A new project (again)

[Omzinesý]

This is my newest a-priori project. It doesn't have a name yet.

The scedule of the project is to start from the functional categories I want the language to encode, then go to syntax, then morphological processes, and the last phonology. Usually when one starts from phonology, one gets to problems with morphological processes. Of course, I'm doing everything together, as usual, but at least I'm not locking anything before the higher category.

Categories to be encoded:
- Evidentiality/egophoricity
Maybe: Ego, sensory, general fact, and reportative
- Complex system of 'discourse particles' (however, thereafter, but...) that is obligatory
- Meny noncore cases/prepositions
- Switch reference
- Complex system of noun classes?
- I'm not sure of tense
- Focus structures have morphological marking

Other ideas:
- Verbs are not too important. Many clauses do without verbs.
- Most clause-level function are coded in a particle (or a cluster of them, can particles be morphologically complex). an auxiliary (I don't call it an auxiliary verb because it has no verbal root)


Categories not encoded directly:
- aspectual meanings are taken care be 'discourse particles', many of which are temporal, and cases (going to vs. going towards)

[Omzinesý]

Syntax

[particle][NP 1]... [NP n][(ad)verb 1]...[(ad)verb n]

Only the particle is obligatory but it demands some other participant.

Categories code by the particle auxiliary
- "discourse"
- Evidentiality/egophoricity
- Focus structure
- tense?
- megamodality


Categories encoded by the "verb"
- Switch reference
Nonfinite forms code more functions because nonfinite clauses don't have the particle

Categories encoded by a noun
- case
- maybe a classifier that also has singular and plural forms

Cases:
- Nominative (the correct term might be direct but nominative does well)
- a Finnic-style partitive for coding aspect ?
- a dative because I don't know if one one the approximative or terminative should bear the dative meaning
- instimental
- locative
- ablative
- appriximative (towards)
- terminative (to, as far as)

[rgj40q]

I'm curious how you are going to do discourse (why in quotes btw?), focus, megamodality and switch reference. I look forward to examples.

[Omzinesý]

I'm curious how you are going to do discourse (why in quotes btw?), focus, megamodality and switch reference. I look forward to examples.

"Discourse" means here a morphological category that expresses relations between clauses. Conjunctions could be a better term.

[Omzinesý]

Auxiliary

"Discourse particle" or conjunction is the only category that cannot be zero-marked.

It has - at least - the following forms:

-Temporal relations.
- Meanwhile
- Before that
- Thereafter

Causal relations
- Because of that/thus

Conditional relations

Edit: Because megamodality isn't a big category, there must be three conditional conjunctions
- (when) then - factual
- (if) then - non factual
- (if) then would - contrafactual

Contrasting relations
- but/though

Topicalizing (which codes lack of relation with the preceding clause)
- When it comes to

Agreeing
- Yes and...


There aree three focus structures:

Predicate focus (You have a topic and you say something about it.) (zero-marked)

Argument focus
- You have a proposition and you specify a participant in it.
- "It was X who..."

Sentence focus
- You just assert a proposition without a language-internal context


There are four evidential/epistemic cotegories:

Egophoric
- The speaker is the authority of the piece of information.

Sensory
- Piece of iformation the speaker has somehow percrived

General facts
- Something that doesn't have to be verified
- Natural/religious/cultural "facts"

Repertative
- Some specific or unnamed source has told the piece of information to the speaker


I'm about to drop off the category of megamodality from Auxiliary. Megamodality is about truth values and I thought to have a zero-value but it seems to appear in subordinate clauses and they are nonfinite - i.e. lack Auxiliary - so a complex category of megamodality in Auxiliary is irrelevant.
So there is only
-a negation clitic and
- a future/desiderative clitic, both of which can be attached to other words, as well.

I'm still considering how speech acts - questions, affirmatives, commands etc. - are coded.

Some person clitic can also be added to Auxiliary.