Re: A Conlang, created by the group?

Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:

>Prepare now solutions with connectives in SOV structure if you don't separate cases from tags of
>noun/adj/adv/verb : there are no connectives to nouns in Japanese. I wouldn't like us to have
>to start
>again all from scratch 2 weeks later from now :-)
Let's use the vocabulary I just made up, plus:

duj- "see"
pik- (connective)
zu-  (theme case prefix)

_asi afraro pesi dikjakul zupiko diduje_

a-si a-fraro pe-si di-kjak-ul     zu-piko    diduj-e
ag-I ag-dog  pat-I pred-bite-past theme-[it] pred-see-present

I [the dog bit me] it see

"I see the dog that bit me"

That's what you mean by "connective"?

Another way, using the case prefix as a separate word:

_zu afraro pesi dikjakul, asi zupiko diduje_
"The dog that bit me, I see it"

Or even another way:

_asi zupiko diduje, afraro pesi dikjakul zupiko_
"I see it, the dog that bit me"

>I'm OK with any cases, especially the way you mention them (ergative = yummy !).
>I'm quite happy if
>you decide them without me.
ergative = agent as for now.


>4.1. Nouns as sole verb roots : what does this imply ?
>
>Ergative system may make a difference between 'to run' and to 'be beaten'. You'll say
>it's a question
>of 'control'. Yes. But this further means that ergative takes into account the very practical
>EXPERIENCE you have of both situations.
>
>Ergative system looks each action or state from the viewpoint of a different agent
>depending on what
>the action or state means in terms of human experience.
>
>To make it short, 'verbs' in ergative system usually (but not only) derive from NOUNS.
>
>In other words :
>
>The verb 'to wound' may be derived from nouns like 'the state of suffering a
>wound' but also 'the one
>wounded', 'the one wounding', ''the weapon to wound' or 'the wound'.
I see what your concern is about. I guess we'll have to live with that.
I have proposed that we have inherently verbal and inherently nominal roots.
Otherwise this lack of distinction may cause a real mess. We should decide
carefully how are we going to define each word. If there can be a pair
of meanings, one verbal and one nominal, let's clarify both. For example:

"to bite / the act of biting" (not the mark of the dog's teeth and so on)
"to be red / the colour red" (not "redness" or "a reddening")

If we carefully develop a set of derivational inflections, these problems
should not arise... and if they do, let's let context do its job ;)


>4.2. So if you really want "not to distinguish verbs from nouns" in this language
>according to your
>own words, you may need to go beyond the words 'ergative' and 'absolutive' to understand what is
>actually the rtle of the each agent regarding each other.
>
>The predicate is nothing but one of these agents picked as the one from whose
>viewpoint you view the
>action and the other agents. The PREDICATE is a bit in the same situation as the
>TOPIC in SOV system.
>
>If you want to go that far, you need as many cases as there are relations
>between agents, patients,
>unergative and results via one of them taken as predicate.
>
>I mentioned 6 of them (causative, equative, factitive, attributive,
>applicative, patientive) but there
>are about 10 cases I think. It's easy to list these cases but it's very
>'experimental' as you call it.
>
>No natlang actually works like that because there are verb roots in any languages, even in the
>ergative languages.
>
>If you want to derive all verbs from any nouns, you'll need all 10 cases, otherwise you'll need
>'verbal roots' like in purely ergative languages.
That's why I want to do -- some pure verbal roots. And I guess the others
would agree to that? Otherwise the case system will have to be redefined.
We don't want that, do we?

If we have, say, _kjak-_ "bite", we could have

kjako      "a biting" (the action, default noun meaning)
kjakailo   "a bit" (the mark of the dog's teeth, a derivative meaning "result")
kjakango   "biter" (i. e. the dog)
kjakes-    "(be) bitten" (new stem)
kjakeso    "a being bitten" (the action from the point of view of the patient)

etc.


--Pablo Flores