Kàhičáli thread

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Kàhičáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

I thought to make an own thread for Kàhicjáli modality. We will see if I make other posts for it.

Omzinesý wrote:It's a combination of two affixes. One of them is a portmanteau with two sememes that both express modality.

The first affix is what I call mood: necessative, potential (deontic), desirative and epistemic
The first category of the portmanteou is mega modality or polarity: positive, negative and irrealis
The last category is "controller": egophoric, external and internal

egophoric desirative irrealis, for example, is 'I want X to do, but X doesn't decessarily do'
interanl potential positive: 'X is able to do, and so s/he does'
external epistemic negative: 'X is known not to do'
...

eldin raigmore wrote:
Omzinesý wrote:It's a combination of two affixes. One of them is a portmanteau with two sememes that both express modality.
Cool! [B)]

Omzinesý wrote:The first affix is what I call mood: necessitative, potential (deontic), desiderative and epistemic
1. Does "deontic potential" mean "permissive" or "what one is allowed to do"?
1a. Are your deontic potential and your epistemic potential ("maybe") expressed the same way?
1b. Are your deontic necessitative (what one must do) and your epistemic necessitative (what must be true) also expressed the same way?

2. When you say "desiderative and epistemic", do you mean that one value of what you call your "mood affix" represents both "desiderative" (what somebody wishes) and "epistemic" (what someone knows and/or how certain they are of it)? Or do you mean that it has one value that means "desiderative" and a different one that means "epistemic"?

3. How do you express "optative" (what someone chooses)?

4. Do you distinguish at all between "alethic" and "epistemic"?
1. The idea is that the real meaning is defined by the combination of the affixes.
egophoric + potential is "I allow X do"
internal + potential is "X is able to do"
external + potential is "X is allowed to do"

"deontic" is just there to emphasise the that it does not mean 'can' in the epistemic sense.
1a. nope
1b. the "necessative" is deontic. All epistemic meanings are expressed with the epistemic mood.

2. four moods: necessative, potential, desirative and epistemic

3. Desirative is near to that.

4. "alethinc"? I have to look what it means.
Omzinesý wrote:The first category of the portmanteau is mega-modality or polarity: positive, negative and irrealis
1. Is this two values, "positive" vs "negative/irrealis"? Or is it three values, "positive" vs "negative" vs "irrealis"?
1a. Semantically one might wish to communicate four combinations; realis affirmative, realis negative, irrealis affirmative, and irrealis negative. Can you express all four, and distinguish each one from each of the others, in your conlang? If so it's possible (even naturalistic and realistic) that it can't be done using only this "mega-modality"; but can you?
1. three values "positive" "negative" and "irrealis"
1a. irrealis is kind of middle point between the two. If one wants to express 'negative irrealis' one must use analytic means.
Omzinesý wrote:The last category is "controller": egophoric, external and internal
I assume this is three values: "egophoric" vs "external" vs "internal".
What do these mean?
"Egophoric" would mean "ego-bearing" or maybe "self-bearing"; it probably relates to the speaker. Does it?
"External" and "internal"; what do they mean? What is outside what, or what is inside what?
The terminology is new, because I have never seen anything like this. If you know better, I am happy to know them, too.

"ego-phoric" refers to the speaker. At least, ego-phoric evidential eppears in some languages. "I were there, so I know."
"Internal refers to the subject"
"external" is either expressed by an participant in the causative case, or it can refer just to an indefinite person "one can see that" "I just is generally allowed to..."
Omzinesý wrote:egophoric desiderative irrealis, for example, is 'I want X to do, but X doesn't necessarily do'
I think I got that.

Omzinesý wrote:internal potential positive: 'X is able to do, and so s/he does'
That "potential" is not deontic. It's not about what X is allowed to do; rather it is about what X has the ability to do.
You are right. As far as I know, deontic modality expresses the conditions of action. Whit the external controller the potentiality is created by someone else, so one is allowe dto do.
Omzinesý wrote:external epistemic negative: 'X is known not to do'
...
I don't see why or how the internal of your second example is different from the external of your third example.
Internal would be something like "X knows that X does"
Last edited by Omzinesý on 03 Apr 2013 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6353
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by eldin raigmore »

Omzinesý wrote:I thought to make an own thread for Kàhicjáli modality. We will see if I make other posts for it.
eldin raigmore wrote:1. Does "deontic potential" mean "permissive" or "what one is allowed to do"?
1a. Are your deontic potential and your epistemic potential ("maybe") expressed the same way?
1b. Are your deontic necessitative (what one must do) and your epistemic necessitative (what must be true) also expressed the same way?
2. When you say "desiderative and epistemic", do you mean that one value of what you call your "mood affix" represents both "desiderative" (what somebody wishes) and "epistemic" (what someone knows and/or how certain they are of it)? Or do you mean that it has one value that means "desiderative" and a different one that means "epistemic"?
3. How do you express "optative" (what someone chooses)?
4. Do you distinguish at all between "alethic" and "epistemic"?
1. The idea is that the real meaning is defined by the combination of the affixes.
egophoric + potential is "I allow X do"
internal + potential is "X is able to do"
external + potential is "X is allowed to do"
"deontic" is just there to emphasise the that it does not mean 'can' in the epistemic sense.
1a. nope
1b. the "necessitative" is deontic. All epistemic meanings are expressed with the epistemic mood.

2. four moods: necessitative, potential, desiderative and epistemic

3. Desiderative is near to that.
Thanks.

Omzinesý wrote:4. "alethic"? I have to look what it means.
"Alethic" has to do with truth; "epistemic" has to do with knowledge (and certainty).
The (simple) alethic modes are the Necessary, the Possible (aka the Problematic), and the Assertoric (an unmodified bald statement).
Everything necessary is true, and everything true is possible; but maybe not everything possible is true, and maybe not everything true is necessary.
That is, what has to be true is in fact true; and what is in fact true could be true.
But if something could be true, in some cases it could also be false.
And if something is infact true, maybe it doesn't have to be true.

You can get into complexities by talking about Necessarily Necessary, Necessarily Possible, Possibly Necessary, Possible Possible, etc.
Alethic modalities are discussed more often in modal logic than in linguistics.

Epistemic modality/mode/mood, OTOH is about who knows what (the speaker knows it or doesn't; and/or maybe in some languages the addressee knows it or doesn't), and/or how certain the speaker (or whoever) is (really certain, not sure at all, or isn't saying how certain). In languages with evidentiality, the evidential encodes "how can the speaker (or addressee or whoever) be that sure?".

Omzinesý wrote:
me wrote:1. Is this two values, "positive" vs "negative/irrealis"? Or is it three values, "positive" vs "negative" vs "irrealis"?
1a. Semantically one might wish to communicate four combinations; realis affirmative, realis negative, irrealis affirmative, and irrealis negative. Can you express all four, and distinguish each one from each of the others, in your conlang? If so it's possible (even naturalistic and realistic) that it can't be done using only this "mega-modality"; but can you?
1. three values "positive" "negative" and "irrealis"
1a. irrealis is kind of middle point between the two. If one wants to express 'negative irrealis' one must use analytic means.
Thanks.

Omzinesý wrote:
me wrote:I assume this is three values: "egophoric" vs "external" vs "internal".
What do these mean?
"Egophoric" would mean "ego-bearing" or maybe "self-bearing"; it probably relates to the speaker. Does it?
"External" and "internal"; what do they mean? What is outside what, or what is inside what?
The terminology is new, because I have never seen anything like this. If you know better, I am happy to know them, too.
"ego-phoric" refers to the speaker. At least, ego-phoric evidential eppears in some languages. "I were there, so I know."
"Internal refers to the subject"
"external" is either expressed by an participant in the causative case, or it can refer just to an indefinite person "one can see that" "I just is generally allowed to..."
Thanks.

Omzinesý wrote:
me wrote:That "potential" is not deontic. It's not about what X is allowed to do; rather it is about what X has the ability to do.
You are right. As far as I know, deontic modality expresses the conditions of action. With the external controller the potentiality is created by someone else, so one is allowed to do.
Thanks.

Omzinesý wrote:
me wrote:I don't see why or how the internal of your second example is different from the external of your third example.
Internal would be something like "X knows that X does"
Thanks.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

Epistemic modality is, actually, not coded very deeply in the Kàhicjáli verb. There is only one mood "the epistemic mood" that expresses it. With that, I mean that the scope of modality can only be either epistemic or deontic modality. So, there is no distinction between alethic and epistemic moods. (The distiction can have some secondary implications. I don't know yet.) Actually, the whole idea of the sytem began from the idea that there are only subjective truths.

The epistemic mood + ego-phoric controller express "sensory evidentiality", in practice. If the speaker is the subject, there can be some mind-internal evidence.

The epistemic mood + external controller expresses "reportative evidentiality". If I know that the others know, I have probably heard that from them.

The epistemic mood + internal controller expresses the subject's subjective feelings. I'm considering if I should encode experiencers of mental verbs as internal controllers of the action, not as subjects or objects.

"Inferential" is not coded specifically in the verb. The inference can either be though as a person whose knowledge is just reported as an external controller (there can be contexts where it is the natureal interpretation), or they can be just the speaker's own, indirect, perception i.e. ego-phoric.


I think that I have to add an unmarked "indicative mood". If the subject is inanimate, I cannot imagine it must, wants or can do anything, it just does. Internal controller is, however, the neutral controller in that case. Something just happens I or any other person do not affect it.


I saw that the uniformity of the system is somewhat broken in the combinations of mega-modality and mood. The idea is that the negative maga-modality expresses that the action and its deontic conditions do not happen.
(necessative+internal)
Positive: "X does, because X can"
Irrealis: "X would do, if X can/could."
Negative: "X does no do, because X cannot."
But in the case of the epistemic mood, only the action changes its polarity, not the knowledge.
(epistemic+ego)
Positive: "I know that X does."
Irrealis: "I think that X does."
Negative: "I know that X does not."
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Kàhicjáli verb morphology

Post by Omzinesý »

I thought to present what I know have for the Kàhicjáli verb morphology. The phonological forms are not ready, but I'll present the pattern.

-7 Actor agreement
-6 pre-verb (aspect)
-5 distributive
-4 mood
-3 reflexive
Edit: Added: instrumental causativizer
-2 incorporated object
-1 politeness
0 root
1 mega modality/controller
2 discourse clitic


-7 The actor inflection
The actor inflection refers to the most active participant in the clause. It can be either an active causer in the causative case or the subject in the nominative case, which sometimes is the causee. So, the reference of the inflection is rather semantically and contextually defined than syntactically.

The inflection has only two values: an anaphoric reference, i.e. the subject of the previous clause, in practice; and a deictic reference, i.e. a person that is present in the place. The deictic reference normally refers to either the first of the second person. It is also used as the zero person, like “you” in English. That inflection is also used when an overt subject is marked after the verb.

The values are marked with lenition of the very first consonant of the verb. The deictic person has the non-mutated consonant while the anaphoric person has the mutated value. That is due to an ancient anaphoric pronoun that used to precede the verb stem. It caused a lenition in the first vowel, and when the pronoun has disappeared, only the lenition is left.

'ànceka [ʔɑn˩t͡sɛkɑ] 'I/you/one built [it] (volitionally)'
ànceku [ɑn˩t͡sɛku] 's/he built [it] (volitionally)'

-6 Pre-verb
The pre-verbs are similar to the verbal prefixes in Slavonic languages. They express the perfective aspect. They also modify the location of some verbs of motion or location. Sometimes pre-verb also slightly modify the meaning of the verb. Kàhicjáli does, however, not use prepositions with nouns, so they cannot be identical to them. The pre-verbs also express tense (past and future) alongside the perfective aspect. The tense is normally expressed with a tonal change on the pre-verb so that the past has the low tone and the future has the high tone. In the imperfective aspect, tenses are not expressed synthetically. There are ten or so pre-verbs. One cannot know from the meaning or form of a verb which pre-verb it needs. The most common pre-verb is probably sí-/sjỳ- that has the meaning of ‘inside’ when used with local and directional verbs.

'ánceka [ʔɑn˥t͡sɛkɑ] 'I/you/one will build [it] (volitionally).'
necéka [nɛt͡sɛ˥kɑ] 'I/you/one am/are/is/was/were building [it] (volitionally).'


Comments are always welcome!
Last edited by Omzinesý on 08 Jun 2013 19:32, edited 2 times in total.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli incorporation

Post by Omzinesý »

-2

Incorporation
An object (direct or not) can be incorporated in the verb. The incorporated object has a lower emphasis in the discourse structure than an overt object. Kàhicjáli sometimes uses classificatory incorporation, as well. Phonological reduction is so heavy that the incorporated nominal stem is probably turning to an indexational affix.

When an incorporated nominal stem is added before the verb stem, some phonological changes happen. If the stem ends in a vowel, the vowel is deleted; this causes some reductions of the consonants that have now ended up to the coda position.
All stops, excluding the labial stop /p/, change to the glottal stop /ʔ/, <’>, which often assimilates completely to a following stop. The labial stop /p/ changes to /v/. All fricatives change to /h/. All nasals change to a nasal identical to the following consonant with respect to POA.

If the nominal stem ends in a consonant cluster, an echo vowel of the previous vowel is added in the middle of it. If the echo vowel is preceded be a palatal sound, umlaut happens in the vowel. If the echo vowel now bears the stress, the reduction of the codas is handled like above.

If the last stem of the incorporated stem is not stressed, the phonological changes that normally delete the codas, and move them to the beginning of the following (stressed) syllable are executed.

That can lead to that some consonants can move from the beginning of one syllable to the beginning of the following one.

pàhtu ‘house’
cék ‘build’

Code: Select all

(All syllables are underlyingly stressed)	                                  pàhtú+cék  
Reduction of the last vowel: 				                                     pàht+cék
An epenthetic vowel appears in the middle of the consonant cluster: 	       pàhàt+cék 
Change of the coda					                                             pàhà’+cék
A)	Rules for deleting the coda of the unstressed syllable 		            pàhasék* 
B)	If the stressing is different, no metathesis is needed 		            ýn-bahà’sek* 
* The change from c to s, in the verb cék, would happen in an unstressed syllable without the incorporation, as well.

I presented Kàhicjáli phonolgical processes in the thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1783&hilit=Phonological that are still more or less accurate.
And comments/questions are again welcome!
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6353
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by eldin raigmore »

I still like it so far. [:)]
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

I revised and reformalized the rules for removing the coda of an ustressed syllable. (All unstressed syllables are only one mora in Kàhičáli.)

an underlying syllable with a mora -> un unsressed realisation without mora

/ʔ/ as a coda
- /ʔ/ becomes a stop with the same POA as the following onset consonant and the syllable border moves
Spoiler:
áʔʔ -> aʔ
áʔT -> aT
áʔs -> ac
áʔh -> akh
áʔN -> aʔáN
áʔl -> atl
áʔr -> atr
áʔj -> ač
áʔw -> akw /akʷ/
/h/ as a coda
- metathesis of /h/ and an onset stop of the second syllable (change of pronounciation of /h/)
or - epenthetic vowel
Spoiler:
áhʔ -> akh /akx/
áhT -> aTh /aTx/
áhs -> ach /atsX/
áhh -> ah /ax/
áhN -> ãTh /aTx/
áhl -> ahál /axa:l/
áhr -> ahár /axa:r/
áh.j -> a.ȟ /aç/
áh.w -> a.hw /aʍ/
nasal coda
- /n/ dissappeas and causes nasalization of the preceding vowel
Spoiler:
ánʔ -> ãʔ
ánT -> ãT
áns -> ãs
ánh -> ãh
ánN -> ãN
ánl -> ãl
ánr -> ãr
ánj -> ãj
ánw -> ãw
/l/ as a coda
- metathesis of /l/ and an onset stop of the second syllable
or - epenthetic vowel
Spoiler:
álʔ -> atl
álT -> aTl
áls -> acl
álh -> aláh
álN -> aláN
áll -> al
álr -> alár
ál.j -> alj
álw -> aláw
/r/ as a coda
- metathesis of /r/ and an onset stop of the second syllable
or - epenthetic vowel
Spoiler:
árʔ -> aráʔ
árT -> aTr
árs -> acr
árh -> aráh
árN -> aráN
árl -> arál
árr -> ar
ár.j -> a.rj
árw -> aráw
/j/ as the coda
- metathesis of /j/ and the onset of the second syllable
Spoiler:
ájʔ -> a.tj
ájT -> a.Tj
ájs -> asj
ájh -> ahj
ájN -> aNj
ájl -> alj
ájr -> arj
ájj -> aj
ájw -> ajáw
/v/ as the coda
- The loss of /v/ rises all consonants to [+high] and [+rounded]
Spoiler:
ávʔ -> uʔ
ávT -> uT
ávs -> us
ávh -> uh
ávN -> uN
ávl -> ul
ávr -> ur
ávj -> uj
ávw -> uw
T - any stop
N - any nasal
exceptions from the rules given above a spoiler in bold
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

Phonology (revised)
This is the same text as in that in the Kàhicjáli phonology thread, but I have changes some things.

Vowels:

Kàcitšali has five vowel phonemes.

Monophthong
Closed: /i/ <i>, /y/* <y>, /u/ <u>
Mid-open: /ɛ/* <e>
Open: /ɑ/ <a>

*/y/ appears only as an umlaut pair of /u/ and as the unstressed realization of /iv/ and /ɛv/ (see the process of removing /v/ codas).
/ɛ/ appears sometimes as the umlaut pair of /ɑ/, but it also appears in underlying roots.

The glide /j/ can follow any vowel and form a kind of diphthong with it. The glide /w/ is considered as a consonant in respect of phonotax.

Nasal: /m/ <m>, /n̪/ <n>
*Stops: /p/ <p>, /t̪/ <t>, /k/ <k> /kʷ/ <kw>
*Affricates: /t̪͡s̯/ <c>, /t͡ʃ/ <č> /kʃ/ <x>
*Sibilants: /s̪/ <s>, /ʃ/ <š>
*Spirants: /ç/ <ȟ> /x/ h /ʍ/ hw (/h/ ?)
Liquids: /l̪/ <l>, /ɾ/ <r>,
Voic.spirants /v/ <v>
Semi-vowels **/j/ <j> **/w/ <w>

*All obstruents have a voiced allophone that can appear in unstressed syllables only. Its environment will be introduced below.

Stops: /b/ <b>, /d̪/ <d>, /g/ <g> /gʷ/ <gw>
Sibilants: */z̪/ <z>, */ʒ/ <ž>
Spirants: **/ʝ/ <j> **/ɣ/ <q> **/w̝/ <w>

*z and ž replace the voiced allophones of both the spirants c and č and the sibilants s and š.
**The same letters are used to transcribe both voiced fricatives and semi-vowels. It’s theoretically possible that they form a minim pair but in practice they are the same.

All consonants are somewhat palatalized before /i/ and /j/.
The only case where it gets phonemic is that /h/ merges with /ç/ in that environment.
The post-alveolars /t͡ʃ/ <č>, /ʃ/ <š>, and /ʒ/ <ž> are pronounced as corresponding palatals before /i/ and /j/.


Phonotactics

Theoretically, a Kàcičáli syllable can only be phonotactically:
Stressed: *CV: or *CVC
Unstressed: *CV

*Word-initially the C can lack, though it is often considered the glottal stop.

In practice, a syllable can be a stop + liquid, but they are normally caused by inflectional elements.
As we will see, syllable-initial consonant clusters are also possible realizations of coda consonats.

Only the following consonants can appear as a coda.
/ʔ(assimilates completely with a following stop) /n/ (assimilates to POA), /l̪/, /ɾ/, /v/, /ʝ/, /h/


Stressing

Kàhičáli [kɑ:˩çi˧t͡ʃɑ:˥l̪i˧] is a very rhythmic language. The stress is positioned on every second syllable, i.e. one foot takes two syllables: one stressed and one unstressed. The first stress is maybe primary and the others are secondary, but the difference only lies in strength. Every rhythmic period spends three morae. The stressed syllable always spends two morae, i.e. its vowel is pronounced long or it has a coda consonant. The unstressed syllable spends one mora, i.e. it has no coda consonant and the vowel is always short. The unstressed vowels are never reduced (except when nasalized). The first stressed syllable can be either the first one or the second one in the word, so the first, unstressed syllable can leave rhythmically incomplete. The last syllable is always unstressed, although it would otherwise take a stressed place in the rhyme. The last syllable can take a stress in some inflectional processes, however.

Kàhičáli is a tone language, as well. The unstressed syllables always have a neutral tone (no accent), while the unstressed syllables have either a high tone (the acute accent) or a low tone (the gravis accent). Thus the tone also patterns the stress.
That would be easy, but Kàhičáli is mostly a prefixing language and the stressing is determined by the first syllables, so the stressing of the rest of the word must change according to prefixes. Because the rhythm determines the syllabic structure, the syllables change much in phonological processes. In the deep representation, all syllables are like the stressed ones, so all syllables can have a coda and they all inherently have either a high or a low tone.

There are four things that must be changed when a syllable realizes unstressed.
1. The coda must be removed (rules below)
2. The tone must be removed
(The vowel length is never distinctive, so I ignore it.)
3. The onset of the syllable can change.

An unstressed syllable can have only the neutral tone, so the tone distinction is removed but the loss can affect the preceding consonant (the consonant of the unstressed syllable).
- Affricates reduce to the corresponding spirants.
- The loss of the high tone keeps the initial consonant unvoiced.
- The loss of the low tone, however, makes the preceding initial consonant voiced. The change, of course, concerns only voiceless consonants hence obstruents, which have a voiceless stressed and voiced unstressed variant.

The rules (or the historical sound changes) appear in that order. So there are no voiced affricates, but affricates become voiced spirants while the tone is lost.

If we suppose the word Kàhičáli /kɑ:˩çi:˥t͡ʃɑ:˥l̪i˩/[kɑ:˩çi˧t͡ʃɑ:˥l̪i˧] had a plural form, it would be with the plural prefix /ù-/: ùgahíšali [u:˩gɑ˧çi:˥ʃɑ˧l̪i˧].


Focusing

As mentioned earlier, the last syllable of all Kàhičáli words is unstressed in the non-focalized form. However, all content words (not the grammatical words like adpositions) of the language can be focalized. That’s made by a tonal clitic. (I guess it is a clitic because it can take any head.) There are two foci: the affirmative focus and the scope of a question. The affirmative focus has the low tone on the last syllable, and the question scope has the low tone instead of it. The original tone of the underlying form of the syllable does not matter. All processes of making it unstressed are revised. There is no other difference between the two foci, so they are only referred with the term focus, when researching the phonological processes the structure causes.

Two stressed syllables cannot follow each other. Therefore the focusing affects the preceding syllables, too.

Two syllables, the first stressed
 The stress disappears
Non.foc híma [çi:˥mɑ] foc. himà [çimɑ:˩]

Three syllables, the first stressed.
 No change
Non.foc. kàhima [kɑ:˩çimɑ] foc. Kàhimà [kɑ:˩çimɑ:˩]

Three syllables, the second stressed
 Stress moves to the first syllable
Non.foc kutáka kútakà [ku:˥tɑkɑ:˩]

The earlier syllable do not change.


The phonology is hard to describe and I have difficulties to understand my description. So, if you didn't understand something, I'm happy to hear it.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

With incorporation

Klàhičálšamu.
l-kahičali-šam-u
POT-(deictic_p)Kàhičáli-speak-INTERN.POSIT
[kl̪ɑ:˩çit͡ʃɑ:˥lʲi]
I/you can speak Kàhičáli.

ȟàlgahíšačlámu.
ȟa-l-kahičali-šam-u
(deictic_p)PREV.begin.PST-<POT>Kàhičáli-speak-INTERN.POSIT
[çɑ:˩glɑçi:˥ʃɑt͡ʃlɑ:˥mu]
I was/you were able to begin to speak Kàhičáli.


Questions with incorporation

Klàhičálšamú.
l-kahičali-šam-u-´
POT-(deictic_p)Kàhičáli-speak-INTERN.POSIT-Q
[kl̪ɑ:˩çit͡ʃɑlʲi:˥]
I/you can speak Kàhičáli.

ȟàlgahíšačlamú.
ȟa-l-kahičali-šam-u
(deictic_p)PREV.begin.PST-<POT>Kàhičáli-speak-INTERN.POSIT
[çɑ:˩glɑçi:˥ʃɑt͡ʃlɑ:˥mu]
Was I/Were you able to begin to speak Kàhičáli.

- The tone movement to the last syllable does not change the onset of the syllable that has no tone anymore.

With a separate object.

Tlešámu kàhičáli
t-le-šam-u kahičali
deictic_p-POT-speak-INTERN.POSIT Kàhičáli.ABS
[t̪l̪ɛʃɑ:˥mu kɑ:˩çit͡ʃa:˥lʲi]
I/you can speak Kàhičáli.

- the potential marker /l/ cannot move after /ʃ/, which is a morphological rule.

Tlešámu kàhičalí?
t-le-šam-u kahičali-´
deictic_p-POT-speak-INTERN.POSIT Kàhičáli.ABS-Q
[t̪l̪ɛʃɑ:˥mu kɑ:˩çit͡ʃalʲi:˥]
Can I/you speak Kàhičáli?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

I encountered a problem in those sentences. What I translated 'be able to do' should actually mean 'let himself do' if the modality must always be conditioned by a controller (egophoric{the speaker}, internal {the subject} or external {somebody else}). There is no way to express an ability that either exists or not regardless of the controller.


And the verb classes/voices are still undefined.
And I should make the noun cases. I think animacy will play an important role in the case system. Animate nouns do not need a locative. But there is no grammatical gender (I think). Nothing agrees in animacy.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

I got interested in instrumental causatives that appear in some Native American languages (Lakota). I'll add them to Kahichali when I've found out what they really are.
I think between -4 mood and -5 distributive prefixes is the best place for them.

I don't just remember how the accents are in the name, and its difficult to type č. So let Kàhičáli be Kahichali in English.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

Newest version of the case system.

rational nouns (the ones with "soul")
nominative
dative (also used to encode an undergoer who doesn't change, like meet X, give to X)
genitive/oblique - a complement X of Y
comitative/associative - a complement X with Y, to express X andY
Edit: causative ergative- the case of the role I call controller i.e. who allowes, causes, believes...
- I'm not sure how agentlike functions the causative will get. How often: Because of X Y must die, instead of X kills Y? Do you think the first one is reasonable?

irrational nouns (includes human bodies)
absolutive
genitive/oblique
comitative/associative
locative
vialis - often used to mark instruments too
causative

Furthermore, I like the referential/irreferential or specific/generic distinction. I thought the nouns could have a stem alternation encodin that. The stem alternation could stay when incorporated, too.

I-FUT-girl.IRREF-meet 'I'm going to have a date' (maybe blind date)
I-FUT-girl.REF-meet 'I'm going to date a girl (whose identiti is not important in the context)'

Edit: It seems that it is typologically impossible to encode the causer as non-subject. Thus, the case I used to call causative becomes the ergative, and that kinds of transitive clauses (with an ergative subject and an absolutive) object only appear if the patient changes i.e. effected patient.
Edit: EditOf course the language can express the causer with the construction "Because of X Y did Z" It just isn't a causative construstion. - That's too easy to understand
The causative case is a handy way to encode if-clauses. So inanimate causative cases must be allowed.
Because of killing her brother, she would be hanged. i.e. 'If she killed her brother, she would be hanged.'
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

I just decided to use umlaut to mark specificity/genericity of nouns.

Which one would be the underlying form, specific or generic?
Let specific be the underlying form.

The vowel system is as followes:

Code: Select all

front     back
i,y       u
ɛ         ɑ
I think the ancient trigger of the umlaut is an /i/ suffix. The process is accompanied by palatalization of last velars of the stem. The /i/ has been lost long ago.

Umlaut:
underlying -> umlaut
ɑ -> ɛ
u -> y
ɛ -> ɛj*
i -> ij*

* If /i/ and /ɛ/ appear in an unstressed syllable or if the (stressed) syllable already has a coda, the glide /j/ is not possible and umlaut does not happen.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6353
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by eldin raigmore »

I still find this thread and this conlang very interesting.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

eldin raigmore wrote:I still find this thread and this conlang very interesting.
Thank you. Getting some feedback always gives motivation to go on.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3885
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Khemehekis »

Talk about advanced conlanging! This is far beyond the "ZOMG here's my alphabet and here's how to form the nominative, accusative, genitive and dative" we used to get on these boards.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

I would be very happy if I at last succeeded to tell how to form the nominative, accusative etc.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

Verb classes:

1. unergative verbs
- always have an animate agent, in the nominative
- are ambitransitive in respect of the object, i.e. they appear as intransitives or transitives
- causatives belong to this class

2. unaccusative
- always intransitive
- a patient/theme(/experiencer) as a subject
- not the passive of the class 1. because no semantic patient is supposed
- can take an oblique argument
- sensitive verbs belong to this class, taking their stimulus (what you experience) in the oblique case

3. Middle verbs
- like the class 1. but the subject is somehow affected by the action (verbs like 'eat', 'memorize', 'kill oneself'
- pre-verbs can vary for encoding the secondary role of the subject as auto-benefactive, a real reflexive or such
- can take an object
Edit: 4. applicatives
- like the class 3, but the affected participant is not the subject
- very few lexemes are underlyingly the class 3, many encoding a beneficiary ('help', 'serve', 'teach'...)

No, this is not a verb class. There is an inproductive applicative which is formed by changing preverbs. Some verbs (actually most) can take only one prefix, determined lexically, and these prefixes can have common meanings, but that does not make it a verb class in this analysis.
There are derivational processes, deriving members of a class from members of another class, but they are not voices because there are underived members of the classes.
Edit: 4. statives

A staive verb expresses state. It is always intransitive. It cannot have perfective aspects. Mood is also optional. Evidential mood appears quite often, however.
Last edited by Omzinesý on 02 Mar 2013 10:35, edited 1 time in total.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by Omzinesý »

The pre-verb just gets more meanings. Some verbs can form two kinds of perfectives:

PREV1-eat potato.ABS 'I ate all the potatoes.' I have none anymore -> Perfective
PREV2-eat potato.ABS 'I ate potatoes.' My stomack is full -> perfective

This is a nice example of a middle verb. The first sentence affects the potatoes, and the second one the subject.

The first one destroys something, and thus completes the action.
The second one creates something, and thus completes the action.

Do you know any term for these perfectives? I don't really do.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6353
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Kàhicjáli thread

Post by eldin raigmore »

Omzinesý wrote:The pre-verb just gets more meanings. Some verbs can form two kinds of perfectives:
PREV1-eat potato.ABS 'I ate all the potatoes.' I have none anymore -> Perfective
PREV2-eat potato.ABS 'I ate potatoes.' My stomack is full -> perfective
This is a nice example of a middle verb. The first sentence affects the potatoes, and the second one the subject.
The first one destroys something, and thus completes the action.
The second one creates something, and thus completes the action.
Do you know any term for these perfectives? I don't really do.
I don't think that you mean "perfective"; I think you mean "completive".
Both of those are "completives", which is a type of perfective aspect.

But the difference between the two isn't really one of aspect, is it? I'm not certain but I'm guessing "not".

The difference is, whether it's the potatoes or the stomach that is the "incremental theme".
The "incremental theme" of a clause, if it has one, is a type of affected patient. If an observer can tell, by observing the state of the patient, how far the action has advanced, then that patient is the "incremental theme".
The best incremental themes are physically and visibly (and, in completives, wholly) affected.
They may be created by the action, completely non-existent before it but completely existent after it;
or they may be destroyed by the action, completely existent before it but completely non-existent after it.

The potatoes make a better incremental theme than the stomach does, because the potatoes can be seen by anyone, speaker, addressee, or third party; while only the speaker can sense the stomach very well, and not by vision.

What you're calling a "middle verb" is also (and perhaps more precisely?) called an "ingestive verb".
With an "ingestive verb" the semantic emphasis is on what happens to the agent as a result of the action, rather than what happens to the patient.

Examples:
"Q. What happened to the rat bait?"
"A. Oh, the baby ate it."
vs
"Q. What happened to the baby?"
"A. Oh, she ate the rat bait."

In your opinion what's the more newsworthy facet of this information?
"We need to buy more rat bait; the baby has eaten the last of what we had."
or
"MY GOD! The baby ATE the RAT BAIT! Get her to the emergency room and get her stomach pumped! Here, here's some ipecac syrup; make her throw it up!"

As you can tell, the same verb with the same agent and the same patient, may be ingestive in one clause and not ingestive in the other.

(Of course, the term "ingestive" suggests that the prototypical or archetypical ingestive verbs are those having to do with eating or drinking or swallowing. But one can also "ingest" light; and so on.)

Omzinesý wrote:The second one creates something, and thus completes the action.
Does it? I don't see what it creates.

The major difference between these two kinds of completives may be illustrated by the following pairs of clauses in English:
"I sprayed the wall with paint" (so the wall is completely covered now)
vs
"I sprayed the paint on the wall" (so the paint is completely used up now)

"I loaded the wagon with hay" (so the wagon is completely full now)
vs
"I loaded the hay onto the wagon" (so none of the hay is left lying around unloaded now)

In both pairs, both clauses use something up. In both pairs, one clause uses up something material, while the other clause uses up something that can be filled, such as a space or a time.

Ehh, I forgot what I was going to say next.
Edit: Oh, yeah! I know I didn't answer your question, but I hope I've given you some ideas that will help you decide on reasonable-sounding terminology to make up.
Post Reply