Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Proto-Jardic noun morphology

Expand Messages
  • BPJ
    I d rather think that you d go from SOV to VSO by some sort of fronting process. It kind of feels that you would need that to go from SOV to SVO as well and
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd rather think that you'd go from SOV to VSO by some sort of fronting
      process. It kind of feels that you would need that to go from SOV to SVO as
      well and then once again to go to VSO. I might have read something about
      the subject, so I'll take a look in my stash. Remember that languages with
      morphological marking of participants tend to be rather more free with
      constituent order on that level, allowing O or in particular V to be
      fronted for emphasis. Shame to say I haven't much contemplated *why* Sohlob
      went from SOV to VSO but only assumed that it had to do with the change
      from hierarchical to split ergative. Also since PS verbs were marked for
      both participants it was a complete clause in itself which probably
      facilitated fronting. Googling "basic word order shift" and "basic word
      order change seems to bring up quite a lot. I'm disinclined to open pdfs on
      my phone though.
      Den lördagen den 16:e februari 2013 skrev Herman Miller:

      > On 2/15/2013 5:42 PM, BPJ wrote:
      >
      >
      > I second the suggestions that the various case endings arose from an
      >> amalgam of gender markers, case markers and postpositions.
      >> My conlang Sohlob is another example of a head-initial language with a
      >> head-final ancestor. S case endings arose from PS postpositions which were
      >> themselves often case inflected nominals. PS had case but most PS case
      >> endings were lost by phonetic attrition. A main exception is the ergative
      >> ending which arose from an instrumental ending plus a discourse or topic
      >> marker and the accusative (S is split-ergative-accusative) which arose
      >> from
      >> the same marker without an instr ending. On top of this S has developed
      >> some prepositions from verbs.
      >>
      >
      > Besides compounds, I see that classifiers (typically used with numbers)
      > usually precede nouns.
      >
      > wam-ṛom-ṛal-ğom laz-a
      > 64-8-2-(classifier) year-GEN
      > 74 years
      >
      > dim-śav-ļed-na kirja-n
      > new-many-(classifier)-DAT school-DAT
      > newly-many (an unprecedented number of) schools
      >
      > Maybe Proto-Jardic had more words (like adjectives) that preceded nouns,
      > and other instances of head-final syntax. Adjectives and prepositions in
      > Jarda are actually forms of verbs. As Jarda came to use verbs more, and the
      > few remaining postpositions ended up as case suffixes, it started looking
      > more like a head-initial language.
      >
      > It seems like there has to be an intermediate mixed stage. I don't see a
      > language going from Japanese-style SOV to Hawaiian-style VSO overnight. So
      > an SVO word order with postpositions might be best for Proto-Jardic.
      > (Finnish and Chinese have postpositions, so those might be good examples.)
      >
    • Roman Rausch
      ... In particular situations, one can also find VO or VS in Japanese as a sort of clefting techinque, or when adding an afterthought. Something like: _Meiwaku
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        >It seems like there has to be an intermediate mixed stage. I don't see a
        >language going from Japanese-style SOV to Hawaiian-style VSO overnight.

        In particular situations, one can also find VO or VS in Japanese as a sort of clefting techinque, or when adding an afterthought. Something like:

        _Meiwaku da, ano ko wa
        nuisance COP, that child TOP
        'That child is a nuisance'

        _Oboete inai, sono namae wo_
        remember.GER PROG.NEG, that name ACC
        'I don't remember that name'

        My proto-language is also SOV and I intend to derive a VSO language out of it. The first idea I had was to make this kind of construction increasingly more common, until it flips over to VSO, but I don't know how realistic that is.
      • Herman Miller
        ... Jarda can have SVO or OVS word orders by fronting the subject or the object, so maybe Proto-Jardic had basic SVO order and allowed V to be fronted. (It s a
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 16, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2/16/2013 7:11 AM, BPJ wrote:
          > I'd rather think that you'd go from SOV to VSO by some sort of fronting
          > process. It kind of feels that you would need that to go from SOV to SVO as
          > well and then once again to go to VSO. I might have read something about
          > the subject, so I'll take a look in my stash. Remember that languages with
          > morphological marking of participants tend to be rather more free with
          > constituent order on that level, allowing O or in particular V to be
          > fronted for emphasis. Shame to say I haven't much contemplated *why* Sohlob
          > went from SOV to VSO but only assumed that it had to do with the change
          > from hierarchical to split ergative. Also since PS verbs were marked for
          > both participants it was a complete clause in itself which probably
          > facilitated fronting. Googling "basic word order shift" and "basic word
          > order change seems to bring up quite a lot. I'm disinclined to open pdfs on
          > my phone though.

          Jarda can have SVO or OVS word orders by fronting the subject or the
          object, so maybe Proto-Jardic had basic SVO order and allowed V to be
          fronted. (It's a little harder to see how a verb-final language could
          switch to SVO, but I don't need to go back that far for now.)

          http://www.prismnet.com/~hmiller/lang/Jarda/nouns.html

          ğjub-en ķitṛa-ja ģundi (VSO)
          catch-PERF bat-ERG moth-ABS
          "the bat caught a moth"

          ğjuben ģundi ķitṛaja (VOS)
          ķitṛaja ğjuben ģundi (SVO)
          ģundi ğjuben ķitraja (OVS)

          (I see also that "ķitṛaja" on the web page contradicts the "ķitṛala"
          that I've got in my Jarda documentation. I don't know which one is more
          recent, but "ķitṛaja" sounds more like the correct form. Maybe it could
          be a dialectal variation.)
        • Jörg Rhiemeier
          Hallo conlangers! ... The shift from SOV to VSO in Albic seems to have happened via an appositional construction. Like Proto-Sohlob, Proto-Hesperic marked
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 16, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Hallo conlangers!

            On Saturday 16 February 2013 13:11:15 BPJ wrote:

            > I'd rather think that you'd go from SOV to VSO by some sort of fronting
            > process. It kind of feels that you would need that to go from SOV to SVO as
            > well and then once again to go to VSO. I might have read something about
            > the subject, so I'll take a look in my stash. Remember that languages with
            > morphological marking of participants tend to be rather more free with
            > constituent order on that level, allowing O or in particular V to be
            > fronted for emphasis. Shame to say I haven't much contemplated *why* Sohlob
            > went from SOV to VSO but only assumed that it had to do with the change
            > from hierarchical to split ergative. Also since PS verbs were marked for
            > both participants it was a complete clause in itself which probably
            > facilitated fronting.

            The shift from SOV to VSO in Albic seems to have happened via an
            appositional construction. Like Proto-Sohlob, Proto-Hesperic
            marked verbs for both participants, as Old Albic still does.
            A sentence like

            (1) Imethasa o ndaro em sarem.
            AOR-kiss-3SG:P-3SG:A the:M.AGT man.AGT the:F-OBJ woman-OBJ

            would thus have to be translated as 'He kissed her, the man, the
            woman'. Such appositional constructions would then have been
            generalized.

            The continental Hesperic languages, of which none has preserved
            object marking on verbs except for some relic formations, either
            stayed SOV, developed a V2 rule, or became SVO (the latter perhaps
            through generalization of the V2 rule). Also, their morphosyntactic
            alignments changed, either to nominative-accusative (with some IE-
            like quirks such as a syncretism of nominative and accusative in the
            neuter gender) or some kind of split ergativity. (PH was, like Old
            Albic, active-stative.)

            --
            ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
            http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
            "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
          • Roger Mills
            ... Jarda can have SVO or OVS word orders by fronting the subject or the object, so maybe Proto-Jardic had basic SVO order and allowed V to be fronted. (It s a
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 16, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --- On Sat, 2/16/13, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
              Jarda can have SVO or OVS word orders by fronting the subject or the object, so maybe Proto-Jardic had basic SVO order and allowed V to be fronted. (It's a little harder to see how a verb-final language could switch to SVO, but I don't need to go back that far for now.)

              ğjub-en ķitṛa-ja ģundi (VSO)
              catch-PERF bat-ERG moth-ABS
              "the bat caught a moth"

              ğjuben ģundi ķitṛaja (VOS)
              ķitṛaja ğjuben ģundi (SVO)
              ģundi ğjuben ķitraja (OVS)
              -=========================================

              Kash can also have all three orders in a sentence like this, though SVO is the "normal" or default order. Is SVO, the O is the new info; VOS suggests that S is the new info. and there wouold be an intonation break between VO and S, OVS (or also OSV) is how they "passivize" it. It could further be made into a cleft sentence (it was a moth that the bat caught) by adding "na ya" -- O na ya, [inton. break] VS/SV.

              Let me say generally-- I've been saving a lot of this thread, because it contains interesting ideas for developments from Proto-Kash, and probably also Proto-Gwr, which I'm still cogitating.

              (I see also that "ķitṛaja" on the web page contradicts the "ķitṛala" that I've got in my Jarda documentation. I don't know which one is more recent, but "ķitṛaja" sounds more like the correct form. Maybe it could be a dialectal variation.)
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.