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

Re: Auxiliaries - want

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Apr 17, 2013
      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 2 of 26 , Apr 18, 2013
        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 3 of 26 , Apr 21, 2013
          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 4 of 26 , Apr 25, 2013
            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 5 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
              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 6 of 26 , May 2, 2013
                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.