LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  February 2014, Week 1

CONLANG February 2014, Week 1

Subject:

Re: Agreement in Adverbs

From:

Guilherme Santos <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:17:06 -0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (48 lines)

I am yet unsure where to place my adjectives, but it seems the easiest way
to do adverbial agreement is to have stative verbs. I guess i'll just have
stative verbs and a way to derivate adverbs from them, which means almost
everything in my language will be a verb, i'll probably have a hard time
with relatives.


2014-02-05 Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 19:55:18 -0200, Guilherme Santos <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >I heard that there are languages where adverbs agree with the words they
> >modify, but, as they can modify basically everything, i have no idea in
> >what would they agree:
> >Would they have different forms when modifying verbs or adjectives?
> >Do they inflect in everything the words they modify inflect?
> >
> >I googled it an found no examples of this agreement.
> >I want to used that in my conlang, but i have no idea how exactly that
> >would work.
>
> I have a conlang example of this.  In the Peninsular family of Akana, and
> in particular in my Kibülʌiṅ, adverbs agree with the verb in the category
> called _phase_ in Peninsular generally, and _grounding_ in Kib., which has
> developed from something like aspect to a purely information-structural
> category.
>   http://akana.conlang.org/wiki/Kib%C3%BCl%CA%8Ci%E1%B9%85#Grounding
> The closest Kib. has to adjectives are stative verbs, which have the same
> morphology as other verbs, so there's no difference in adverb agreement
> there.  If they found themselves modifying other words, in a way that
> couldn't be understood as the reduction of any clause, they'd probably not
> be considered adverbs anymore and dispose of the grounding suffixes.
> Indeed, providing the grounding suffixes alone is a way of converting
> non-adverbs to adverbs in Kib.:
>   _pī_ 'day', _pij-u_ 'during the day'
>   _ttej_ 'one', _ttejʌ-u_ 'once'
>
> Mind that it's not a universal truth that "adverbs can modify basically
> everything"; different languages divide up word classes differently.
>  Indeed, in standard English schoolbook grammar, the "adverb" word class is
> a bit of a dumping ground for words which don't seem to fit well anywhere
> else, which makes its behaviour look somewhat more heterogeneous than it
> ought...
>
> Alex
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options