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 2018, Week 2

CONLANG February 2018, Week 2

Subject:

Re: This and That

From:

Melroch <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:13:19 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (159 lines)

AFMOC[^1] Sohlob has a somewhat odd number marking system.
Originally (i.e. in the intra-fictional ancestor language) it was a simple
system which marked number only on determiners and some pronouns, and that
was done by reduplication, i.e. the pronominal root was doubled so that
e.g. _i-ru_ 'here-DEMONSTRATIVE.INANIMATE' meant 'this (thing)' while
_i-ru-ru_ 'here-DEMONSTRATIVE.INANIMATE-DEMONSTRATIVE.INANIMATE'[^2] meant
'these (things)'. This was shortened to _irru_, which then again changed in
various ways, becoming _idru_, then _ïzïr_, (alternatively spelled
_iezier_). I won't describe it all here since it is well described in an
old post at https://goo.gl/ukkWTd (go and read it now!)[^3] Thus in
Classical Sohlob _zoghd ïn_ means 'elephant this' or just 'the elephant'
and _zoghd ïndïr_ means 'elephants these' or just 'the elephants'. 'An
elephant' is _zoghtah_ (or _zoghd-hah_), but that suffix is really just the
numeral 'one' although it undergoes vowel harmony so that 'a city' is
_hïhlïh_ (or _hïl-hïh_). Just _zoghd_ on its own usually means 'some
elephants' or 'elephants in general'.

[^1]: "As For My Own Conlang", another of those CONLANG list acronyms.

[^2]: The fancy way of writing this is "_i-ru~ru_ 'here~DEM.INAN'" with the
tilde indicating reduplication and the reduplicated material shown only
once in the gloss.

[^3]: I've changed the romanization of Sohlob since then; most notably:

    Old  New  ASCII IPA
    ---  ---- ----- -----
     æ    ä    ae    æ
     e    ï    ie    ɨ
     c    č    ch    tɕ
     ç    š    sh    ɕ
     j   ǰ/ž   j/zh  (d)ʑ
     ng  ŋ/ŋg  ng(g) ŋ/ŋg
     ñg   ŋg   ngg   ŋg
     q    ǧ    gh    ʁ/ɣ
     x    ȟ    kh    x/x

     I'll be using the ASCII version of the consonants here just in case
someone lacks the appropriate font support. :-(


Den 14 feb 2018 08:22 skrev "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" <
[log in to unmask]>:

> On 14 February 2018 at 04:27, Michael Martin <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > I've since decided to go with marking definiteness on the nouns with a
> > suffix.
> >
> > But another question that came to mind. Must nouns be inherently
> singular?
> > Or could a language have it's nouns be inherently plural and require
> > marking or an auxiliary word to make them singular?
> >
> >
> Whenever a question like "is a specific linguistic feature universal?" is
> asked, you'll quickly learn that the right answer in 99% of the cases is
> "No" :). Among all the natlangs of the world, there is precious little that
> is truly universal. And in this particular case, the answer is indeed, "no,
> nouns don't have to be inherently singular".
>
> The simple case is where nouns do not have *any* inherent number: nouns
> don't have a specific mark for number, or that mark is optional and only
> used in some cases, and the same form can be used for singular or plural
> depending on context and the surrounding words. Japanese is an example. 花
> (hana): "flower" in Japanese can mean "a flower", "the flower", "flowers"
> or "the flowers" depending on context and other words in the sentence, but
> the word itself is neither inherently singular nor inherently plural (and
> neither inherently indefinite nor inherently definite either). By the way,
> Japanese does have a plural suffix _-tachi_, but it's (mostly) only used
> with nouns that refer to people, and its main meaning is that of a
> distributive plural (i.e. "and company"). For instance, _Tanakatachi_ means
> "Tanaka and their friends" or "Tanaka and their folks", or even "Tanaka and
> their company" depending on context.
>
> Closer to what you were thinking about, there are indeed languages where
> (some) nouns are inherently plural and need a mark to make them singular.
> Usually, nouns that are like that are said to have collective number, and
> the singular form is called the singulative in this case. For instance, in
> Welsh, the noun _plant_: "children" is inherently plural, and its
> singulative is _plentyn_: "child". The collective form is really the more
> basic one, and is used like an English mass noun basically, although it
> refers to something that is countable. Singulatives are a feature of (among
> others) Celtic and Semitic languages. I know Breton has it as well, as well
> as Arabic for instance. You can easily find more information about it
> online.
>
> Finally, if you really want to go crazy, you can look at the weirdness that
> is _inverse number_ (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number#Inverse_number). In some
> languages, nouns can have three numbers (usually singular, dual and
> plural). But rather than any one of these numbers being standard for all
> nouns, nouns are separated into classes based on which number is inherent
> to them (or numbers!), and the same affix (called the inverse number affix)
> is used to mark a non-inherent number, whatever the class of the noun! This
> means that in these languages, you can have for instance nouns that are
> inherently singular, nouns that are inherently plurals, and nouns that are
> inherently plural and dual. The inherently singular nouns use the inverse
> number affix to mark dual and plural, while the inherently plural nouns use
> that same affix to mark singular and dual! As for the inherently plural and
> dual nouns, they use the affix only to mark the singular! Just goes to show
> how weird number marking can be! :)
>
> Anyway, I hope that answers your question. Just remember whenever you ask a
> question about language in the form of "must it happen this way?", the
> answer will usually be "no, it doesn't have to" :).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
> President of the Language Creation Society (http://conlang.org/)
>
> Personal Website: http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> Personal Tumblr: http://christophoronomicon.tumblr.com/
>
>
>
> >
> > * Michael - [log in to unmask]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of taliesin the storyteller
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 12:48 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: This and That
> >
> > On 2018-02-02 06:40, Michael Martin wrote:
> > > I was thinking about definite articles and I wondered if I could
> > > actually replace "the" with the equivalent of "this" and "that" and so
> > > on. So essentially instead of saying "the cat" you would have to say
> > > "this cat" or "that cat". Is this something real languages do?
> > > Is there anything I would need to be careful of or watch out for if I
> > > went this route?
> >
> > How do you mark indefiniteness?
> >
> > If you mark indefiniteness, definite could be the default, and unmarked
> :)
> >
> > Haspelmaths's "Indefinite pronouns" is excellent to understand
> > definiteness:
> >
> > (PDF, missing some figures)
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/22872159/Indefinite_pronouns
> >
> >
> > (Open-access, web-site)
> >
> > http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/
> > 9780198235606.001.0001/oso-9780198235606
> >
> >
> > t.
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager