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

Re: Proto-Jardic noun morphology

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.