJ-Ø-bought CL3-farm
  "The guests bought a farm"

[Ser]

The construction "dire" + que + subjunctive as an order is possible with some verbs, but with "être" it sounds weird without at least an additional temporal indication: "Dis-lui qu'il soit là à 8 heures" (Tell him to be there at , and I still think that sound very odd compared to "Dis-lui d'être là à 8 heures."

My grammar says that after a statement verb, the subjunctive is used for injunctive phrases, but outside of some common imperative examples like "Dis-lui qu'il vienne" (tell him to come), most of these constuctions sound odd to me. For instance the grammar gives this example: "Je dis qu'il parte" (I say that he be leaving (or something)), but while this is theorically grammatical, I would never produce such a sentence, prefering like "Je dis qu'il doit/peut partir" (I say that he must/can leave) or "Je lui dis de partir" (I tell him to leave); so it is probably to be regarded as an archaic construction outside of some specific cases.

But then that's what Spanish does, not what Astraios said the construction means... Yo digo que se vaya 'I say that he should/must leave', etc. Question: can je dis qu'il parte (<subj.) really mean "I say that he can leave"?

That's interesting, because it was my (non-native) linguistics module professor who said that the subjunctive makes it hypothetical, as in "(Jean n'est pas encore là, mais) dis à Pierre qu'il (Jean) soit là," as if you're telling the person to lie to Pierre about Jean's being there.

Nay according to Spanish usage... It would still be with the indicative: Juan no está ahí pero dile a Pedro que (sí) está ahí (not *...que esté ahí).

Anyway, it wasn't something I had heard from others or would have used myself before she told us about it though, so maybe she just a) misexplained it and b) neglected to tell us that it's archaic.

I would go for a)... I like the verb "to misexplain" a lot btw, although I don't think I've seen it before.

[Legion]

But then that's what Spanish does, not what Astraios said the construction means... Yo digo que se vaya 'I say that he should/must leave', etc. Question: can je dis qu'il parte (<subj.) really mean "I say that he can leave"?

Well, since this is a sentence I would not produce, I'm not fully sure how to translate it, but the second part is supposed to be injonctive, so it is more like something "I say: "let him leave"", but in direct instead of indirect style; I guess that can be translated as "can" in some contexts, but generally yeah, more like "must/should"; it would be "can" as in "is allowed to", "has the right to", rather than as "has the possibility to", "is able to" though.

[Astraios]

I like the verb "to misexplain" a lot btw, although I don't think I've seen it before.

I may have invented it.

[Apeiron]

What are the dimensions/arguments of determiners?

1) definiteness

[TomHChappell]

What is a "determiner system"?

[Apeiron]

What is a "determiner system"?

How a language handles determiners, i'd guess. The difference between "a cat" and "the cat". Some languages handle it like an adjective, some make it a suffix. Some determiner systems have a structure/pattern, some appear more arbitrary.

[TomHChappell]

What is a "determiner system"?

How a language handles determiners, i'd guess. The difference between "a cat" and "the cat". Some languages handle it like an adjective, some make it a suffix. Some determiner systems have a structure/pattern, some appear more arbitrary.

Thanks.

While I have a good general idea what a determiner is,
I have only the vaguest notion what a "determiner system" is.
Is it just the collection of all the language's determiners? In those languages that only have two, say, or in those in which there's no structure or pattern among them?

Do possessive pronouns count as determiners? I'd think so.

How about demonstratives?

I can think of two good systems of demonstratives:
"here, there, yonder" for "near, intermediate, remote";
"hic, haec, hoc" for "near me, near you, near him".

How about distinguishing visible from invisible? In-reach from not-in-reach? Uphill from downhill?

And of course there's grammatical number. Demonstratives, for example, can be in singular or plural or dual.

Some languages distinguish specific/referential from nonspecific/nonreferential via an article or some other explicit determiner, but don't so distinguish definite from indefinite specific.

Other languages distinguish definitie from indefinite an article or some other explicit determiner, but don't so distinguish specific/referential indefinite from nonspecific/nonreferential.

Are those the kinds of things we're talking about?

And, of course, both articles and demonstratives can vary for gender.

Possessive pronouns may vary for the gender of the possessor, or for the gender of the possessum (la chose possédée).

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

What are my favorites?

I like best those that distinguish something some other language doesn't; especially, some other language that I'm more familiar with; especially, my native tongue, English.

I like for conlangs to distinguish both of two features that natlangs distinguish just one of.

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

What if verbs must agree with the pragmatic status (definiteness vs indefiniteness, topichood, focushood, focus-of-empathy aka point-of-view, focus-of-attention, specific/referential vs not) of one or two or three of their participants?
Would that be determiner-like?
If the subject (or whatever) of the verb weren't marked for definiteness, but the verb was marked to show whether its subject was definite, would that be part of "the determiner system"?

[Chuma]

I've been thinking of determiners too. My conlang uses articles, which is all fine, but it has the same boring old distinctions English has, pretty much. Except that definite plural is the default, and there is no option without article, so you would say "he likes the cakes" rather than "he likes cake".
I'd like to find something else, but not just some random exoticism. Can't think of anything good.

Do possessive pronouns count as determiners? I'd think so.

Could that perhaps depend on the language? In my conlang, you would say "the dog my" rather "my dog". Articles precede nouns, but adjectives and possessives don't. I would say that this means the possessive pronouns don't act as determiners. I'd be surprised if this wasn't found in natlangs.

"here, there, yonder" for "near, intermediate, remote"

Oh! I had somehow got the impression that "yonder" was the intermediate one. Now that explains a few things.