Help your conlang fluency (2)

[jal]

It's a strange case which I called Averbialis for lack of a better term. It's used whenever you want to attach a suffix to a noun which turns the whole thing into an adverbial phrase, such as -gad (with), -du (for) or -fá (on top of).

I would say that's not an adverbial phrase, but a prepositional one. In which case it's a prepositional case.

Thanks for pointing that out. Glossing is something I'm still learning. Nobody ever taught me that in my linguistics classes

The ultimate guide.



JAL

[Travis B.]

It's a strange case which I called Averbialis for lack of a better term. It's used whenever you want to attach a suffix to a noun which turns the whole thing into an adverbial phrase, such as -gad (with), -du (for) or -fá (on top of).

I would say that's not an adverbial phrase, but a prepositional one. In which case it's a prepositional case.

This distinction is only meaningful in languages where adpositions can be used attributively. If this language has adpositions, and they can be used attributively, and this can also be used attributively, then it might make sense to call this, well, adpositional. But if this cannot be used attributively, then it would make the most sense to call this adverbial.

[jal]

This distinction is only meaningful in languages where adpositions can be used attributively.

I'm not sure I understand what that means. Can you give some examples?


JAL

[ObsequiousNewt]

I don't know if you mean this as a case, but, if so, it is usually referred to as a 'benefactive'.

It's a strange case which I called Averbialis for lack of a better term. It's used whenever you want to attach a suffix to a noun which turns the whole thing into an adverbial phrase, such as -gad (with), -du (for) or -fá (on top of).

It is not strictly necessary to mark these as adverbial. Non-grammatical cases act like adverbs (this is almost certainly an oversimplification, so feel free to correct me.) Those examples are comitative, benefactive, and superessive, respectively.

[Travis B.]

This distinction is only meaningful in languages where adpositions can be used attributively.

I'm not sure I understand what that means. Can you give some examples?

I thought I had some examples of languages (Semitic ones) where adpositions could only modify verbs, i.e. are adverbial, rather than being attributive, i.e. modifying nouns, but I am from looking back not quite as certain about this, so I will omit those examples.

So unless Qxentio's adverbial case nouns can modify other nouns, which they probably can't considering the name Qxentio gave them, what is gotten out of calling them prepositional vis-a-vis adverbial, when adverbial is probably a more precise name?

[Travis B.]

I have figured out how to say roughly attributive "adpositional" phrases in Xanínə without adpositions or lengthy relative verbs (verbs in Xanínə are always big and bulky).

I.e. The relative adjective is ⟨xō⟩, and whereas normally with verbs it is reduced to a prefix, where it is conjugated as a full adjective, agreeing with the noun modified, placed after it, and after that the existential verb with an applicative that would have been present is omitted; after that the attributive noun (nouns, typically combined with applicatives, take the role of adpositions in other languages), which frequently is in a genitive construction with another content noun after it.

[Travis B.]

Lecàttaǰe səllenavxēyətnúk nē lenálēlə xanína lámar.
[leˈtsɐtːadʒe sɨlːenɐʋχeːyɨtˈnuːk neː leˈnæːleːlɨ χɐˈniːnɐ ˈlæːmɐr]
I should write in Xanínə in here.

[jal]

I thought I had some examples of languages (Semitic ones) where adpositions could only modify verbs, i.e. are adverbial, rather than being attributive, i.e. modifying nouns, but I am from looking back not quite as certain about this, so I will omit those examples.

I have a bit of a problem with your terminology, especially "modify". Adpositions are the head of their phrase, rather than modifiers. A noun modified by an adjective still constitutes a noun phrase. A noun "modified" by an adposition does not. I'm not formally trained as a linguist, but as I have always understood, an adposition specifies the role the noun has in the clause. Some languages use cases instead of adpositions, but that shouldn't make a difference.

In this specific case, Qxentio has adpositional enclitics that attach to a noun, the noun having a special case, he marks ADV. I really see no reason to call that an "adverbial" case, when it could perfectly well be explained as an adpositional case.


JAL

[Boşkoventi]

I thought I had some examples of languages (Semitic ones) where adpositions could only modify verbs, i.e. are adverbial, rather than being attributive, i.e. modifying nouns, but I am from looking back not quite as certain about this, so I will omit those examples.

I have a bit of a problem with your terminology, especially "modify". Adpositions are the head of their phrase, rather than modifiers. A noun modified by an adjective still constitutes a noun phrase. A noun "modified" by an adposition does not. I'm not formally trained as a linguist, but as I have always understood, an adposition specifies the role the noun has in the clause. Some languages use cases instead of adpositions, but that shouldn't make a difference.

"Modify" probably isn't the best word to use here, but an entire adpositional phrase can itself "refer to" either a noun or a verb / whole sentence.

That man is sitting on a horse. - 'adverbial' use

vs.

The man on the horse is coming over here. - 'attributive' use (because "on the horse" modifies / describes "the man")

[jal]

"Modify" probably isn't the best word to use here, but an entire adpositional phrase can itself "refer to" either a noun or a verb / whole sentence.

Thanks for the clarification. However, I think that in traditional linguistics, in both cases "on the horse" is described as a PP, and in both cases "horse" is marked with the same noun case (called an adpositional case if it is only used with adpositions, and another case if it's used elsewhere, like an accusative, dative, genetive etc.), if the noun case depends at all on the preposition. Even for languages that only allow the first example, it's a PP, and so the case would be called "adpositional", and not "adverbial", unless it is possible to use a "bare" noun with the adverbial case, and that case is triggered by the phrase being used in an adverbial manner (e.g. "he is duck-walking", "duck" being marked with that case). In that case the adposition (in this case a clitic) doesn't trigger the case, so calling it "adpositional case" would be wrong. But in that case, I'd call it "oblique case" or the like, and propably not the "adverbial case".


JAL

[Travis B.]

"Modify" probably isn't the best word to use here, but an entire adpositional phrase can itself "refer to" either a noun or a verb / whole sentence.

Thanks for the clarification. However, I think that in traditional linguistics, in both cases "on the horse" is described as a PP, and in both cases "horse" is marked with the same noun case (called an adpositional case if it is only used with adpositions, and another case if it's used elsewhere, like an accusative, dative, genetive etc.), if the noun case depends at all on the preposition. Even for languages that only allow the first example, it's a PP, and so the case would be called "adpositional", and not "adverbial", unless it is possible to use a "bare" noun with the adverbial case, and that case is triggered by the phrase being used in an adverbial manner (e.g. "he is duck-walking", "duck" being marked with that case). In that case the adposition (in this case a clitic) doesn't trigger the case, so calling it "adpositional case" would be wrong. But in that case, I'd call it "oblique case" or the like, and propably not the "adverbial case".

To me at least, oblique case implies a system with two cases, with the other case being either nominative or absolutive, and in which said oblique case can be used for verb arguments. But if one has a system with more cases, but one of these cases is devoted solely to generic adverbial functions, then I would think that adverbial case would be more appropriate.

[Boşkoventi]

"Modify" probably isn't the best word to use here, but an entire adpositional phrase can itself "refer to" either a noun or a verb / whole sentence.

Thanks for the clarification. However, I think that in traditional linguistics, in both cases "on the horse" is described as a PP, and in both cases "horse" is marked with the same noun case (called an adpositional case if it is only used with adpositions, and another case if it's used elsewhere, like an accusative, dative, genetive etc.), if the noun case depends at all on the preposition. Even for languages that only allow the first example, it's a PP, and so the case would be called "adpositional", and not "adverbial", unless it is possible to use a "bare" noun with the adverbial case, and that case is triggered by the phrase being used in an adverbial manner (e.g. "he is duck-walking", "duck" being marked with that case). In that case the adposition (in this case a clitic) doesn't trigger the case, so calling it "adpositional case" would be wrong. But in that case, I'd call it "oblique case" or the like, and propably not the "adverbial case".


JAL

Well yes, "on the horse" is certainly a PP regardless of its role in a sentence, and if you had something like "horse-FOO on", -FOO could very well be called an adpositional case. However, I don't think that's what Qxentio is doing. He seems to be saying that gímaidu, for example, is composed of a stem, a case, and then another suffix after that to mark the exact role. So something like:
gíma-i-du
simplicity-(case)-BEN

If so, that's kinda weird. Not impossible, but weird. I guess it would make sense if -du, etc. were clitics (formerly postpositions) that govern an adpositional case. Otherwise, I'd probably just call each suffix a case according to its semantics (e.g. "benefactive case" for -(i)du), and maybe point out that they have a common element, which came from an earlier case suffix.

[jal]

I guess it would make sense if -du, etc. were clitics (formerly postpositions) that govern an adpositional case. Otherwise, I'd probably just call each suffix a case according to its semantics (e.g. "benefactive case" for -(i)du), and maybe point out that they have a common element, which came from an earlier case suffix.

It depends on whether between the clitic and the noun there may be other words, e.g. adjectives. Q hasn't given enough samples to deduce. If, for example, you can say:

cat-ADP-WITH

but also

cat-ADP black-WITH

It'd be a better analysis to call it an adpositional case and an adpositional clitic than to call it a circumfixing noun case.

Ray, mi fogot fi ray de Sajiwan. Bat!
Right, I forgot to write in Sajiwan. Bad!


JAL

[Travis B.]

Nəlxãyəttaǰe əkʼípə xapóltə āllémə kʼartəmómə ópa tonāllémə kʼartəmómə.
[ˈnɨlˈχɒːjɨtːɐdʒe ɨˈkiːpɨ χɐˈpʰoːltɨ æːlˈleːmɨ kɐrtɨˈmoːmɨ ˈoːpɐ tʰonæːlˈleːmɨ kɐrtɨˈmoːmɨ]
It is hard to speak about conlangs in our conlangs.

[alynnidalar]

Saru tofisidonsemir anar sipranil.
So we should create more words.

Enuin! Peladarnil ale'esolir! Peladarnil! Dıwulin sipran!
Verb! Sandhi! Phoneme! Linguistics!

[Travis B.]

tatúste ətréġə [tʰɐˈtʰuːste ɨtˈreːʁɨ] "noun" (lit. "thing word")
tatúste čətódə [tʰɐˈtʰuːste tʃʰɨˈtʰoːdɨ] "verb" (lit. "action word")
túste yâglávve [ˈtʰuːste jɒːgˈlæːʋːe] "adjective" (lit. "descriptive word")

[Cedh]

tatúste ətréġə [tʰɐˈtʰuːste ɨtˈreːʁɨ] "noun"
tatúste čətódə [tʰɐˈtʰuːste tʃʰɨˈtʰoːdɨ] "verb"
túste yâglávve [ˈtʰuːste jɒːgˈlæːʋːe] "adjective"

Buruya Nzaysa:

lɛydexo "noun / adjective" < Ndak Ta lewai dikon "thing-word"
lɛyuvi "verb" < Ndak Ta lewai aubai "active word"

(B.Nz. does not have a separate lexical class of adjectives)

[jal]

Fo ray, mi af nof woh de Sajiwan diconari im af sayn se "ling" kos dis ya yahn.
In fact, I've got many words in the Sajiwan dictionary marked with "ling" because of this thread.


JAL

[alynnidalar]

Aldo (sipranil ni dıwulin sipran) wufrakimuranol, luan pelid aldo sadarn.
They (the linguistics-related words) are very useful, and this thread is too.

[jal]

They (the linguistics-related words) are very useful, and this thread is too.

Yu les glos dis?
Can you gloss this?


JAL

[Pedant]

Hūampōu:

Mèzeum! Tō pōuyòmzōm kueiyin nìtéu noi?
Join-pr.pre.a / 2s speak.unison-pr.im.a word-TOP group.create Q
Agreed! What word do you use for "thread"?

[jal]

What word do you use for "thread"?

A mi, mi yus "yahn", im u woh fo Inggles woh "thread" o "rope" (dirayf fwom ""yarn").
For me, I'm using "yahn", which is the word for the English word "thread" or "rope" (derived from "yarn").


JAL

[Travis B.]

Xanínə

"thread" (on a forum), lit. "train" (e.g. of wagons), indicating a linear progression

abs. sg. cətór [tsʰɨˈtʰoːr]
obl. sg. cətórə [tsʰɨˈtʰoːrɨ]
abs. pl. cətàro [tsʰɨˈtʰɐro]
obl. pl. cətàromə [tsʰɨˈtʰɐromɨ]

[Travis B.]

Xanínə

"post" (n.), derived from "post" (v.)

abs. sg. ríltelə [ˈriːltelɨ]
obl. sg. ríltela [ˈriːltelɐ]
abs. pl. ríltəlo [ˈriːltɨlo]
obl. sg. rīltəlòmə [riːltɨˈlomɨ]

"poster" (n.), derived from "post" (v.)

abs. sg. reyàltəyə [reˈjɐltɨjɨ]
obl. sg. reyàltəya [reˈjɐltɨjɐ]
abs. pl. ríltayū [ˈriːltɐjuː]
obl. pl. rīltáymə [riːlˈtʰæːjmɨ]

"forum" (n.), derived from "post" (v.)

abs. sg. reyàltəmə [reˈjɐltɨmɨ]
obl. sg. reyàltəma [reˈjɐltɨmɐ]
abs. pl. ríltəmū [ˈriːltɨmuː]
obl. pl. rīltəmúmə [riːltɨˈmuːmɨ]

[finlay]

Hūampōu:

Mèzeum! Tō pōuyòmzōm kueiyin nìtéu noi?
Join-pr.pre.a / 2s speak.unison-pr.im.a word-TOP group.create Q
Agreed! What word do you use for "thread"?

tuyu, discussion/conversation (a nominalized version of "say")

Sepeigikuzantaltenke kugutaze fanselaisiza?
Why translate a specific and complex metaphor?