On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:23 PM, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 19/06/2011 01:57, Eric Christopherson wrote:
>
>> On Jun 18, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Nikolay Ivankov wrote:
>>
>>  The discussion "No personal pronouns" by Miles Foster,
>>> or more precisely the fact that there are no verbs in
>>> his conlang, together with the thread about verb
>>> auxiliaries started by me led me to think that the idea
>>> I've been working on for quite a while may be worth
>>> sharing. I wanted to incorporate the features that are
>>> described below into my Sivarian conlang. In Sivarian I
>>> haven't been planning to go that far, i.e. getting rid
>>> of all the verbs completely, but Miles' idea was just
>>> too challenging.
>>>
>>
> Verbless conlangs are not, of course, a new idea - but the
> notion of one which is supposedly developed from an actual
> natlang (even if it may be a fictitious natlang) is
> interesting.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>  As follows, some of your nominal cases do seem a bit
>> misguided, but not really with respect to their names. To
>> wit, some of the cases seem to actually describe the
>> following noun, rather than the noun they're suffixed
>> to.
>>
>
> Yes, this was my reaction, also. I had difficulty  in
> following some examples because of this.


Well, that's why I've been thinking about different names. In fact, I have
and will have difficulties in decoding what I have been expecting to say.
The cases should basically mean whether the "distance" between subject and
object decreases, increases or remains 0, with the case marker being carried
by the subject. I've adopted the LOC-ABL-ALL just in order not to look
totally ignorant. Maybe we can try other cases (again Latin, and again
trying to look a shmort fella): Accedative or Proximative for ALL, Essetive
for LOC and maybe Abirative for ABL. This can make the notation clearer.


>
>  This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- there are actually
>> some languages (Northwest Coast North America, I think;
>> and if memory serves, David Peterson's Sidaan) where
>> enclitics (i.e. clitics attached to the *end* of a word)
>> actually correspond to the following noun rather than the
>> one they're attached to.
>>
>
> Which makes me wonder if what Nikolay is describing is
> really _case_ at all, but something more like the clitics
> referred to above.
>
> Indeed, I see no reason why a verbless language needs case
> its ancestor language.
>

I have to admit that for me it is still quite hard to say when a clitic ends
and postfix begins.

[snip]

If you're thinking of devising a verbless language that
> plausibly developed from a natlang, I'll leave two thoughts:
>
> [FIRST THOUGHT]
> I'd just like to observe that the Insular Celtic languages
> make a great deal of use of "to be" and the so-called
> 'verbnoun'.  That the 'verbnoun' is grammatical a noun can
> be seen in that the 'object' is expressed in possessive/
> genitival form. As the verb "to be" is not uncommonly dropped in many
> languages I can see how languages like
> Insular Celtic ones could develop into verbless languages.
>

As I have written somewhere around, I just do not like the _be_ verbs. If my
goal was just to create a verbless language from the ordinary one just to
make an example, I'd definitely stick to the _be_ verbs. However, I've had
my conlang in mind, where

1) I've been thinking about noun classifiers
2) tried to get rid of _be_ verbs as much as possible
3) didn't want to have too many cases
4) tried to introduce ergativity as much as possible
5) wanted to have a 3-consonant language with umlaut, vowel harmony (as in
Turkish) and consonant change (as in Irish)

So I gave myself a pleasure not just to construct something verbless, but
also to test my ideas and make the language look naturally irregular (I
prefer English parks to French). I think I'll even preserve some genuine
irregular verbs in the final version for that sake.


>
> I'll use, however, Classical Latin (of the 'Silver' type)
> to illustrate the point.
>
> Note:
> _visus (gen. visūs) - noun, masculine = seeing, looking,
>
> Examples:
>  ego in  visu   tui = I see you
> I.NOM in "visus" you.GEN
> faculty of sight, vision.
>
>  ego post visum tui = I have seen you/ I saw you
>
>  ego ante visum tui = I shall see you.
>
> The verb "to be" was often omitted in short sentences by writers in the
> Silver period (early 1st cent to mid 2nd
> cent CE), therefore the three sentences above:
> - have no verbs.
> - are perfectly grammatical Latin sentences (tho admittedly
> they would seem a bit bizarre   :)
>

Wow!

You may probably know that modern Russian omits copula in presence.
Sometimes the use of the copula changes the sense of the phrase. For
instance:

Tam kafe = There is a cafe (this building is a cafe)
Tam yest' kafe = There is a cafe there (among other facilities, like dancing
pool and fitness center)

I do not think it is much known, but _go_ verb is also often skipped in
informal speech. Consider:

Nu, ya v prachechnuyu = Well, I (am going to go) to the laundry (right now).

This particular example led me to an idea to try dropping away as many cases
as possible. In this conlang the "copula-like" verbs are not entirely
dropped away, but I'm going to consider this in future.

[snip]

> >
> > Man ir suns I.DAT is dog.NOM
> >
> > I have a dog
> >
> > Another example, now German
> >
> > Mir ist kalt
> >
> > I.DAT is cold
> >
> > I feel cold
> >
> >
> > I think is most cases this construction if form by
> > dropping the impersonal pronoun like "it" (cf. "It is too
> > cold for me to..."). An analogous construction is used
> > extensively in Russian
> >
> > Ya hochu yest'
> >
> > I want.1PS eat.INF
> >
> > I want to eat
>
> This is actually familiar to me. Cf Welsh
>  rhaid i fi   fwyta
>  need for me eating  = I must eat
>
> There is no (finite) verb in the sentence!
>
>
> > U men'a yest' sobaka
> >
> > (proximity preposition) I.GEN is.INF dog.NOM
> >
> > I have a dog
>
> Cf.
>
> Latin: mihi   canis   est
>       me.DAT dog.NOM is = I have a dog
>
> Welsh: mae ci gen i.
>       is dog with me = I have a dog
>

By the way, in the spirit of previous examples, you may skip the _yest'_
verb in this one. I can name at least two cases:

"U men'a sobaka [koshka i krolik]" = "I have a dog [, a cat and a rabbit]"

Or, a dialogue:
- I'll break into your house.
- A u men'a sobaka (yest')! = And I have a dog (that will bite you)

The last one is not too common, but still in use.


> Interesting stuff - go for it!


go.I.prox 0_it_nom!


> --
> Ray
> ==============================**====
> http://www.carolandray.plus.**com <http://www.carolandray.plus.com>
> ==============================**====
> Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
> There's none too old to learn.
> [WELSH PROVERB]
>

Thanks,

Kolya