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

Re: Auxiliaries - want

Expand Messages
  • Roger Mills
    My Prevli has a desiderative aspect , but it only applies to your case (a); case (b) would require a main verb _want_ + a subord. clause (rather like
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      My Prevli has a desiderative "aspect", but it only applies to your case (a); case (b) would require a main verb _want_ + a subord. clause (rather like Spanish).  Sorry, I can't put in any vocab, it exists, but I don't have time to search for the words and it's been so long that I haven't internalized much.... :-(((((

      "I want to see the [animal] "  = DESID+see PRO:"I > it"  DEF+Obj [animal]
      "I want him to see the [animal]"  = want+1s THAT see PRO:"he>it"  DEF+Obj [animal]
      (Cf. Span. quiero ver el elefante vs. quiero que (él) vea el elefante)
      There's a whole slew of other derived aspects:
      - Causative
      - Inchoative ( becoming....)
        (These two have distinct prefixes not derived from other verbs. The rest have pfxs derived from their main verb--)--
      - inceptive  beginning to...
      - desiderative  want to...
      - prospective about to...
      - obligative  have to... , must...
      - debitive  ought to..., should...
      - intentive    going to...
      - potential   able to...,  can....
      - progressive   be....ing

      All these can be either realis (definite) or irrealis (probably....), and can take the various tense markers.

      Hmmm, it just occurred to me that I didn't create a "like to...." deriv. What would that be called?? Preferential? The verb itself is /patu/ pato, the prefix would probably be pat-

      As to "desiderative" vs. "volitive" I'm not sure there's any difference. Anyone?

      (I've spent almost the entire past year working on a project involving a group of really weird and obscure Indonesian langs., and it just keep growing and growing. Aargh......!)


      --- On Mon, 4/1/13, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
      I'm working on auxiliary constructions for Mar27 in general and specifically to express "want to". I have 2 constructions:  one using a participle for the content word when the subject of the auxiliary is the same as that of the content verb and one using a subordinate clause. (Note: Mar27 is SV/OV.)

      (1) Jaanik de 'eleffanto dadas 'ermolee. "John wants to see the elephant."
      (2) Jaanik de 'eleffanto sertas suu 'ermolee. "John wants me to see the elephant."

      I'm thinking of creating suffixes to be used on the content verb instead of using an auxiliary for one or both of the following:

      (a) indicates that the desirer is the 1st person singular (2nd person in questions)
      (b) indicates that the desirer is the subject of the content verb.

      Besides having to decide, one problem I have is terminology; I tried googling desiderative and volitive, but could find no clear definitions. Comments are desired.
    • H. S. Teoh
      Hmm. This discussion about the construction of want to + infin makes me wonder if there are other ways of expressing the concept that dispenses with an
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hmm. This discussion about the construction of "want to" + infin makes
        me wonder if there are other ways of expressing the concept that
        dispenses with an infinitive. It seems to parallel constructions like "I
        try to <infin> ...", which in Tatari Faran does not use a verb + infin
        construct, but rather, has the action to be attempted as the main verb,
        modified by an "adverb of manner" that represents "try to".

        Example:

        diru nei arap pera bura sa ikat.
        girl(n) RCP pick_up(v) try(adv) rock(n) CVY COMPL
        The girl tries to pick up the rock.
        Lit., the girl picks up tryingly the rock.

        Currently, Tatari Faran does use a verb + infin. construct for "want
        to":

        diru kei uenai ibura arapi ia.
        girl(n) ORG want rock(n)-AUX_CVY pick_up(infin) COMPL
        The girl wants to pick up the rock.

        But I'm wondering if it would be more idiomatic to adopt a similar
        adverb-of-manner construction instead, maybe something like:

        *diru nei arap uenai bura sa ikat.
        girl(n) RCP pick_up(v) want(adv) rock(n) CVY COMPL
        The girl wants to pick up the rock.
        Lit. The girl picks up wantingly the rock.

        It would avoid the complicated subordinate clause construction that is
        currently required, and fit better with the prototypical TF sentence
        structure.

        Maybe I should demote the current verb + infin construction to an
        archaic / formal form of speech that is slowly being superseded by the
        more colloquial adverb-of-manner construction. :)


        T

        --
        Маленькие детки - маленькие бедки.
      • phil@...
        In my conlang Uteg, these are formed with a verbal noun:   Ma-promi sa inga sa dofocigo-n sa craco. PRES-try the girl the lifting-POS the rock. The girl tries
        Message 3 of 26 , Apr 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          In my conlang Uteg, these are formed with a verbal noun:
           
          Ma-promi sa inga sa dofocigo-n sa craco.
          PRES-try the girl the lifting-POS the rock.
          The girl tries to lift the rock.
          Lit. The girl tries the lifting of the rock.
           
          Ma-cobra-mu sa gomigo-n sa valo.
          PRES-want-1S the eating-POS the apple.
          I want to eat the apple.
           
          But:
           
          Ma-cobra-mu ace ma-goma-su sa valo.
          PRES-want-1S that PRES-eat-3S the apple.
          I want him to eat the apple.
          Lit. I want that he eats the apple.
           
          --Ph. D.

          "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...> wrote:
          > Hmm. This discussion about the construction of "want to" + infin makes
          > me wonder if there are other ways of expressing the concept that
          > dispenses with an infinitive. It seems to parallel constructions like "I
          > try to <infin> ...", which in Tatari Faran does not use a verb + infin
          > construct, but rather, has the action to be attempted as the main verb,
          > modified by an "adverb of manner" that represents "try to".
          >
          > Example:
          >
          > diru nei arap pera bura sa ikat.
          > girl(n) RCP pick_up(v) try(adv) rock(n) CVY COMPL
          > The girl tries to pick up the rock.
          > Lit., the girl picks up tryingly the rock.
          >
          > Currently, Tatari Faran does use a verb + infin. construct for "want
          > to":
          >
          > diru kei uenai ibura arapi ia.
          > girl(n) ORG want rock(n)-AUX_CVY pick_up(infin) COMPL
          > The girl wants to pick up the rock.
          >
          > But I'm wondering if it would be more idiomatic to adopt a similar
          > adverb-of-manner construction instead, maybe something like:
          >
          > *diru nei arap uenai bura sa ikat.
          > girl(n) RCP pick_up(v) want(adv) rock(n) CVY COMPL
          > The girl wants to pick up the rock.
          > Lit. The girl picks up wantingly the rock.
          >
          > It would avoid the complicated subordinate clause construction that is
          > currently required, and fit better with the prototypical TF sentence
          > structure.
          >
          > Maybe I should demote the current verb + infin construction to an
          > archaic / formal form of speech that is slowly being superseded by the
          > more colloquial adverb-of-manner construction. :)
          >
          >
          > T
          >
          > -- Маленькие детки - маленькие бедки.
          >
          >

           
        • neo gu
          ... I have some of those in either the aspect or the derivational slot. I probably should add the other non-modal ones. ... Preferential sounds good to me. ...
          Message 4 of 26 , Apr 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:46:45 -0700, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:

            >My Prevli has a desiderative "aspect", but it only applies to your case (a); case (b) would require a main verb _want_ + a subord. clause (rather like Spanish).? Sorry, I can't put in any vocab, it exists, but I don't have time to search for the words and it's been so long that I haven't internalized much.... :-(((((
            >
            >"I want to see the [animal] "? = DESID+see PRO:"I > it"? DEF+Obj [animal]
            >"I want him to see the [animal]"? = want+1s THAT see PRO:"he>it"? DEF+Obj [animal]
            >(Cf. Span. quiero ver el elefante vs. quiero que (鬩 vea el elefante)
            >There's a whole slew of other derived aspects:
            >- Causative
            >- Inchoative ( becoming....)
            >? (These two have distinct prefixes not derived from other verbs. The rest have pfxs derived from their main verb--)--
            >- inceptive? beginning to...
            >- desiderative? want to...
            >- prospective about to...
            >- obligative? have to... , must...
            >- debitive? ought to..., should...
            >- intentive??? going to...
            >- potential?? able to...,? can....
            >- progressive?? be....ing

            I have some of those in either the aspect or the derivational slot. I probably should add the other non-modal ones.

            >All these can be either realis (definite) or irrealis (probably....), and can take the various tense markers.
            >
            >Hmmm, it just occurred to me that I didn't create a "like to...." deriv. What would that be called?? Preferential? The verb itself is /patu/ pato, the prefix would probably be pat-

            Preferential sounds good to me.

            >As to "desiderative" vs. "volitive" I'm not sure there's any difference. Anyone?

            When I googled I couldn't find one, although I remembered there being one, as has Alex. Maybe it's a conlanging thing? Anyways, it's a useful distinction to make.

            >(I've spent almost the entire past year working on a project involving a group of really weird and obscure Indonesian langs., and it just keep growing and growing. Aargh......!)

            How do _they_ handle auxiliaries? :)

            It occurs to me now that there's another possible way to do auxiliaries: make the subject of the subordinate clause the object of the auxiliary and turn the suu clause into a participial one. This turns out to be shorter and is a change to the syntax rather than the morphology.

            (1') Jaani de 'eleffanto dadas datmol. "John wants [himself] to see the elephant."
            (2') Jaanik de 'eleffanto dadas 'oomol. "John wants me to see the elephant."


            >--- On Mon, 4/1/13, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
            >I'm working on auxiliary constructions for Mar27 in general and specifically to express "want to". I have 2 constructions:? one using a participle for the content word when the subject of the auxiliary is the same as that of the content verb and one using a subordinate clause. (Note: Mar27 is SV/OV.)
            >
            >(1) Jaanik de 'eleffanto dadas 'ermolee. "John wants to see the elephant."
            >(2) Jaanik de 'eleffanto sertas suu 'ermolee. "John wants me to see the elephant."
            >
            >I'm thinking of creating suffixes to be used on the content verb instead of using an auxiliary for one or both of the following:
            >
            >(a) indicates that the desirer is the 1st person singular (2nd person in questions)
            >(b) indicates that the desirer is the subject of the content verb.
            >
            >Besides having to decide, one problem I have is terminology; I tried googling desiderative and volitive, but could find no clear definitions. Comments are desired.
          • Alex Fink
            ... I don t think there s some universal reason it should be forced to be a particular way, i.e. this is something I would specify in my grammar writeup. But
            Message 5 of 26 , Apr 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:09:27 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:

              >On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:03:50 -0500, Ian Spolarich <mouton9113@...> wrote:
              >
              >>I always find auxiliaries one of the most difficult parts of conlanging.
              >
              >One thing I find confusing is negation. When is the auxiliary negated and when is the content verb negated? I think for volitive, it's the latter, while for desiderative, it's the former. And what about epistemic and deontic modals?

              I don't think there's some universal reason it should be forced to be a particular way, i.e. this is something I would specify in my grammar writeup. But my feelings agree with yours: the volitive is more mood-like, so it's most natural for the content verb to be negated. The desiderative is more derivational, so it's more natural for the auxiliary to be negated.

              The Klingon solution is to allow the negative marker to come at various linear positions in the verbal complex, and say that its position with respect to the modal determines the scoping. This seems like an unappealingly engeish solution to me, but it's not inconceivable that ANADEW -- can anyone cite one?

              Note by way of comparison that English, despite lacking desideratives, nonetheless also has a hairy situation here, by way of a negative raising rule: "X doesn't want to V" has the semantic force of 'X wants to not V", where as "X wants not to V" isn't very felicitous. I suppose that also there's not very much pragmatic difference between them: asserting the absence of a want is a relatively rare function to be actually invoking, so this Eng negative raising could well be historically seen as promotion of an erstwhile implicature to explicature.

              So one possible answer in Mar27 for either or both of these modals under negation would be 'it can mean either; the distinction isn't important'.

              Alex
            • Jim Henry
              ... Hixkaryana expresses want with a postposition xe which Desmond Derbyshire glosses as desirous-of . It s typically used with a copula which he glosses
              Message 6 of 26 , Apr 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Ian Spolarich <mouton9113@...> wrote:
                > I always find auxiliaries one of the most difficult parts of conlanging.
                > Does anyone have any good resources on how other languages (natlang or
                > otherwise) approach them? I.e. different strategies of handling them, other
                > than using "helping/linking" verbs...

                Hixkaryana expresses "want" with a postposition "xe" which Desmond
                Derbyshire glosses as "desirous-of". It's typically used with a
                copula which he glosses as "to be"; a postpositional phrase with a
                basic noun + "xe" + copula + subject means "X likes Y", while if a
                nominalized verb is the object of "xe", it's equivalent to "X wants to
                Y" in English.

                koso xe rmahaxa wehxaha
                deer desirous-of very-much I-am
                I like deer meat very much.

                honyko wonɨr xe wehxaha
                peccary shooting-of desirous-of I-am
                I want to shoot peccary.

                I've sometimes thought about using adpositions for not only "want" but
                other modal concepts in a new artlang. But it now occurs to me that
                gzb's open-ended case postposition system would let me do this there,
                too, turning the "desire" and "intent" and "need" and "duty" roots
                into postpositions instead of the stative verbs they usually manifest
                as.

                On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:
                > Note by way of comparison that English, despite lacking desideratives, nonetheless also has a hairy situation here, by way of a negative raising rule: "X doesn't want to V" has the semantic force of 'X wants to not V", where as "X wants not to V" isn't very felicitous. I suppose that also there's not very much pragmatic difference between them: asserting the absence of a want is a relatively rare function to be actually invoking, so this Eng negative raising could well be historically seen as promotion of an erstwhile implicature to explicature.

                One does sometimes want to express that one doesn't want to do
                something, but wouldn't mind doing it if it's
                necessary/helpful/pleasing to one's companions/etc. That tends to
                require a more complex and cumbersome locution than simply saying "I
                don't want to X", because as you point out "don't want to X" has long
                since become an idiom for "want to not X".

                --
                Jim Henry
                http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
                http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
              • neo gu
                ... Yes, it should definitely be specified in the grammar. I ll have to remember that. ... Fortunately, that solution isn t possible with Mar27 morphology. ...
                Message 7 of 26 , Apr 2, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:38:26 -0400, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:
                  >On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:09:27 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >>On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:03:50 -0500, Ian Spolarich <mouton9113@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >>>I always find auxiliaries one of the most difficult parts of conlanging.
                  >>
                  >>One thing I find confusing is negation. When is the auxiliary negated and when is the content verb negated? I think for volitive, it's the latter, while for desiderative, it's the former. And what about epistemic and deontic modals?
                  >
                  >I don't think there's some universal reason it should be forced to be a particular way, i.e. this is something I would specify in my grammar writeup. But my feelings agree with yours: the volitive is more mood-like, so it's most natural for the content verb to be negated. The desiderative is more derivational, so it's more natural for the auxiliary to be negated.
                  >
                  Yes, it should definitely be specified in the grammar. I'll have to remember that.

                  >The Klingon solution is to allow the negative marker to come at various linear positions in the verbal complex, and say that its position with respect to the modal determines the scoping. This seems like an unappealingly engeish solution to me, but it's not inconceivable that ANADEW -- can anyone cite one?
                  >
                  Fortunately, that solution isn't possible with Mar27 morphology.

                  >Note by way of comparison that English, despite lacking desideratives, nonetheless also has a hairy situation here, by way of a negative raising rule: "X doesn't want to V" has the semantic force of 'X wants to not V", where as "X wants not to V" isn't very felicitous. I suppose that also there's not very much pragmatic difference between them: asserting the absence of a want is a relatively rare function to be actually invoking, so this Eng negative raising could well be historically seen as promotion of an erstwhile implicature to explicature.
                  >
                  I wonder how common this is.

                  >So one possible answer in Mar27 for either or both of these modals under negation would be 'it can mean either; the distinction isn't important'.
                  >
                  >Alex

                  I'm leaning more toward not using either volitive or desiderative suffix, in which case the negation would either be on the content verb or the auxiliary verb unambiguously. Instead I'll probably use the content subject to auxiliary object move for informal speech, leaving the clunky subordinate clause construction for formal speech.

                  BTW, I've started putting up the grammar, for anyone who cares to look at it and suggest how to fix the documentation. :)

                  http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/Mar27/MgIntro.htm
                • taliesin the storyteller
                  ... Taruven doesn t do adverbs or infinitives but Affix all the things!!1! ... tšan segnyn mānaþ tšan segh -nyn mān -aþ child carry -try stone
                  Message 8 of 26 , Apr 3, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 04/02/2013 07:15 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
                    > Hmm. This discussion about the construction of "want to" + infin makes
                    > me wonder if there are other ways of expressing the concept that
                    > dispenses with an infinitive. It seems to parallel constructions like "I
                    > try to <infin> ...", which in Tatari Faran does not use a verb + infin
                    > construct, but rather, has the action to be attempted as the main verb,
                    > modified by an "adverb of manner" that represents "try to".

                    Taruven doesn't do adverbs or infinitives but "Affix all the things!!1!"

                    > diru nei arap pera bura sa ikat.
                    > girl(n) RCP pick_up(v) try(adv) rock(n) CVY COMPL
                    > The girl tries to pick up the rock.
                    > Lit., the girl picks up tryingly the rock.

                    tšan segnyn mānaþ
                    tšan segh -nyn mān -aþ
                    child carry -try stone -patient

                    > Currently, Tatari Faran does use a verb + infin. construct for "want
                    > to":
                    >
                    > diru kei uenai ibura arapi ia.
                    > girl(n) ORG want rock(n)-AUX_CVY pick_up(infin) COMPL
                    > The girl wants to pick up the rock.

                    tšan segšeŋŋ mānaþ
                    tšan segh -šeŋŋ mān -aþ
                    child carry -want stone -patient

                    Though I must admit I don't yet know how -nyn and -šeŋŋ is ordered when
                    used simultaneously...

                    ?tšan segnynšeŋŋ mānaþ
                    ?tšan segšeŋŋnyn mānaþ

                    ... and would that mean "want to try to" or "try to/and want to" or
                    something else?


                    t.
                  • Alex Fink
                    ... You could say, with a grain of salt, that the English for _xe_ is into ! ... I suppose that in a variety of gzb where this kind of deployment of verbal
                    Message 9 of 26 , Apr 3, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:41:42 -0400, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> wrote:

                      >On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Ian Spolarich <mouton9113@...> wrote:
                      >> I always find auxiliaries one of the most difficult parts of conlanging.
                      >> Does anyone have any good resources on how other languages (natlang or
                      >> otherwise) approach them? I.e. different strategies of handling them, other
                      >> than using "helping/linking" verbs...
                      >
                      >Hixkaryana expresses "want" with a postposition "xe" which Desmond
                      >Derbyshire glosses as "desirous-of". It's typically used with a
                      >copula which he glosses as "to be"; a postpositional phrase with a
                      >basic noun + "xe" + copula + subject means "X likes Y", while if a
                      >nominalized verb is the object of "xe", it's equivalent to "X wants to
                      >Y" in English.

                      You could say, with a grain of salt, that the English for _xe_ is "into"!

                      >I've sometimes thought about using adpositions for not only "want" but
                      >other modal concepts in a new artlang. But it now occurs to me that
                      >gzb's open-ended case postposition system would let me do this there,
                      >too, turning the "desire" and "intent" and "need" and "duty" roots
                      >into postpositions instead of the stative verbs they usually manifest
                      >as.

                      I suppose that in a variety of gzb where this kind of deployment of verbal roots was sufficiently productive, _-i_ could come to be interpreted as forming some kind of participle. Reminds me of what I've heard of native Esperanto, that _-a_ and _-e_ are being deployed in ways that can be seen as developing towards case markers, respectively a genitive broadly construed and an adverbial case.

                      >On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:
                      >> Note by way of comparison that English, despite lacking desideratives, nonetheless also has a hairy situation here, by way of a negative raising rule: "X doesn't want to V" has the semantic force of 'X wants to not V", where as "X wants not to V" isn't very felicitous. I suppose that also there's not very much pragmatic difference between them: asserting the absence of a want is a relatively rare function to be actually invoking, so this Eng negative raising could well be historically seen as promotion of an erstwhile implicature to explicature.
                      >
                      >One does sometimes want to express that one doesn't want to do
                      >something, but wouldn't mind doing it if it's
                      >necessary/helpful/pleasing to one's companions/etc. That tends to
                      >require a more complex and cumbersome locution than simply saying "I
                      >don't want to X", because as you point out "don't want to X" has long
                      >since become an idiom for "want to not X".

                      True, though "don't mind" conveys that reasonably.

                      Which, on the subject of how to handle modals in interaction with negation, calls another instance that's handled lexically to mind: in English (and again, I wish I knew what other languages did), the modals "must" and (the restricted) "need" basically differ only in the way they scope in combination with "not": "S must not V" is 'it is necessary that S not V' while "S need not V" is 'it is not necessary that S V'.


                      On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:04:29 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:

                      >BTW, I've started putting up the grammar, for anyone who cares to look at it and suggest how to fix the documentation. :)
                      >
                      >http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/Mar27/MgIntro.htm

                      Vowel length is written by sequences <aa, ee, ...>, yeah? You neglect to say that.
                      Similarly, you spell intervocalic geminate voiceless out (like <'eleffanto>)? Your statement could be taken to read that you don't.

                      In your prosody section -- especially with the font I'm getting -- vertical pipe looks indistinguishable to me from lowercase L. (I was ready to say that "daslpek" doesn't fit your phonotactics.) Pipe is an unusual stress marker anyway.

                      When I read that a verb lacks a certain principal part, what I assume (based on what's usually done in Latin and Greek) is that the verb is defective, and it simply cannot make the forms which would otherwise be built on the principal part in question. Is this the case for all even dynamic and odd static verbs? If not, I'd provide regularly-derivable principal parts for them. If the second p.p. is always the first plus -i in these classes, or whatever, that's fine.

                      In your agreement tables, I suppose "animate" and "singular" are the zero values of respectively the "G/T" column and all "#" columns. That's not immediately evident from the presentation above, though in view of the forms it seems a reasonable guess.
                      Similarly, in finite forms, is it "Sub#" that marks the number of the participant that gets patient prefixes? It's not obvious it can do that for non-third-person arguments, given that, in the table where the forms are introduced, all the column headers have a "3".

                      What is "phase"? Does it have anything to do with principal part selection?

                      What is SOPV? "subject, object, ..., verb", or is it "..., oblique, patient, verb"?

                      In trivalent verbs, what if the theme is an animate pronoun but the patient is an NP? Can this not happen?

                      I don't know what a satisfactive is.


                      Alex
                    • neo gu
                      ... Actually, I did say that. I ve moved the statement in question to a later section. ... I ve tried to clarify that now (originally they didn t). ... Sorry
                      Message 10 of 26 , Apr 3, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:23:20 -0400, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:04:29 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >>BTW, I've started putting up the grammar, for anyone who cares to look at it and suggest how to fix the documentation. :)
                        >>
                        >>http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/Mar27/MgIntro.htm
                        >
                        >Vowel length is written by sequences <aa, ee, ...>, yeah? You neglect to say that.

                        Actually, I did say that. I've moved the statement in question to a later section.

                        >Similarly, you spell intervocalic geminate voiceless out (like <'eleffanto>)? Your statement could be taken to read that you don't.
                        >
                        I've tried to clarify that now (originally they didn't).

                        >In your prosody section -- especially with the font I'm getting -- vertical pipe looks indistinguishable to me from lowercase L. (I was ready to say that "daslpek" doesn't fit your phonotactics.) Pipe is an unusual stress marker anyway.
                        >
                        Sorry about that; the pipe was temporary until I replaced it with IPA.

                        >When I read that a verb lacks a certain principal part, what I assume (based on what's usually done in Latin and Greek) is that the verb is defective, and it simply cannot make the forms which would otherwise be built on the principal part in question. Is this the case for all even dynamic and odd static verbs? If not, I'd provide regularly-derivable principal parts for them. If the second p.p. is always the first plus -i in these classes, or whatever, that's fine.
                        >
                        I've changed the wording, but I need to take another look at odd static verbs.

                        >In your agreement tables, I suppose "animate" and "singular" are the zero values of respectively the "G/T" column and all "#" columns. That's not immediately evident from the presentation above, though in view of the forms it seems a reasonable guess.
                        >
                        Yes. I've added a note, but it might not be adequate.

                        >Similarly, in finite forms, is it "Sub#" that marks the number of the participant that gets patient prefixes?

                        Yes.

                        >It's not obvious it can do that for non-third-person arguments, given that, in the table where the forms are introduced, all the column headers have a "3".
                        >
                        I've made a quick fix to the Gender, Topicality, and Number table, and added a definition of L (local), which may need to be moved.

                        >What is "phase"? Does it have anything to do with principal part selection?

                        My terminology is inconsistent. It will take some thinking to fix that. The phase is the structure of the stem.

                        Meanwhile, does the order of sections make sense?

                        >What is SOPV? "subject, object, ..., verb", or is it "..., oblique, patient, verb"?

                        It's the former.

                        >In trivalent verbs, what if the theme is an animate pronoun but the patient is an NP? Can this not happen?

                        It should be ungrammatical. The theme is always inanimate and the recipient and donor animate ... if I don't have to change it.

                        >I don't know what a satisfactive is.

                        I don't have a good explanation yet. Some examples:

                        John was _so_ drunk he fell down.
                        This box is light _enough_ to carry.
                        He spoke in _such a way_ as to make me angry.

                        >
                        >Alex

                        Thanks for the detailed comments!

                        I've uploaded the new version.
                      • neo gu
                        ... I ve rewritten the Principal Parts, Phases, and Stems section of the Conjugation page. However, I m going to rewrite it again, phasing out phases in favor
                        Message 11 of 26 , Apr 4, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:04:29 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >BTW, I've started putting up the grammar, for anyone who cares to look at it and suggest how to fix the documentation. :)
                          >
                          >http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/Mar27/MgIntro.htm

                          I've rewritten the Principal Parts, Phases, and Stems section of the Conjugation page. However, I'm going to rewrite it again, phasing out phases in favor of a more basic and direct approach to stems.
                        • neo gu
                          ... And the rewrite is done. Comments welcome.
                          Message 12 of 26 , Apr 4, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:15:13 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:

                            >On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:04:29 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                            >>
                            >>BTW, I've started putting up the grammar, for anyone who cares to look at it and suggest how to fix the documentation. :)
                            >>
                            >>http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/Mar27/MgIntro.htm
                            >
                            >I've rewritten the Principal Parts, Phases, and Stems section of the Conjugation page. However, I'm going to rewrite it again, phasing out phases in favor of a more basic and direct approach to stems.

                            And the rewrite is done. Comments welcome.
                          • Alex Fink
                            ... I don t know whether this is still timely. Did Mar27 survive the blow dealt to it by the collision of those two forms in the verbal paradigm? (I like it
                            Message 13 of 26 , Apr 17, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:12:33 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:

                              >On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:15:13 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >>I've rewritten the Principal Parts, Phases, and Stems section of the Conjugation page. However, I'm going to rewrite it again, phasing out phases in favor of a more basic and direct approach to stems.
                              >
                              >And the rewrite is done. Comments welcome.

                              I don't know whether this is still timely. Did Mar27 survive the blow dealt to it by the collision of those two forms in the verbal paradigm? (I like it all the same even with the collision; it adds some nat-flavour. Of course I don't mean to dictate anything to you, or demean your goals, by saying that.)

                              Anyway, this seems much clearer, provided one is able to make easy inferences by looking at the composition of the forms (like that if the first suffix is -3IP, this should count as an I rather than a P being first for base selection.)

                              It seems a somewhat odd choice, in the vicinity of redundant, to talk about principal parts and bases in such close succession (and without motivating having both), as you do. In my apprehension, principal parts and bases serve more or less the same function in a grammar, but bases are the more ~modern approach, adopted by those comfortable with manipulating abstract bits of linguistic form that perhaps can't occur as words themselves, whereas principal parts are the older approach, allowing you to build out paradigms using only analogies whose members are all words.

                              In table "Suffixes, Roots, and Bases", is the category "anomalous" meant to be defined by the note in the section just previous? I didn't realize that was a definition; I thought it was just a nontechnical use of "anomalous". If it is a defined term you could introduce it alongside "even" and "odd".

                              Alex
                            • neo gu
                              ... I will hopefully get back to it if I ever solve the form duplication problem (minor duplication is OK, just not something major). In the meantime, I ve
                              Message 14 of 26 , Apr 17, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:50:37 -0400, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:

                                >On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:12:33 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >>On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:15:13 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                                >>
                                >>>I've rewritten the Principal Parts, Phases, and Stems section of the Conjugation page. However, I'm going to rewrite it again, phasing out phases in favor of a more basic and direct approach to stems.
                                >>
                                >>And the rewrite is done. Comments welcome.
                                >
                                >I don't know whether this is still timely. Did Mar27 survive the blow dealt to it by the collision of those two forms in the verbal paradigm? (I like it all the same even with the collision; it adds some nat-flavour. Of course I don't mean to dictate anything to you, or demean your goals, by saying that.)
                                >
                                I will hopefully get back to it if I ever solve the form duplication problem (minor duplication is OK, just not something major). In the meantime, I've worked on 3 new sketches, Apr07, MNCL6, KLOP6, and 2 old projects, TIAL and Jan12, and looked at some others, so ...

                                >Anyway, this seems much clearer, provided one is able to make easy inferences by looking at the composition of the forms (like that if the first suffix is -3IP, this should count as an I rather than a P being first for base selection.)
                                >
                                ... I'm confused by this comment.

                                >It seems a somewhat odd choice, in the vicinity of redundant, to talk about principal parts and bases in such close succession (and without motivating having both), as you do. In my apprehension, principal parts and bases serve more or less the same function in a grammar, but bases are the more ~modern approach, adopted by those comfortable with manipulating abstract bits of linguistic form that perhaps can't occur as words themselves, whereas principal parts are the older approach, allowing you to build out paradigms using only analogies whose members are all words.
                                >
                                I don't think I can avoid using both -- the vocabulary listing calls for principal parts, while the explanation of forms needs bases.

                                >In table "Suffixes, Roots, and Bases", is the category "anomalous" meant to be defined by the note in the section just previous? I didn't realize that was a definition; I thought it was just a nontechnical use of "anomalous". If it is a defined term you could introduce it alongside "even" and "odd".
                                >
                                Yes, my explanation of anomalous is still incomplete and I probably should introduce it earlier (or whatever term I end up using).

                                >
                                >Alex
                              • Alex Fink
                                ... I just mean this sort of thing: if I have a word whose first suffix is -3IP, which base do I take? Table Suffixes, Roots, and Bases has an entry for I
                                Message 15 of 26 , Apr 18, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:14:30 -0400, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:

                                  >On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:50:37 -0400, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >>Anyway, this seems much clearer, provided one is able to make easy inferences by looking at the composition of the forms (like that if the first suffix is -3IP, this should count as an I rather than a P being first for base selection.)
                                  >>
                                  >... I'm confused by this comment.

                                  I just mean this sort of thing: if I have a word whose first suffix is -3IP, which base do I take? Table "Suffixes, Roots, and Bases" has an entry for I and an entry for P. So I need to notice that within the -3IP suffix, (3 is zero-marked and) I comes before P, and I should choose the base selected by I.

                                  This base selection rule could actually be spun as an argument that, even in modern Mar27, the suffixes 3AS, 3AP, 3TS, ..., 3IP have not actually merged but should still be regarded underlyingly as -0-0, -0-P, -T-0, ..., -I-P, with morphophonemic rules to combine them into surface realisations.
                                  (For an example of such an analysis more complicated than anything Mar27 demands but which people still advance seriously, e.g. see Crippen's of Tlingit, http://www.drangle.com/~james/verbal-structure/ .)

                                  >>It seems a somewhat odd choice, in the vicinity of redundant, to talk about principal parts and bases in such close succession (and without motivating having both), as you do.
                                  >>
                                  >I don't think I can avoid using both -- the vocabulary listing calls for principal parts, while the explanation of forms needs bases.

                                  Eh, one has flexibility. In vocabulary listings in particular I've taken a variety of different approaches. For instance, in
                                  http://akana.conlang.org/wiki/Kib%C3%BCl%CA%8Ci%E1%B9%85/Lexicon ,
                                  I list verbs as a pair of bases (nonpast and past), but I list nouns as their unsuffixed form and indicate (here by superscripts) consonants of the base whose identity is unclear in the citation form.

                                  Alex
                                • Anthony Miles
                                  Eh, one has flexibility. In vocabulary listings in particular I ve taken a variety of different approaches. For instance, in
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Apr 21, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Eh, one has flexibility. In vocabulary listings in particular I've taken a variety of different approaches. For instance, in
                                    http://akana.conlang.org/wiki/Kib%C3%BCl%CA%8Ci%E1%B9%85/Lexicon ,
                                    I list verbs as a pair of bases (nonpast and past), but I list nouns as their unsuffixed form and indicate (here by superscripts) consonants of the base whose identity is unclear in the citation form.

                                    Alex

                                    R: Due to the high incidence of aspectually-determined suppletion in Siye, I've taken to using the citation form si/ye, which indicates that /siye/ is the base noun, /si/ is the imperfective root and /ye/ the perfective root. Unfortunately, the participles for the most part use one or the other root, so the citation form "a/tom" "to engage in commerce" indicates an imperfective/perfective split, but the participle /amakim/ "market, place where selling occurs" uses the imperfective root, while /tomkasunaki/ "goods" uses the perfective root. /tomkasunaki/ must use the perfective root tom- because the "resolved to" suffix -ka requires it. So the verb ends up under A, the first noun ends up under A before the verb, and the second noun under T, far away from the related words. It's not perfect, but otherwise I have to enter many verb roots twice. If anyone has a better system, I'm all ears either here or off-list.
                                  • neo gu
                                    ... A similar problem exists for nouns derived from verbs by prefixing or with noun-verb compounds. I m currently trying to decide on an approach for Apr21.
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Apr 25, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:22:33 -0400, Anthony Miles <mamercus88@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >>Eh, one has flexibility. In vocabulary listings in particular I've taken a variety of different approaches. For instance,
                                      >> in http://akana.conlang.org/wiki/Kib%C3%BCl%CA%8Ci%E1%B9%85/Lexicon ,
                                      >>I list verbs as a pair of bases (nonpast and past), but I list nouns as their unsuffixed form and indicate (here by
                                      >> superscripts) consonants of the base whose identity is unclear in the citation form.
                                      >
                                      >>Alex
                                      >
                                      >R: Due to the high incidence of aspectually-determined suppletion in Siye, I've taken to using the citation form si/ye, which indicates that /siye/ is the base noun, /si/ is the imperfective root and /ye/ the perfective root. Unfortunately, the participles for the most part use one or the other root, so the citation form "a/tom" "to engage in commerce" indicates an imperfective/perfective split, but the participle /amakim/ "market, place where selling occurs" uses the imperfective root, while /tomkasunaki/ "goods" uses the perfective root. /tomkasunaki/ must use the perfective root tom- because the "resolved to" suffix -ka requires it. So the verb ends up under A, the first noun ends up under A before the verb, and the second noun under T, far away from the related words. It's not perfect, but otherwise I have to enter many verb roots twice. If anyone has a better system, I'm all ears either here or off-list.

                                      A similar problem exists for nouns derived from verbs by prefixing or with noun-verb compounds.

                                      I'm currently trying to decide on an approach for Apr21. Verbs can have up to 3 stem phases, e.g. qot, qta, qoda, depending on what affixes appear (as in qot "he asked', oqtam "you asked me", qodam "he asked me") and nouns may also vary, with some changing class prefix for the plural and some may add a possessor suffix. The variants actually follow a set of rules, so they can be derived from the root (*CVCV or *qota in the example).

                                      --
                                      Jeff
                                    • Alex Fink
                                      ... Is /siye/ actually the compound of /si/ and /ye/ that it appears to be, then? What s the story here? It s a curious thing for a systematic process, to
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:22:33 -0400, Anthony Miles <mamercus88@...> wrote:

                                        >Eh, one has flexibility. In vocabulary listings in particular I've taken a variety of different approaches. For instance, in
                                        > http://akana.conlang.org/wiki/Kib%C3%BCl%CA%8Ci%E1%B9%85/Lexicon ,
                                        >I list verbs as a pair of bases (nonpast and past), but I list nouns as their unsuffixed form and indicate (here by superscripts) consonants of the base whose identity is unclear in the citation form.
                                        >
                                        >R: Due to the high incidence of aspectually-determined suppletion in Siye, I've taken to using the citation form si/ye, which indicates that /siye/ is the base noun, /si/ is the imperfective root and /ye/ the perfective root.

                                        Is /siye/ actually the compound of /si/ and /ye/ that it appears to be, then? What's the story here?
                                        It's a curious thing for a systematic process, to involve both roots of a suppletive pair, 'cause I'd expect that to be historically some sort of redundant compound -- on the other hand, given that your most frequent verb roots are all monosyllabic, maybe this _is_ what actually happened, along the lines of the modern Chinese embrace of bisyllables 'cause monosyllables are too ambiguous.
                                        What do non-suppletive verbs do?

                                        > Unfortunately, the participles for the most part use one or the other root, so the citation form "a/tom" "to engage in commerce" indicates an imperfective/perfective split, but the participle /amakim/ "market, place where selling occurs" uses the imperfective root, while /tomkasunaki/ "goods" uses the perfective root. /tomkasunaki/ must use the perfective root tom- because the "resolved to" suffix -ka requires it. So the verb ends up under A, the first noun ends up under A before the verb, and the second noun under T, far away from the related words. It's not perfect, but otherwise I have to enter many verb roots twice. If anyone has a better system, I'm all ears either here or off-list.

                                        I dunno that my usual approach nowadays (for instance in that Kibülʌiṅ link above) is better, but it's to group all derivations from a given stem together. I'll then alphabetically order the stems, as a sort of default, but the result won't be alphabetical on the whole. This is OK for my purposes, because I don't really use the lexicon by scanning it by eye looking for a given word; I have a computer and can use its find capability.

                                        In UNLWS it's not even meaningful to order alphabetically (I've thought up a shape-based sortkey scheme along the vague lines of LOTEP, but not used it), so there instead we have a grouping by the "radicals" and family resemblances which index certain semantic families, and an even looser quasi-semantic ordering of those, roughly from functioniest to contentiest.
                                        https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1y15nvR28xPxZMF-pFypB4zaxUAzblj3cG2SjvnGIO44#h.1hjx9gpo5w8q

                                        19104Maybe one of these days I should make the leap to databases.

                                        Alex
                                      • Anthony Miles
                                        On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:22:33 -0400, Anthony Miles wrote: ... Is /siye/ actually the compound of /si/ and /ye/ that it appears to
                                        Message 19 of 26 , May 2, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:22:33 -0400, Anthony Miles <mamercus88@...> wrote:

                                          <snip>
                                          >R: Due to the high incidence of aspectually-determined suppletion in Siye, I've taken to using the citation form si/ye, which indicates that /siye/ is the base noun, /si/ is the imperfective root and /ye/ the perfective root.

                                          Is /siye/ actually the compound of /si/ and /ye/ that it appears to be, then? What's the story here?
                                          It's a curious thing for a systematic process, to involve both roots of a suppletive pair, 'cause I'd expect that to be historically some sort of redundant compound -- on the other hand, given that your most frequent verb roots are all monosyllabic, maybe this _is_ what actually happened, along the lines of the modern Chinese embrace of bisyllables 'cause monosyllables are too ambiguous.
                                          What do non-suppletive verbs do?

                                          R: There are plenty of non-suppletive roots, like /im/, which has its own set of problems, and polysyllabic roots, like /uluwe/, in Siye - I just enjoy suppletion more. I'm also in the process of adding a greater variety of syllable structures in the suffix inventory: the aspects have dwindled to -m- and -n-, but I've added -ulu- for when you really need a future tense. I'm not sure of the historical process of deriving si/ye - as linguistic demiurge, I wanted abundant suppletion on an accusative/ergative basis. At one point, I thought the culprit might be stress, but SIye would produce /si/ which is what I have and /siYE/ would produce /se/ rather than /ye/. /sutu/, OTOH, would become /sut/ and /stu/, which would become /su/ and /tu/ due to the syllable structure restrictions of Siye. I should point that the Guild of Scholars has had enormous influence on the language, so there is a large amount of interference from official sources. And this is a place where using incorrect grammar can void a contract!

                                          <snip>
                                          19104Maybe one of these days I should make the leap to databases.

                                          Alex
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.