Gorrim verbs

[Omzinesý]

I heve never seen anybody inroducing here the semantics of their conlang.

So, I accomplished the meanings of Goerrim verbs, and they became very nice, I think.
Can you find any gaps in the system, something that couldn't be expressed by it? This was a very stupid question, cos I can't suppose you know how I'm going to express anything. But after all, what do you like this?


Verbs
There are only 17 finite verbs in Gorrim. So they are a closed class. These verbs have several different forms that can be translated as different verbs, so the amount of ‘verbal meanings’ expressed by them is much bigger. Especially the difference between active and middle-voice meanings of the same verb is significant. As can be seen below, the middle-voice has rather an intransitive meaning while active/passive has a transitive meaning, but the middle-voice can also have a transitive meaning. And the relationship between the voices is not straight. After all, the verb normally express quite broad meanings, and if one wants to convey a more precise meaning (or even a simple meaning that is not included to any finite verb), one has to use compound verbal expressions. E.g. one can say “to sense” with one verb, but if one wants to emphasize that something was heard, one must say something like “to sense by hearing”, or one can say “to like” with one verb, but to say “to love” one need to say “feel love”. But it cannot be said that the finite verbs only provide grammatical meanings, because they after all can be (and in the every-day speech with the context often are) used alone.

- Verb 1 – nreaen [ɳʲanʲ]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To regard something something (positive), to think that (positive)
2. To like something (who is liked is realized as an indirect object and the structure demands a dumb direct object)
3. To feel something (positive) to someone (to whom is felt is realized as an indirect object and the feeling is realized as a direct object)
• Middle-voice
1. To feel something (positive)
2. To regard oneself something (positive)

- Verb 2 – doe̊rn [dˠøɳ]
• Active/anti-passive
4. To regard something something (negative), to think that (negative)
5. To like something (who is liked is realized as an indirect object and the structure demands a dumb direct object)
6. To feel something (negative) to someone (to whom is felt is realized as an indirect object and the feeling is realized as a direct object)
• Middle-voice
3. To feel something (negative)
4. To regard oneself something (negative)

- Verb 3 – lu [lu]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To have
• Middle-voice
1. To have something with, to wear, to hold something (concretely)

- Verb 4 – beg [bʲekʲ]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To say, to express
• Middle-voice
1. To think about “to speak to oneself”

- Verb 5 – ka [kɐ]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To make, to change something, to produce
2. To make something something, to change something something
• Middle-voice
1. To happen
2. To become something

- Verb 6 – on [onˠ]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To do, to practice, to work
• Middle-voice
1. To continue, to happen all the time

- Verb 7 – téom [tʲʰemˠ]
• Active/anti-passive
1. Use (all), to spend (all)
• Middle-voice
1. To end, to be used

- Verb 8 – go [gə]
• Active/anti-passive
1. Use (not all)
• Middle-voice
1. To practice an occupation, to be in use, to function

- Verb 9
• Active – da [dˠɐ]
1. To be (equal to) (unchanging state)
• Middle-voice
1. To be (willingly) (unchanging state)

- Verb 10 – se [ʃʲə]
• Active
1. To be (temporarily)
• Middle-voice
1. To be (willingly) (unchanging state)

- Verb 11 – pal [pʰˠalˠ]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To be somewhere
2. to stand
3. to fight for (for which as an indirect object)
• Middle-voice
1. To be somewhere (willingly)
2. to stand
3. to fight for oneself (for which as an indirect object)

- Verb 12 – eb [ep]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To be somewhere
2. To lie (lay, lain)
• Middle-voice
1. To be somewhere (willingly)
2. To exploit

- Verb 13 – nih [nʲi]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To hit something
2. To touch
3. To meet
• Middle-voice
1. To be hit
2. To touch (emotionally)
3. To meet (purposefully)

- Verb 14 – éozg [eʃˠk]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To destroy
2. To break (something)
3. To take something off
• Middle-voice
1. To be destroyed (accidentally)
2. to leave (not used for humans)
3. to die
4. to break

- verb 15 – seyl [ʃʲïlˠ]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To move something, to keep something moving
• Middle-voice
2. To move, to keep moving

- Verb 16 – ba [bʲɐ] – venitivity expressed by the deictic infix /-i-/
• Active/anti-passive
1. To take
2. To bring
• Middle-voice
1. To go
2. To come

- Verb 17 –ez [es]
• Active/anti-passive
1. To look, to watch, to see, to sense
• Middle-voice
1. To be visible, to be sensed


Though the finite verbs can be used alone, they after all express more grammatical TAM meanings than really semantic meanings. So, though there are only 17 finite verbs, four of them can be translated “to be”, two of them “to feel” and two of them “to move”, two of them “to do/make” and two of them “to use”.

In the case of moving, doing and using, the difference is about aspect. There are a perfective and an imperfective counterpart. With being the difference lies between the habitual and the continuative aspect. With feeling it is about (I could say) volitionality, which is expressed by the voice distinction in the case of some other verbs.

Nevertheless, the Gorrim verbs do not express path. Even the verbs “to go to” and “to come from” are exactly the same. The difference is clarified by the context or directional prepositions. Venitivity is expressed by the deictic infix /i/ which means something like “here”. It also had to be used with any sentence expressing that something is done in the same place as the speaking. So bea ja means “go to” and be (< bea+i) ja “come to (here)”.

[Micamo]

"I began hyperventilating when I looked at how Tlingit's inner prefixes coalesce!"

[Rainchild]

Hi, Omzinesý,

1. Please work on the clarity of your description. I don't know whether or not English is your first language, but your description of your verbs is marred by two problems. First, it contains vague statements (e.g. "And the relationship between the voices is not straight").
Second, you need to work on how your information is organized. For example, your information about your voices and about the range of meanings that the verb can express is mixed into the same paragraph in a way that I find confusing.

2. Does your language have any non-finite verbs? Are they an open class?

3. Does the clarification of your verb meanings always involve the use of a nominal complement that stands for an action, process, or experience? e.g. "love" being "feel love" in your language?

4. Why do you describe some of the senses of your verbs as "active/anti-passive"? Please give an example of the use of the anti-passive in your language.

5.

Though the finite verbs can be used alone, they after all express more grammatical TAM meanings than really semantic meanings. So, though there are only 17 finite verbs, four of them can be translated “to be”, two of them “to feel” and two of them “to move”, two of them “to do/make” and two of them “to use”.

In the case of moving, doing and using, the difference is about aspect. There are a perfective and an imperfective counterpart. With being the difference lies between the habitual and the continuative aspect. With feeling it is about (I could say) volitionality, which is expressed by the voice distinction in the case of some other verbs.

Nevertheless, the Gorrim verbs do not express path. Even the verbs “to go to” and “to come from” are exactly the same. The difference is clarified by the context or directional prepositions. Venitivity is expressed by the deictic infix /i/ which means something like “here”. It also had to be used with any sentence expressing that something is done in the same place as the speaking. So bea ja means “go to” and be (< bea+i) ja “come to (here)”.

\

7. You say that the finite verbs express more grammatical than semantic meaning, but your verbs all have contentive meaning can can be used alone.

8. What is "venitvity"? Is it the quality of being close to the speaker?

--Jim G.

[Omzinesý]

Hi, Omzinesý,

1. Please work on the clarity of your description. I don't know whether or not English is your first language, but your description of your verbs is marred by two problems. First, it contains vague statements (e.g. "And the relationship between the voices is not straight").
Second, you need to work on how your information is organized. For example, your information about your voices and about the range of meanings that the verb can express is mixed into the same paragraph in a way that I find confusing.

Of course, this is just the branch of verb semantics.

2. Does your language have any non-finite verbs? Are they an open class?

They are like participles, normally attributing the object, which makes constituent analyses quite complicated. They can be analysed to be adjectives. Something like "I sense the seen flower." means "I see the flower."

3. Does the clarification of your verb meanings always involve the use of a nominal complement that stands for an action, process, or experience? e.g. "love" being "feel love" in your language?

It depends on how you want to analyse the participles. With a participle the must always be a "dumb object" that it can attribute.

4. Why do you describe some of the senses of your verbs as "active/anti-passive"? Please give an example of the use of the anti-passive in your language.

The distinction between active and middle-voice changes meanings (as you would think it in English vision). Active/antipassive distinction is just synthetic. Stressing the subject in anti-passive; stressing some other compliment in active.

5.

Though the finite verbs can be used alone, they after all express more grammatical TAM meanings than really semantic meanings. So, though there are only 17 finite verbs, four of them can be translated “to be”, two of them “to feel” and two of them “to move”, two of them “to do/make” and two of them “to use”.

In the case of moving, doing and using, the difference is about aspect. There are a perfective and an imperfective counterpart. With being the difference lies between the habitual and the continuative aspect. With feeling it is about (I could say) volitionality, which is expressed by the voice distinction in the case of some other verbs.

Nevertheless, the Gorrim verbs do not express path. Even the verbs “to go to” and “to come from” are exactly the same. The difference is clarified by the context or directional prepositions. Venitivity is expressed by the deictic infix /i/ which means something like “here”. It also had to be used with any sentence expressing that something is done in the same place as the speaking. So bea ja means “go to” and be (< bea+i) ja “come to (here)”.

\

7. You say that the finite verbs express more grammatical than semantic meaning, but your verbs all have contentive meaning can can be used alone.

Yes, above the list I say they express semantic meanings, and below I say they express grammatical meanings. First, I don't exactly know how they are distinguished, so I don't even try to define them.
But, with an infinite participle in the sentence, you can use many finite verbs to express many kinds of spesific TAM:s. Foe example, if you have the clause "I read a book." it can be expressed in Gorrim syntax:
I like the read book. (my attitude)
I take the read book in me. (patterning the proces - taking informatin)
I make the read book. (perfective)
I do the read book. (imperfective)
I express the read book. (reading aloud)
...

8. What is "venitvity"? Is it the quality of being close to the speaker?

--Jim G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andative_and_venitive Some language express it with a separate morpheme.
The difference between "to come" and "to go" Lat. "venire" 'to come'.
Deictic direction.

[Rainchild]

Hi, Omzinesý,

Thanks for the tip on the meaning of "venitivity." This could be useful for one of my own conlangs.

1. First of all, you are NOT just describing the semantics of the verbs; you are describing their morpho-syntax as well.

2.

Yes, above the list I say they express semantic meanings, and below I say they express grammatical meanings. First, I don't exactly know how they are distinguished, so I don't even try to define them.
But, with an infinite participle in the sentence, you can use many finite verbs to express many kinds of spesific TAM:s. Foe example, if you have the clause "I read a book." it can be expressed in Gorrim syntax:
I like the read book. (my attitude)
I take the read book in me. (patterning the proces - taking informatin)
I make the read book. (perfective)
I do the read book. (imperfective)
I express the read book. (reading aloud)

2a. I have heard that the exact demarcation between contentive and grammatical morphemes is fuzzy at best; witness English prepositions, for example. If you can't define the difference between these categories, you don't need to mention them. It would be far more elegant for you to say that your verbs can either stand alone or function as auxiliary verbs.

2b. Here's hoping that you allow more than one auxiliary per clause. That way, you can say things like "I used to like reading the book," like so: I do-past like-past read book.

2c. I question your use of participles (noun modifiers) on the object to complete the verb. If "I make the read book" means "I have read the book," how do you say "I made the read book," in other words "I made the book that was/is read" in Gorrim? Use of an infinitive instead of your participle scheme would be easy, but it would also be trite. Why not use a gerund or nominal form that patterns like an argument: "I did the jump" instead of "I jumped," or "I did the eating food" instead of "I ate the food"? If this is what you wanted to do in the first place, remember that participles are modifiers and gerunds pattern like noun phrases.

2d. An "infinite participle"? Why not just say "participle"?

3.

Active/antipassive distinction is just synthetic. Stressing the subject in anti-passive; stressing some other compliment in active.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by this. Please provide examples.

4. In sum: I think you have something interesting here, but you need to work on *clearer description.* I know that I have made this point before, but it is worth reiterating in my opinion.

--Jim G.

[Omzinesý]

Thank you, for you critigue, Rainchild.
I answer without quotes.
1. If we simplify that there is the form of language and the meaning of language, there has been veri little about the form here (I have mentioned the -i- infix). I think morpho-syntax is a part of syntax as well.
2. a) It's always important to test more scientific expressions. I'll make it better formed when/if I get the other parts readier. But I also have some reasons to use a bit complicated terminology.
b) There is only one finite verb in a clause. I am still thinking about what happens with sentences. Besides there are plenty of different ways to express more restricted aspects of meaning; these were just what I think is inherent to the stem. The finite verbs have infinite forms that can be combined with other verbs.
c) Yes, I said the Gorrim syntax is a problem for constituant analysis. The participles do agree the object (or the subject as you see below). I am not very sore about how to use the participles in the "normal way". Arabian, by the way, has participles that are not used that way at all. I have some ideas about this but I am not going to publish them yet.
d) It must have had something to do with clearly distinguishing them from the finite verbs. I often call them just adjectives.

3. I can provide rough glosses.
Gorrim is mostly an ergative language, so the active corresponds to the English passive.
active: Do(ACT) by me the read book. - I'm reading the book.
anti-passive: Do(APAS) reading I the book. - I as for, am reading the book
In an intransitive clause, you can still have a participle agreeing a dumb object.

[Omzinesý]

I would say the relationship between the finite verb and the participle, is semi-grammatical.
Like in old Germanic (or Romanic) structures.

Ich habe das Buch gemacht.
I have the book - the book is made.

[Rainchild]

1. To talk about transitivity, middle voice, active voice, anti-passives, participles, and whether a verb is finite or non-finite is to talk about morpho-syntax. A semantic analysis of the verbs would include such information as whether the verbs are telic or atelic, stative or dynamic, whether or not the acts that they denote are performed by agents, etc. So you are talking mostly about morpho-syntax.

2. Silly me! I forgot all about the use of participles as complements for auxiliaries as in German, French, and other Indo-European languages "Ich habe das Buch" indeed. [:-)] Yes, you can call your non-finite verbs participles. In English and many other languages, including German and French, participles also occur as modifiers. In these two sentences, participles are used as noun-modifiers: "He got hit by a falling rock." "The rat found the half-eaten burger." In these sentences, participles are adverbial: "Kneaded, the dough was ready." "The thief ran away smiling."

3. Questions about some of the terms that you use: By "infinite" do you mean infinitive? It will be less confusing if you don't call your participles adjectives. Is a "dumb" object a dummy object? By "Romanic," do you mean "Romance"? Also, what do you mean by the idea that the relationship between finite verb and participle is "semi-grammatical"?

4. Active in ergative languages does NOT correspond to passive in nominative-accustivave languages. For some good information on antipassive constructions, please read http://wals.info/chapter/108. With ergative-absolutive marking, your examples would read something like this:

active: Do I-ergative reading the book-absolutive. - I'm reading the book.
anti-passive with patient-like argument omitted: antip-do I-absolutive reading. - I'm reading.
anti-passive with patient-like argument as an oblique construction: antip-do I-absolutive reading from the book-ablative

--Jim G.

[Omzinesý]

1. This began with lexicon. But what ever this is doesn't matter very much.

2. Of course, these tenses are grammaticalized in the modern European languages. In Gorrim the finite verb and the participle can still be analysed separately.

3. Yes, yes, it was 1 am when I wrote the latest message.

4. I said it ambiguously. Synthetically the active of an ergative language corresponds more or less (in Gorrim less) to the passive of a nominative language. I added the anti-passive to the first post just to express that you cannot use it with all the verbs. I have to think about how to use them differently in intransitive clauses. Even the Ergativity of Gorrim is not clear, because there is no case marking.
In Gorrim the simpliest differense between active and antipassive is the participle that is in passive attributing the object and in anti-passive attributing the subject.
Do the boy the watched TV.
Do the watching boy the TV.

[Rainchild]

In Gorrim the simplest difference between active and antipassive is the participle that is in passive attributing the object and in anti-passive attributing the subject.
Do the boy the watched TV.
Do the watching boy the TV.

What a cool construction!

I still question your use of the term "antipassive" because the argument that stands for the patient is neither omitted nor turned into an oblique construction. But that is a terminological issue.

--Jim G.

[Omzinesý]

It can be omitted. And I am not very sure about how I am going to treat prepositions.

Do the watching boy. It is possible.

Complete transitive clauses aren't even very common in Gorrim.

[Omzinesý]

Negative verbs

Gorrim finite verbs have no negative particle. Logical expressions like "It is not so that..." can be used to express negative sentences. But a much more idiomatic way is to use separate negative verb stems. Due to their smaller amount, their meanings are broader than those of their affective counterparts. Mostly, the verbs differing only by aspectual meanings have a common negative counterpart. It's of course irrelevant if you don't achieve your destination, if you aren't even moving. The verbs are numbered according to their positive counterparts.

- Verb 1,2,4
• Active/anti-passive
1. Not to say, not to express
• Middle-voice
1. Not to think about “not to speak to oneself”
2. Not to regard something something, not to think that
3. Not to feel something to someone (to whom is felt is realized as an indirect object and the feeling is realized as a direct object)
4. Not to feel something
5. Not to regard oneself something

- Verb 3
• Active/anti-passive
1. Not to have, to lack
2. Not to do (in some cases)
• Middle-voice
1. Not to have something with, not to wear, not to hold something (concretely)

- Verb 5, 6
• Active/anti-passive
1. Not to make, not to change something, not to produce
2. Not to make something something, not to change something something
3. Not to do, not to practice, not to work
• Middle-voice
1. Not to happen
2. Not to become something
3. Not to continue

- Verb 7, 8
• Active/anti-passive
1. Not to use, not to spend
• Middle-voice
1. Not to end, to be used
2. Not to practice an occupation, not to be in use, not to function

- Verb 9, 10
• Active – da [dˠɐ]
1. To be (equal to)
• Middle-voice
1. To be (willingly)

- Verb 11, 12
• Active/anti-passive
1. To be somewhere
• Middle-voice
1. To be somewhere (willingly)

- Verb 13
• Active/anti-passive
1. Not to hit something
2. Not to touch
3. Not to meet
• Middle-voice
1. Not to be hit
2. Not to touch (emotionally)
3. Not to meet (purposefully)

- Verb 14
• Active/anti-passive
1. Not o destroy
2. Not to break (something)
3. Not o take something off
• Middle-voice
1. Not o be destroyed (accidentally)
2. Not o leave (not used for humans)
3. Not o die
4. Not o break

- Verb 15, 16 – venitivity expressed by the deictic infix /-i-/
• Active/anti-passive
1. To take
2. To bring
3. Not to move something
• Middle-voice
1. To go
2. To come
3. Not to move

- Verb 17
• Active/anti-passive
1. Not to look, not to watch, not to see, not to sense
• Middle-voice
1. Not to be visible, not to be sensed

[eldin raigmore]

Who are the Gorrim?
How many are there?
Where are they?
What's the rest of their culture like?

[Omzinesý]

Who are the Gorrim?
How many are there?
Where are they?
What's the rest of their culture like?

The Gorrim is no people, Gorrim is a language spoken in a few cities at the south coast of Gacítu.
There is a word Gorri̊m (with umlaut) that means a Gorrim speaker.
The number, I think 10000-100000, I'm not sure.
The Gacítu conworld is quite a traditional fantasy world. It's something like late Middle-ages, when some free cities appeared where the feodalism didn't govern. The Gorrim speaking cities are rich free trade cities at the coast, and the Gorrim language is innovative compared to the country dialects.