Polysynthetic Conlang

[Glenn]

OK then; I have a quick question:

Qtaksak?meq?
Qta-ksa-k?-me-q
who-is-3SOA-2SSA-question.mood
Who are you?

Xeqtaql'?lameq?
Xe-qta-ql'?-la-me-q
want-what-own-3SOI-2SSA-question.mood
What do you want?

I note that in these examples, you include head markings both for "you" as subject (2SSA, which I interpreted as marking second-person animate subject), and for "who" or "what" as the object (3SOA/I--third-person animate/inanimate object). I take it, then, that the "question words" (who, what, etc.) act as objects in their own right, taking the place of the unknown features?

With regard to "who" or "what," this is similar to English, but I was quite intrigued to notice that "when", "where", "how", and "why" take object markings as well. It also made me suspect that I my interpretation of the abbreviations above might be mistaken: the marker -k?, used with the object "who" in the first sentence, is listed as 3SOA, and I took the "A" to mean "animate." However, the marker -la, used in all of the later questions (including "for whom" in the final example), is sometimes glossed as 3SOI, sometimes as 3SOA. Is there some subtle nuance that I'm missing? Thanks.

p@,
Glenn

[Mecislau]

I have a few examples of text in my conlang (it's name is N?yanla, btw). They are just random proverbs I use in all of my grammars for comparison. What do you think of them and am I doing this right?

?ēnrinshalitl?ya tsalh?norinsirabalwe?o. ?ēnrinkalīatl?ya tsalh?nosirabalwe?o.

?ēn-rin-shali-tl?-ya tsa-lh?no-rin-sirabal-we-?o. ?ēn-rin-kalīa-tl?-ya tsa-lh?no-sirabal-we-?o.

{sub}-no-know-in-2SSA {obj}-there-no-shame-3SSA-3SOI. {sub}-no-find_out-in-2SSA {obj}-there-shame-3SSA-3SOI

There is no shame in not knowing. The shame lies in not finding out.


Watlashpirāx tsarinsaparowa?a. ?ēnlhamkir?o??nwa xerinyofowya?a.

Watlashpirāx tsa-rin-saparo-wa-?a. ?ēn-lham-kir?o-??n-wa xe-rin-yofow-ya-?a.

Speech {obj}-no-sparrow-3SSA-3SOA. {sub}-{inc}-fly-out-3SSA {trans}-no-catch-2SSA-3SOA

The spoken word is not a sparrow. Once it flies out, you can't catch it


Tranyofāraxox?we tsarinotr?spē?iran?x?ya?o.

Tranyo-fāraxox?we tsa-rin-otr?spē-?iran?-x?-ya-?o.

Curved-path {obj}-no-drive-straight-on-2SSA-3SOI.

You can't drive straight on a twisting lane.


T?runwakir?o xewenōranitl?tlaraf?toyofowwa?o.

T?run-wakir?o xe-wenōranitl?tlaraf?to-yofow-wa-?o.

First-bird {trans}-worm-catch-3SSA-3SOI.

The early bird gets the worm


Sinil?fīan tsakhalink?istlashxexo.

Sinil?-fīan tsa-khalin-k?is-tlash-xe-xo.

Beginning-small {obj}-thing-great-from-3PSI-3POI.

From small beginnings come great things.


Tlashiph?lina ?ēnwalhashan?klhasithan?kwa. Tlashi?axasīn ?ēnwalhashīliranlhashikīliranwa.

Tlash-i-ph?lina ?ēn-walhashan?k-lhasi-than?k-wa. Tlash-i-?axasīn ?ēn-wa-lhashīliran-lhashi-kīliran-wa.

From-{gen}-enemy {sub}-wise_man-learn-more-3SSA. From-{gen}-friend {sub}-fool-learn-less-3SSA.

A wise man learns more from his enemies than a fool learns from his friends.

[jburke]

What about the sentences that I posted? Am I dong them right?

There really isn't a right or wrong; but I will make one suggestion. In general statements like this, typically Cheyenne will include its preverb for habituality or regularity, -ohke-. This is a way of showing that the expression goes beyond the immediate present, and speaks in a more general way. E.g, if I say navehtoomo 'I-sit-with-him' vs. say naohkevehtoomo 'I-regularly-sit-with-him', I'm implying two different things; the latter implies that I sit with this person on a regular basis, that he and I have some kind of relationship.

[Aurora Rossa]

With regard to "who" or "what," this is similar to English, but I was quite intrigued to notice that "when", "where", "how", and "why" take object markings as well. It also made me suspect that I my interpretation of the abbreviations above might be mistaken: the marker -k?, used with the object "who" in the first sentence, is listed as 3SOA, and I took the "A" to mean "animate." However, the marker -la, used in all of the later questions (including "for whom" in the final example), is sometimes glossed as 3SOI, sometimes as 3SOA. Is there some subtle nuance that I'm missing? Thanks.

No, 3SOI is for the building. The question words are like different cases of "who" or "what". They are in general like locatives and don't actually cause head marking the way the subject and object nouns do. I'll show you how it works:

Qtok'?la'ik?alameq?
Qto-k'?la-'ik?-a-la-me-q
when-building-make-past-3SOI-2SSA-question.mood
When did you build the building?

The qto- asks for the time and is a counter part to k'?la t/?nma??ksa'ik?alame. or "You made the huilding at 9 nmas.", a nma being a unit of time used by Terra Pvlchra. The -la- shows agreement of the verb with the house.

[Glenn]

Thanks for the explanation (I should have noticed that there was another noun root in there... ).

So -la is the 3SOI head marking? (It's glossed sometimes as 3SOI and sometimes as 3SOA, which was one source of my confusion.)

Thanks again!

p@,
Glenn

[Aurora Rossa]

Thanks for the explanation (I should have noticed that there was another noun root in there... ).

So -la is the 3SOI head marking? (It's glossed sometimes as 3SOI and sometimes as 3SOA, which was one source of my confusion.)

3SOA is a typo that got copied when I copied and pasted the end of the glossing to save time.

[napoleon]

I have a few examples of text in my conlang (it's name is N?yanla, btw). They are just random proverbs I use in all of my grammars for comparison. What do you think of them and am I doing this right?

?ēnrinshalitl?ya tsalh?norinsirabalwe?o. ?ēnrinkalīatl?ya tsalh?nosirabalwe?o.

?ēn-rin-shali-tl?-ya tsa-lh?no-rin-sirabal-we-?o. ?ēn-rin-kalīa-tl?-ya tsa-lh?no-sirabal-we-?o.

{sub}-no-know-in-2SSA {obj}-there-no-shame-3SSA-3SOI. {sub}-no-find_out-in-2SSA {obj}-there-shame-3SSA-3SOI

There is no shame in not knowing. The shame lies in not finding out.


Watlashpirāx tsarinsaparowa?a. ?ēnlhamkir?o??nwa xerinyofowya?a.

Watlashpirāx tsa-rin-saparo-wa-?a. ?ēn-lham-kir?o-??n-wa xe-rin-yofow-ya-?a.

Speech {obj}-no-sparrow-3SSA-3SOA. {sub}-{inc}-fly-out-3SSA {trans}-no-catch-2SSA-3SOA

The spoken word is not a sparrow. Once it flies out, you can't catch it


Tranyofāraxox?we tsarinotr?spē?iran?x?ya?o.

Tranyo-fāraxox?we tsa-rin-otr?spē-?iran?-x?-ya-?o.

Curved-path {obj}-no-drive-straight-on-2SSA-3SOI.

You can't drive straight on a twisting lane.


T?runwakir?o xewenōranitl?tlaraf?toyofowwa?o.

T?run-wakir?o xe-wenōranitl?tlaraf?to-yofow-wa-?o.

First-bird {trans}-worm-catch-3SSA-3SOI.

The early bird gets the worm


Sinil?fīan tsakhalink?istlashxexo.

Sinil?-fīan tsa-khalin-k?is-tlash-xe-xo.

Beginning-small {obj}-thing-great-from-3PSI-3POI.

From small beginnings come great things.


Tlashiph?lina ?ēnwalhashan?klhasithan?kwa. Tlashi?axasīn ?ēnwalhashīliranlhashikīliranwa.

Tlash-i-ph?lina ?ēn-walhashan?k-lhasi-than?k-wa. Tlash-i-?axasīn ?ēn-wa-lhashīliran-lhashi-kīliran-wa.

From-{gen}-enemy {sub}-wise_man-learn-more-3SSA. From-{gen}-friend {sub}-fool-learn-less-3SSA.

A wise man learns more from his enemies than a fool learns from his friends.

[/quote]

Except for the <r's> it kinda resembles N?yat?k?h, with all the <lh's> and <tl's>, but I guess that's appropriate. I've been following this thread with interest in developing my own polysynthetic language. Working on a Babel Text yet?

[jburke]

Except for the <r's> it kinda resembles N?yat?k?h, with all the <lh's> and <tl's>, but I guess that's appropriate.

In a very vague way, I suppose. But looking at the Noyatukah wordlist from the grammar so far, you'll see that our languages have pretty different vibes:

(Without any pitch or devoicing marks, or allophone indication)

asonowovamanasho
manwaesheamewaanasho
kayasata
naamotemeshoshe
osolotaako
noyatokax
samemawawina
osoloshemawam
osoaato
latlonan
lametlonan
kasheonan
natoseyamewatlol
xaawekanan
yaxonashe
lamoomesho
tlanowomatasana noyatosana
xoxaashan
emansawasanasho
yolememolanasho
xoxaanamoneshan
emanloashoonan
noyatoasisinam

Noyatukah has what I call the "Algonquian bounce." And N?yanla doesn't have its frequent doubled vowels, and it looks like the distribution of /k/ and /p/ is wider than in Noyatukah; one of Noyatukah's historical sound changes was a complete loss of /k/ and /p/ except in consonant clusters (thus, any free-standing /k/s and /p/s in the language will be the remnants of an eroded cluster). Also, Noyatukah lacks a glottal (which was a deliberate decision on my part; in the daughter languages, I trace the development of it.)

[Aurora Rossa]

T?runwakir?o xewenōranitl?tlaraf?toyofowwa?o.

T?run-wakir?o xe-wenōranitl?tlaraf?to-yofow-wa-?o.

First-bird {trans}-worm-catch-3SSA-3SOI.

The early bird gets the worm

I can see that you have a very long word for worm. Is it a verb? I can see that worm is inanimate, too.

Also, is 54 phonemes to high? I'm planning on a conlang with that many phonemes.

[Mecislau]

T?runwakir?o xewenōranitl?tlaraf?toyofowwa?o.

T?run-wakir?o xe-wenōranitl?tlaraf?to-yofow-wa-?o.

First-bird {trans}-worm-catch-3SSA-3SOI.

The early bird gets the worm

I can see that you have a very long word for worm. Is it a verb? I can see that worm is inanimate, too.

Also, is 54 phonemes to high? I'm planning on a conlang with that many phonemes.

The word for worm literally means something along the lines of "it crawls through the Earth", although Earth has it's own meaning in itself...

Actually, that 'worm' word shown is shortened (despite its current length).

54 phonemes is starting to get on the high scale, but I wouldn't call it too high. There are many languages with more than that.

[Aurora Rossa]

Kmi@okit?mek.
Kmi@o-ki-t?-me-k.
ESP-use-3SOS-2SSA-command.
Use the Force.

Is the incorporated noun agreeing with the verb a good idea?

[jburke]

Kmi@okit?mek.
Kmi@o-ki-t?-me-k.
ESP-use-3SOS-2SSA-command.
Use the Force.

Is the incorporated noun agreeing with the verb a good idea?

Yes, it generally should.

[Aurora Rossa]

How does your conlang handle questions?

[jburke]

How does your conlang handle questions?

Different ones handle it different ways. But Noyatukah handles them with a high pitch on the ultimate syllable.

[Aurora Rossa]

The word for worm literally means something along the lines of "it crawls through the Earth", although Earth has it's own meaning in itself...

Actually, that 'worm' word shown is shortened (despite its current length).

In my conlang, verbs can't be incorporated into other verbs like that.

[Mecislau]

The word for worm literally means something along the lines of "it crawls through the Earth", although Earth has it's own meaning in itself...

Actually, that 'worm' word shown is shortened (despite its current length).

In my conlang, verbs can't be incorporated into other verbs like that.

The word for 'Earth' is actually abbreviated in the word 'worm' also.

How would your lang handle this type of formation?

[Aurora Rossa]

How would your lang handle this type of formation?

Like this:

!Slan!efta k?tilatgsuqul?lam? k?ktek?mi.
!Sla-n!e-fta k?-tila-tgsu-qul?-la-m? k?-kte-k?-mi.
one-th-bird habitual-land/earth-through-crawl-3SOI-4SSA habitual-receive-4SOA-3SSA.
The early bird get the worm.

[Mecislau]

How would your lang handle this type of formation?

Like this:

!Slan!efta k?tilatgsuqul?lam? k?ktek?mi.
!Sla-n!e-fta k?-tila-tgsu-qul?-la-m? k?-kte-k?-mi.
one-th-bird habitual-land/earth-through-crawl-3SOI-4SSA habitual-receive-4SOA-3SSA.
The early bird get the worm.

I meant how would you handle a case where you would have to normally place a verb inside another word. For example, you said a little ways back in this thread that your word for 'camera' is 'it-remembers-images'. Now, what would you have done if 'images' is a verb also (I'm not saying that it is; this is just for example).

[Aurora Rossa]

I meant how would you handle a case where you would have to normally place a verb inside another word. For example, you said a little ways back in this thread that your word for 'camera' is 'it-remembers-images'. Now, what would you have done if 'images' is a verb also (I'm not saying that it is; this is just for example).

I'd use noun verb agreement to show the object of it-remembers-them is images.

[Aurora Rossa]

How regular is the animate/inanimate discinction in Cheyenne? Is it arbitrary like in Indo-European langs?

[jburke]

Is it arbitrary like in Indo-European langs?

Not at all; there's a very good fit between grammatical and semantic animacy. A few words have moved between the categories over the millennia, but Cheyenne's classifications are even a good match for Proto Algonquian's.

[Mecislau]

Not at all; there's a very good fit between grammatical and semantic animacy. A few words have moved between the categories over the millennia, but Cheyenne's classifications are even a good match for Proto Algonquian's.

Although I guess there are some dialect differences. According to http://www.geocities.com/cheyenne_language/animacy.htm :

ma'xemeno is 'apples' in Cheyenne spoken in Montana, and it is animate, but ma'xemen?tse (also 'apples') in in Oklahoma Cheyenne and is inanimate.

[jburke]

Although I guess there are some dialect differences. According to http://www.geocities.com/cheyenne_language/animacy.htm :

ma'xemeno is 'apples' in Cheyenne spoken in Montana, and it is animate, but ma'xemen?tse (also 'apples') in in Oklahoma Cheyenne and is inanimate.

Whether or not MT and OK Cheyenne constitute different dialects is an unsettled matter. Leman leans toward the idea that they are not, and that speakers in both places have inflated the differences. E.g., in the above, there is really only one underlying difference in sound between the two words for 'apple': a /t/ on the OK version (Cheyenne phono rules always stick an /e/ on the ends of consonant-final words, and a /t/ becomes assibilated to ts before an /e/).

But, yes, as I said, some words have jumped category over time.

[Soap]

Russian distinguishes animacy, doesn't it?

[Aurora Rossa]

In my conlang(I've decided that it doesn't really have aname, but is often called K?t?l@u?kn?t?m? "The Terps speak it"), living things and most things produced directly by living things(fruit, meat, etc.) are animate, non-living things are inanimate, and immaterialthings(ghosts, democracy, love) are in the immaterial/spiritual category.