Polysynthetic Conlang
Polysynthetic Conlang
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlch ... g/cl1.html
What do you thing of the conlang I made? It is polysynthetic and is the only conlang I have ever seen to hav clicks in it. It also has rarely seen implosive consonants.
Mne//amaa ga@'o'amaifsqu s@a!omie.
Mne//a-ma-a ga-@'o'a-ma-i-fsqu s@a!o-mi-e.
write-1st.-past need-1st.-gen.-hand sleep-3rd.-fut.
I wrote so much that my hand needs to rest.
1st.=1st. person
3rd.=3rd. person
gen.=genitive case
I don't think anyone has made a conlang this cool.
What do you thing of the conlang I made? It is polysynthetic and is the only conlang I have ever seen to hav clicks in it. It also has rarely seen implosive consonants.
Mne//amaa ga@'o'amaifsqu s@a!omie.
Mne//a-ma-a ga-@'o'a-ma-i-fsqu s@a!o-mi-e.
write-1st.-past need-1st.-gen.-hand sleep-3rd.-fut.
I wrote so much that my hand needs to rest.
1st.=1st. person
3rd.=3rd. person
gen.=genitive case
I don't think anyone has made a conlang this cool.
- vohpenonomae
- N'guny
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 4:23 am
Re: Polysynthetic Conlang
I'll have to take a look. Something that seems odd on a cursory glance is that the language seems not to use object agreement markers (though that may have an explanation deeper in the grammar).
"On that island lies the flesh and bone of the Great Charging Bear, for as long as the grass grows and water runs," he said. "Where his spirit dwells, no one can say."
One of the hallmarks of poly languages is the marking of subject and object on the verb. While not absolutely necessary for comprehension, it greatly helps. E.g., in Mohawk, a word stem is made of a verb root and a noun root; the noun root is not inflected, so you need some indication of the person and number of the object--and this comes from the pronominal prefix (which for transitive expressions provides information on both subject and object). Another instance when object agreement markers are useful is when using free-standing objects. Object incorporation is always optional in Mohawk, e.g.; and if you have a free-standing object and subject both, you often need that object agreement marker to help you discern which free-standing noun is the subject and which the object.Eddy the Great wrote:It didn't seem to need them.I'll have to take a look. Something that seems odd on a cursory glance is that the language seems not to use object agreement markers (though that may have an explanation deeper in the grammar).
So I'd add a suffix to the verb to indicate the case, person, and number of the object? I had to figure out how to make a polysynthetic language without any help because there little information on them on the internet and almost no polysynthetic conlangs exist. All I could find was basically: polysynthetic languages are highly synthetic.
I'm an Indian enthusiast, and most of my own conlangs are polysynthetic, and grow from the poly languages I know. And you're right, there's damn little information on them out there; you really have to dig.Eddy the Great wrote:So I'd add a suffix to the verb to indicate the case, person, and number of the object? I had to figure out how to make a polysynthetic language without any help because there little information on them on the internet and almost no polysynthetic conlangs exist. All I could find was basically: polysynthetic languages are highly synthetic.
As for object agreement markers: yeah, create a table of affixes that signify the person, number, gender, etc. of objects, and give these affixes a place in the morphology. There's a lot of freedom here. Mohawk, an Iroquois language, uses fusional markers that encode details of subject and object (e.g., the marker yuk- indicates 3rd. pers. singular feminine subject and 1st pers. singular object). Cheyenne, an Algonquian language, (usually) uses prefixes to mark subject and suffixes to mark objects.
I don't have gender in my conlang and number is optional. Do you ahve any good sites to help me improve my conlang. I'm going to have to change the very basis of this language to fix this.As for object agreement markers: yeah, create a table of affixes that signify the person, number, gender, etc. of objects, and give these affixes a place in the morphology. There's a lot of freedom here. Mohawk, an Iroquois language, uses fusional markers that encode details of subject and object (e.g., the marker yuk- indicates 3rd. pers. singular feminine subject and 1st pers. singular object). Cheyenne, an Algonquian language, (usually) uses prefixes to mark subject and suffixes to mark objects.
I don't know of any sites that describe poly grammars on this level of detail. My best advice is to get a grammar of poly language. Or, as I've told others, you can wait until I conquer the morphology of N?yat?k?h, my own polysynthetic opus; I speak two poly languages myself, and know them inside and out, so I'll be able to provide some insights that a typical grammar doesn't.I don't have gender in my conlang and number is optional. Do you ahve any good sites to help me improve my conlang. I'm going to have to change the very basis of this language to fix this.
But, for now, think of object agreement markers as case inflections, only affixed to the verb instead of to the noun. (And you definitely will want to reconsider the optionality of number; one of big reasons that languages grammaticalize stuff like number and gender is to help tie things together--such as I described in the earlier post. E.g., if you have a two free-standing nouns, and you have three dimensions of distinction--person, number, gender--odds are that you'll always be able to always discern subject from object via those distinctions. Person, number, gender and other distinctions help us parse expressions.)
What would be a good language grammer to look at?But, for now, think of object agreement markers as case inflections, only affixed to the verb instead of to the noun. (And you definitely will want to reconsider the optionality of number; one of big reasons that languages grammaticalize stuff like number and gender is to help tie things together--such as I described in the earlier post. E.g., if you have a two free-standing nouns, and you have three dimensions of distinction--person, number, gender--odds are that you'll always be able to always discern subject from object via those distinctions. Person, number, gender and other distinctions help us parse expressions).
The Iroquois languages (Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Cherokee) are classic paradigms of polysyntheism; and also the Algonquian languages (Cheyenne, Ojibwa, Miami, Shawnee, Blackfoot, lots of others). But these languages are rather obscure and materials on them hard to find; you really have to search. My Mohawk grammar is by Nancy Bonvillain and my Cheyenne grammar by Wayne Leman. Grammars tend to be of a reference nature, and hence won't often include explicit discussion of topics like this; but you can try.Eddy the Great wrote:What would be a good language grammer to look at?But, for now, think of object agreement markers as case inflections, only affixed to the verb instead of to the noun. (And you definitely will want to reconsider the optionality of number; one of big reasons that languages grammaticalize stuff like number and gender is to help tie things together--such as I described in the earlier post. E.g., if you have a two free-standing nouns, and you have three dimensions of distinction--person, number, gender--odds are that you'll always be able to always discern subject from object via those distinctions. Person, number, gender and other distinctions help us parse expressions).
No object marker would be needed here, as the sentence is not transitive.K'ulatqsaksa.
K'ula-tqsa-ksa.
building-random_location_case-is.
He is somewhere around the building.
Let's say you add -sa to the end of this word (making it Kak'ula'ikemaasa), indicating that the object (building) is singular third person. Or, let's say that 'building' is masculaine, -sa could indicate that the object is singular, third person and masuline all three.Kak'ula'ikemaa.
Ka-k'ula-'ike-ma-a
Imperf-building-make-I
I have been making a building.
How would inflected nouns work? Should they still be incorporated? Won't this drive this conlang's degree of synthesis, around 3.95, to 4.95, which is impossibly high? How would this be handled?
Mne//amaa ga@'o'amaifsque s@a!omie.
Mne//a-ma-a ga-@'o'a-ma-i-fsqu-e s@a!o-mi-e.
write-I-past so_much_that-need-I-genitve-hand-future sleep(rest)-it-future.
I wrote so much that my hand will need to rest.
Invent a nominal morphology.How would inflected nouns work?
No reason why they can't be. Noyatukah, e.g., allows incorporation not just of objects, but of nominals in locatives ("upon the hill," e.g.) and the subjects of certain kinds of intransitive expressions. This is inspired by Mohawk morphology, which allows much of the same.Should they still be incorporated?
There's no theoretical upper limit on the degree of synthesis allowed; Mohawk is incredibly synthetic, e.g., and exhibits a large degree of fusion in its morphemes.Won't this drive this conlang's degree of synthesis, around 3.95, to 4.95, which is impossibly high? How would this be handled?
BTW, how are calculating "degree of synthesis" exactlty?
But there are 25 cases in my conlang. If there are 2 numnbers and 2 genders, that means there will be 100 case endings.In this case, a system of indicating person, number and gender on nouns. E.g., let's say the noun stem ohwair means 'tree'; add -on to it and you indicate that the noun is plural and neuter.
Never had a reason to do this; but where did you get the notion that 4.95 would be an impossible degree of synthesis? That's only c. 5 morphemes per word; Mohawk words regularly have 7+ morphemes per word.Eddy the Great wrote:You take a sample of text, count the words and morphemes, and devide the number of morphemes by the number of words.BTW, how are calculating "degree of synthesis" exactlty?
(But this formula will be foiled by fusionality of morphemes: some morphemes encode multiple meanings; so the degree of synethesis that you calculate in such a case will be lower than the actual degree.)
Keep the case markers separate from the gender/number markers.Eddy the Great wrote:But there are 25 cases in my conlang. If there are 2 numnbers and 2 genders, that means there will be 100 case endings.In this case, a system of indicating person, number and gender on nouns. E.g., let's say the noun stem ohwair means 'tree'; add -on to it and you indicate that the noun is plural and neuter.
So if -me is 2nd person sing. subject and -ni is 3rd person sing. object:
!akfikinimeaq?
!a-kfi-ki-ni-me-a-q
Hypo-airplane-use-3rd.(obj)-2nd.(sub)-past-question?
Would you have used the airplane?
Becomes:!akfikimeaq?
!a-kfi-ki-me-a-q
Hypo-airplane-use-you-past-question?
Would you have used the airplane?
!akfikinimeaq?
!a-kfi-ki-ni-me-a-q
Hypo-airplane-use-3rd.(obj)-2nd.(sub)-past-question?
Would you have used the airplane?
That works.Eddy the Great wrote:So if -me is 2nd person sing. subject and -ni is 3rd person sing. object:
Becomes:!akfikimeaq?
!a-kfi-ki-me-a-q
Hypo-airplane-use-you-past-question?
Would you have used the airplane?
!akfikinimeaq?
!a-kfi-ki-ni-me-a-q
Hypo-airplane-use-3rd.(obj)-2nd.(sub)-past-question?
Would you have used the airplane?
Let's distinguish between subject and object markers and subject and object morphemes. Usually, there are specific places within a morphology for subject and object markers--e.g., Cheyenne (usually) prefixes subject markers and suffixes object markers. This is to help avoid confusion. OTOH, incorporating languages generally don't allow incorporation of both subject and object morphemes simultaneously.Eddy the Great wrote:So can the subject and object now be incorporated in any order?