zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 4:40 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:48 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Houston, TX
For example, in IE languages you tend to do something like:

[noun phrase], [noun phrase], [...] AND [noun phrase]

There's also the enclitic -que used in Latin, as in:

Senatus Populusque Romanus

What other options are used? For example, I imagine there's probably some language where the conjunction is required in between each word. But I'm interested in other options: are there options where the conjunction agrees with the noun phrases it joins? Are there languages where the nouns have to be inflected in a certain way to be conjoined?

_________________
My conlang is Fyrthir.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 4:43 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Austin, TX, USA
In Malayalam, usually, you add a suffix to each noun phrase that's conjoined. So it's like [noun phrase]-[ʊm] [noun phrase]-[ʊm] [noun phrase]-[ʊm]...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 4:49 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:48 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Houston, TX
Vijay wrote:
In Malayalam, usually, you add a suffix to each noun phrase that's conjoined. So it's like [noun phrase]-[ʊm] [noun phrase]-[ʊm] [noun phrase]-[ʊm]...


Interesting. How would you handle nesting of conjunction in Malayalam? For instance: "ketchup and mustard, salt and pepper, and mayo and relish"

_________________
My conlang is Fyrthir.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Austin, TX, USA
I don't think you would.

EDIT: Actually, there is one trick you can use for that: "ketchup-[ʊm] mustard-[ʊm], salt-[ʊm] pepper-[ʊm], then mayo-[ʊm] relish-[ʊm]."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 5:24 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:43 pm
Posts: 352
Location: Iowa
Verbal/clausal conjunction and nominal conjunction may take different forms. Verbal is generally the same as clausal, but sometimes different, either with a three-way contrast or clausal versus verbal/nominal. It's fairly common to have an explicit nominal conjunction but mark verbal conjunction purely by juxtaposition.

Nominal conjunction is often identical to the adposition "with."

The line between "and" and "or," or further differentiation between the two, varies greatly between languages (page 30 w/source).

Someone mentioned on here a language where nominal conjugation inflects like a transitive verb, the first noun being the "verb's" subject and the second the object, but I don't remember what it was.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 5:47 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm
Posts: 364
Some languages seem to lack a word for 'and', such as Middle Egyptian, and just adjoin the words. I've seen this in Thai for closely linked words, like 'father and mother'. In Sanskrit, one can form dvanda compounds, where all but the last word lose their inflections.

The word for 'and' can affect the following word, e.g. Welsh a(c) is supposed to take the aspirate mutation on the following word, so 'pen and paper' is pen a phapur. The use of a preposition meaning 'with' is widespread amongst languages, and that can have all the effects that a preposition normally does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 6:26 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:48 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Houston, TX
vokzhen wrote:
Someone mentioned on here a language where nominal conjugation inflects like a transitive verb, the first noun being the "verb's" subject and the second the object, but I don't remember what it was.


I was just about to post this, it's Walman.

_________________
My conlang is Fyrthir.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 6:32 pm 
Boardlord
Boardlord

Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Posts: 3377
Location: In the den
Might be worth pointing out that in french, CONJ NP CONJ NP has a special meaning:

et Jean-Pierre et son frère = both Jean-Pierre and his brother
ou bon ou mauvais = either good or bad

Logically, one would expect that CONJ NP NP would be attested somewhere, but I can't find any examples by quick Googling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 4:06 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:49 am
Posts: 2316
Location: Bonn, Germany
zompist wrote:
Might be worth pointing out that in french, CONJ NP CONJ NP has a special meaning:

et Jean-Pierre et son frère = both Jean-Pierre and his brother
ou bon ou mauvais = either good or bad

Latin and Russian have that, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 2:16 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Posts: 639
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
There's and and there's and. Not all conjunctions are equal and the nuances can be quite tricky to point down.

Icelandic has no independent conjunction akin to English "yet", conflating it with en which primarily means "but". But Icelandic en can be used to form semi-dependent clarification clauses, usually translated into relative clauses in English or replaced by a dash:

Nýji starfsmaðurinn kom í gær en hann hafði áður unnið hjá PepsiCo
"The new employee came yesterday – he had previously worked for PepsiCo"

So that's weird.

Icelandic also has the conjunction enda which has no English equivalent, meaning something like "as", "granted that", "which as you know" or "which makes sense as" something like that. It's especially weird in that it demands V1 word order, moving the verb in front of the subject:

Nýji starfsmaðurinn kom í gær enda var samninginum hans hjá PepsiCo lokið
"The new employee came yesterday which makes sense as his contract was up at PepsiCo"

So that's also weird.

Latin had like four-five ands: -que, et, atque, ac, nec non. The last one's more like "and besides" and atque is sometimes more appropriately translated as "as well as" or "and moreover" but not always. It also had two ors, sed and aut. But it has no "yet" or "enda".

Greek has those particles like oun and de which are sort of like conjunctions but a little bit like discourse particles, too. And they appear as the second word in a sentence, breaking up even a noun from its article.

There's a lot that can be done with conjunctions…

_________________
vec


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 6:08 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm
Posts: 364
vec wrote:
Latin ... also had two ors, sed and aut.

Latin had two ors, vel and aut.

A vel B allows the possibility of A and B; A aut B doesn't. This distinction eventually vanished. A vel B could also be said A Bve; I'll let you decided if that's a third 'or'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 6:23 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm
Posts: 364
vec wrote:
Icelandic has no independent conjunction akin to English "yet", conflating it with en which primarily means "but". But Icelandic en can be used to form semi-dependent clarification clauses, usually translated into relative clauses in English or replaced by a dash:

Nýji starfsmaðurinn kom í gær en hann hafði áður unnið hjá PepsiCo
"The new employee came yesterday – he had previously worked for PepsiCo"

So that's weird.

Not really; it works like the Latin words for 'but', and is similar to the use of English but in mathematical proofs, which I have always assumed to be a calque on Latin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 9:05 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:05 pm
Posts: 434
Location: /ˈaɪ̯əwʌ/
Note also that Ancient Greek δέ can mean "and" or "but". This actually makes sense—the meaning of the sentence is often enough to tell you whether it is consistent with, or contrary to, the speaker's expectations.

_________________


Ο ορανς τα ανα̨ριθομον ϝερρον εͱεν ανθροποτροφον.
Το̨ ανθροπς αυ̨τ εκψον επ αθο̨ οραναμο̨ϝον.
Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2016 6:22 am 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:16 pm
Posts: 56
Location: Sweden
Haspelmath has a thing or two to say about conjunction cross-linguistically. Note that conjunction (with conjunctions and conjuncts) in his terminology specifically refers to conjunctive coordination (A and B). He uses coordination (with coordinators and coordinands) as the more general term, which also includes disjunctive coordination, or disjunction, (A or B) among other subtypes.
http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/coord.pdf

Haspelmath was also the editor "Coordinating Constructions", which happens to be volume 58 the John Benjamins Publishing Company series "Typological Studies in Language".

Regarding the order of coordinands, there are nine logically possible orders for binary coordination: A B, A co-B, A-co B, A B-co, co-A B, co-A B, co-A co-B, A-co B-co, A-co co-B, co-A B-co.

All orders are apparently attested in natlangs except co-A B. For the type A-co co-B, Haspelmath gives an example from Homeric Greek:

Atreídes te kaì Akhilleús
Atreus’s.son and and Achilles
‘Atreus’s son and Achilles’

For the type co-A B-co, he gives a Latin example:

et singulis universis-que
‘both for individuals and for all together’

However, at least the Latin example is what Haspelmath calls contrastive coordination, ie "both A and B", "either A or B" (compare the French examples above). I'm not sure if there are languages that uses the co-A B-co for more neutral coordination. I'm also not sure how the Homeric example should be interpreted.

It is also interesting to note that many languages distinguish natural conjunction and accidental conjunction. In natural conjunction, the conjuncts "habitually go together and can be said to form some conventionalized whole or ‘conceptual unit", e.g. ‘mother and father’, ‘husband and wife’, ‘boys and girls’, ‘bow and arrows’, ‘needle and thread’, ‘house and garden’ (his examples). I don't know if there are any language that uses different overt coordinators for the two, but natural conjunction may involve lack of overt marking (Thai, as mentioned above) or lack of intonation breaks. They may even form compounds (Sanskrit, as mentioned above).

In English, natural conjunction requires only one article (the house and garden) while accidental conjunction requires two (*the house and stamp collection; examples again from Haspelmath).

zompist wrote:
Logically, one would expect that CONJ NP NP would be attested somewhere, but I can't find any examples by quick Googling.
According to Haspelmath, that's actually the one order that's unattested.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group