New CBB

I'm wracking my brains for ways to make Adari interesting. Here's a few:

-Distinct subjunctive/indicative stems for verbs (think like Latin's preset/perfect stem distinction, but for mood)

-A periphrastic imperfect formed by using a verb (not sure what maybe-maybe "to be") and a gerund of another verb (yes, this is what English does to form its progresive, but remeber that itself was from the Celtic languages of Britian)

-3 noun classes: Land, Sea, and Intagible/Concepts

-Periphrastic passive....somehow.

-Distinction between perfect and imperfect stems (I'm taking Solarius's statement that Adari feels Slavic and running with it). This gives 6 principal parts: Infinitive, Perfect, Imperfect, Subjunctive, Imperfect Subjunctive, Perfect Subjunctive.

-Use of the subjunctive to mean only ideas (hypothetical or not), and purpose, never for just "if statements". In an Adari sentence that means "If X, then y", Y will be in the subjunctive, not X.

What do you think?

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

You could merge tense with evidentiality, like Tariana.

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

I was thinking of having the subjunctive be used to mean future tense as well. After all, the future is merely an idea no matter what. You can say "I will go to the store" but that doesn't make it fact until you actually do it (which would make it present tense).

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

See my reply to your post about this in another thread.

"Subjunctive" doesn't mean what you think it means; "dubitative" means what you think "subjunctive" means.

It makes sense to have all future tense be irrealis; but if you do that, you won't want to call that mood "subjunctive".

For mood to be called "subjunctive" it must be available to mark most or all subordinate clauses as subordinate.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

So position of agreement affixes: Agent before patient and both prefixes, or patient before agent and one a prefix, other a suffix?

_________________
Up in blue sky silly blimp goes by
Where it come from where it go
Ziggy-Zaggy it fly high

If your conlang's ancestor-language was SOV (or APV) then it should be Agent-before-Patient-both-Prefixes.
If your conlang's ancestor-language was SVO (or AVP) then it should be Agent-Prefix, Patient-Suffix.

OTOH if your conlang's ancestor-language was VOS (or VPA) then it should be Patient-before-Agent-both-Suffixes.

Or at least that's my guess, which is based on complete ignorance of your con-diachronics.

Assuming the pattern I guessed above holds, a Patient-Prefix, Agent-Suffix system would imply an ancestor that was OVS (or PVA); and those are rare among real-life natlangs. But they do exist; and besides, I don't even know if your intend your conlang to be a human conlang.

http://wals.info/chapter/104 has 192 languages in which both the person of A and the person of P are marked on the verb.
In 20 of them the AP-person marker is a fused marker (like Marc Okrand's "pronominal prefix" for Klingon verbs).
In another 19, both orders of A and P person-markers occur. Among the other 153, most (96 of them) have the A person-marker before the P person-marker; but that includes situations in which they are both prefixes (so that the P marker comes closer to the verb-stem), situations in which they are both suffixes (so that the A marker comes closer to the verb-stem), and situations in which the A marker is a prefix and the P marker is a suffix.
The remaining 57 have the P person-marker before the A person-marker; but, again, that includes three possibilities; both prefixes (so the A is closest to the stem), both suffixes (so the P is closest to the stem), and a P prefix but an A suffix.

I do not know how to find out whether A-P-stem is more common than P-stem-A or not.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

I know how I could get either if pressed to justify it and either way is sufficiently attested for me, but what I want is simply some opinions on which of the two is more aesthetic.

_________________
Up in blue sky silly blimp goes by
Where it come from where it go
Ziggy-Zaggy it fly high

Oh.

Well, then.

I prefer A-P-stem or A-stem-P above all other arrangements.
That's me.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

_________________
Ikasmu ati'uki nai uraiur.
Hinai nimuśim naimi nai sasamiur urukani. Śi'ama nai huhumiur na ni'amuśim nai sasamiur.
Pumaki nimuśim śima'a na ami nimuśim ara'a. Hini nihrasum i'aku tumra urukani na nihrasum sanik hraspir.

If you could put the patient before the agent, and make the patient be a suffix and the agent be a prefix, I'd very much like to see it.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Subordinate clauses whose tenses are relative to the main one.

Adari's subordinate clauses have tenses, but they are not set in stone snd are in fact relative to the main clause's tense.

For example, if a main clause is in the past, and its subordinate clause in the present, the subordnate clause actually refers to the past as well. If the main clause is in the future, and the subordinate clause is in the past, then the subordinate refers to the present, actually. Both clauses in the past would mean that the subordinate was in the past of the past (in other words, sinilar to Latin's pluperfect).

Basically, Adari tenses can be arranged on a line: Past--Present--Future. For subordinate clauses, their tense is more along the lines of "going back one tense, staying in the same time, going foward one tense".

You may notice that this means that a sentence referring to the past and the future is impossible in Adari: the sentence "If he did it, we will be in trouble" wouldn't be possible. But it is, in an odd way. Both "If he did it, we will be in trouble" and "If he did it, we are in trouble" would both translate to the exact same sentence in Adari. Context must be used to figure it out.

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

Double post, I know, but I got another idea.

I have the idea of having NO verbs in Adari express aspect. They express just tense and mood. How do Azenians express aspect then? A style very similar to what I just described above is used. The verb is used with "Ariça" (to be) for motion verbs or Noiça (to do) for action verbs. The main erb is kept in the infinitive (infinitives in Adari mark for tense as well) and use the auxillary gerb as a normal one. Various combinations of tenses can mean different aspects:

The main verb in the present with the auxillary in the future is present progressive/imperfect. The main verb in the past and the auxillary in the present would be past imperfect. Both verbs in the Future would be future imperfect

Main verb in the present and auxillary in the past would be present perfect, while both in the past would be past perfect.

There's other combinations available, obviously, but I'm working out all the different possibilities.

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

Chagen, that's what I did with Ríhannen. Basicly, there are two sets of tenses, absolute and relative. The absolute set is used in main clauses; the relative set is used in subordinate clauses and has the meaning before/simultaneously/after the main action depending on the tense chosen.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS

I'm thinking of having Adari scrap all/nearly all verbal conjugation related to number. That mogut make it too Japanese, though.

Pro-drop is cool, but I'm not feeling it for this lang.

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

An idea popped into my head today about a 'Representative' number, where someone speaks on behalf of others.

For example, if a Prime Minister were to attend a summit and say 'We of X country believe Y,' the 'We' would be in this person/number/something.

It would differ from your bog standard 3PP as it's used when you're not talking to the 'We'.

Has this been used before?

_________________
초보

It looks to me a bit like an associative plural; might it be?

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

You know, I think you might be right. I'll have to remember that.

_________________
초보

I would too because that interpretation is impossible.

Can I get a tie-breaker?

_________________
Up in blue sky silly blimp goes by
Where it come from where it go
Ziggy-Zaggy it fly high

I think having one a prefix and the other a suffix sounds most interesting.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

Should I add an interesting case irregularity?

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =