--- David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Elliott wrote:
> <<Clitics,
> imply to my at least, that they're attached to a
> word
> with little or no morphophonemic changes occuring to
> either clitic or host word. If this is the case
> (which
> I'm not sure it is), then these can't be clitics.>>
> <snip examples>
> Well, in English "n't" is generally believed to be a
> clitic,
> and while it doesn't change "did", "are" or "is", it
> certainly
> does change "will" ("won't"), "do" /duw/ ("don't"
> /downt/)
> and, in some dialects, "shall" ("shan't" [sp?]).
> Naturally
> these sound changes occurred over time because these
> forms are so frequently used.   I think that sounds
> a lot like
> the examples you listed.

Point taken...I suppose more research is needed to
find out whether they're clitics or affix.

> <<Ha...I couldn't tell you. Mostly a word probably
> can
> consist of four things:>>
> Believe me, this is something that's even difficult
> to
> nail down when it comes to natural languages.   For
> English, I think a word has to have a
> conventionalized
> meaning.   So, in the word "master", the "ter" part
> isn't
> a word (even though it's an acceptable phonological
> unit) because it has no conventionalized meaning:
> "master" is not a compound of the words "mas" and
> "ter".
> However, that's not enough.   "n't" has a
> conventionalized
> meaning, but it's not a word because it can't occur
> by
> itself.   Therefore, it's a clitic.   But is a
> clitic a word?   And,
> for that matter, are English articles like "a", "an"
> and "the"
> actually clitics, or are they words?   It's a thorny
> issue
> that most just sweep under the rug, because if you
> get
> bogged down in it, you won't be able to get anywhere
> else.

Yes...well, we glossed over it in a few weeks or so in
my Morphology class. But of course, we never got to
any real conclusion.

> Incidentally (and I feel embarrassed for asking
> this, 'cause
> it seems like I should know), is Nindic a priori or
> aposteriori?


A PRIORI: Mostly in vocabulary and some grammatical
features. I'd say around 90% vocabulary is derived
from Silinestic [Nindic's parent language] roots which
are basically made up by me. Another 8% or so are
roots that are kind of inspired by Indo-European
sources, another 1% inspired by Quenya and Sindarin,
another 1% inspired by Finnish and Finno-Ugric.

Of those made up by me, the Silinestic roots are
mostly creations that are post 1997, some however are
derived from my first Conlang: Flavin, which derived
some words from French (in odd, non-realistic ways).

So, vocabulary wise, it's a mish-mash, but strongly a
priori, nonetheless.

On the grammar side, I'm less creative. I try to
emulate those languages which I like and find
appealing. These include: Latin, Greek, Sanskrit,
Hebrew, PIE, Welsh, Gaelic, Old Irish, Finnish,
Quenya, Sindarin, Romance (French, Spanish), German,
Russian, Japanese, Scandinavian languages.

Silinestic languages are therefore quite a posteriori
in grammar, this includes both Nindic and Silindion.

The following is a short list of where things may have
come from:

1) Nindic has a suffixed article. This is derived
probably from some Slavic languages (Bulgarian) and
Scandinavian languages. I've extended the feature and
append some demonstratives as well.

2) Lenition, Nasalization, Spirantization, Mixed
Mutation, Consonant Mutations in general. These are a
motley mix of Celtic, Sindarin and Hebrew inspired

3) Umlaut and other Vowel changes: mostly from Old
Icelandic, Welsh, Sindarin and German, with some
Gaelic changes thrown in too.

4) Infixed Pronouns: Old Celtic languages

5) Thematic/Athematic verbs: latin, greek, sanskrit,
PIE in general

6) Past Tense -si: morpheme. This is a PIE and Latin

7) Vowel Gradation in roots: PIE

8) Perfect reduplication: PIE, Latin, Sanskrit, Greek,
Old Irish

9) Passive Formation: Celtic, Welsh specifically

10) Desiderative verb forms used as future: Sanskrit

     The only thing that I can think of at the moment
that os truly a priori (meaning of course that I made
it up on my own accord, only to find out that it's a
common feature in languages), is the distinction that
Proto-Silinestic had between subjects that have
control over their actions and subjects that do not.
This is shows up in the original distinction in 3rd
person singular endings, between -n, and -r. These are
reflected in Old Nindic:

roco "he runs"   *rokon
rocour "he will run"  *roko-su-r

<*su-r> is the Silinestic that means "he wants".
Desiring is not controllable, it's just something that
happens. Hence it takes the -r ending.

The distinction is obliderated in Modern Classical

rogor "He runs"
regior "He will run"

Elliott Lash.

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!