Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Vosel
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 36
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 20:48

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Vosel »

aereastra wrote:phonetic languages like
No (natural) language is more or less "phonetic" than other languages. All natural languages are spoken and thus phonetic. Only their speling can be phonemic or not.
aereastra wrote:Like srsly, to a foreigner, trying to learn the /catastrofic/ english pronunciation from the words themselves, the first thing they think is:
"What the fuck is this? I don't even..."
Learn the pronunciation first, then you learn spelling. You will get a horrible accent if you learn the spelling first, even if it's fully phonemic.


Sorry for OT.
User avatar
Ear of the Sphinx
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1587
Joined: 23 Aug 2010 01:41
Location: Nose of the Sun

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Ear of the Sphinx »

Learn the pronunciation first, then you learn spelling. You will get a horrible accent if you learn the spelling first, even if it's fully phonemic.
Sorry, but my ears cannot see. :cry: So, I can't browse the Internet with my ears. And I don't know how to learn the pronunciation not by using phonemic representation not using ears.
My eyes cannot hear. My ears cannot see.
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Tanni
greek
greek
Posts: 600
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:05

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Tanni »

Milyamd wrote:
Learn the pronunciation first, then you learn spelling. You will get a horrible accent if you learn the spelling first, even if it's fully phonemic.
Sorry, but my ears cannot see. :cry: So, I can't browse the Internet with my ears. And I don't know how to learn the pronunciation not by using phonemic representation not using ears.
My eyes cannot hear. My ears cannot see.
Learn pronunciation together with spelling. And listen to English music, search for the song texts in the Internet.
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.
User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4153
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Xing »

My favourite aspect of language is case and morphosyntactical alignment. I also like gender/noun classes. I don't see why gender should be more difficult to learn than other lexical aspects of a language. I like word order, too.

I don't really know if I have any "least favourite" or hated aspect.
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5671
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Micamo »

I swear I fall more and more in love with polysynthesis every day.
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter
roninbodhisattva
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1686
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 20:03
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by roninbodhisattva »

I can't really stand Bantu-esque noun class systems.
Micamo wrote:I swear I fall more and more in love with polysynthesis every day.
Reading about Navajo? Verb templates making you drool? Just remember, they're a descriptive tool, probably not something that's going on in speakers' heads.
User avatar
Testyal
roman
roman
Posts: 936
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 19:47
Location: England

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Testyal »

Micamo wrote:I swear I fall more and more in love with polysynthesis every day.
No. Agglutinative or fusional. Polysynthe-whatchamacallit is over the top.
:deu: :fra: :zho: :epo:
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5671
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Micamo »

roninbodhisattva wrote:Reading about Navajo? Verb templates making you drool? Just remember, they're a descriptive tool, probably not something that's going on in speakers' heads.
Wasn't just Navajo: I was also inspired by Wichita, and Cherokee's derivation system is just... sweet.
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4110
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Omzinesý »

For me synthesis it the norm. You know the Finnish structures. I consider analytic too easy. It's just reasently I've found syntax. So I tend to make rather polysynthetic conlangs. Omsin was one, and Kacitxali seems to follow. Greenlandic is wonderful.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
roninbodhisattva
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1686
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 20:03
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by roninbodhisattva »

It's just reasently I've found syntax. So I tend to make rather polysynthetic conlangs. Omsin was one, and Kacitxali seems to follow. Greenlandic is wonderful.
Because remember, kids, polysynthetic languages don't have syntax.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6354
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by eldin raigmore »

What I like best in any grammar is the biclausal and multiclausal constructions.
Also, I like things (like morpholgical causatives), that allow a language to say in a single clause what might require two or more clauses in some other languages.
So I'd say I like things like
  • conditional moods (especially if there's both a protatic one and an apodotic one; or the apodotic mood depends on whether the protasis is realis or irrealis; or stuff like that)
  • subordinate clauses
  • marked differences between complement clauses, relative clauses, and adjunct clauses
and stuff like that.

What I hate in conlangs is when someone never even gets to the point where the next thing to talk about would be biclausal or multiclausal constructions.

If you can't translate "This is the house that Jack built" -- the whole nursery-rhyme, not just that first line -- into your conlang, then you haven't gotten to the part I like best.

AIUI, many highly polysynthetic languages, in which an entire sentence often consists, or can consist, of just one long word, don't have a way to subordinate one clause into another (on which it will depend and in which it will participate). Even if they do they may not allow a subordinate clause to have in its turn a third clause that's subordinate to it; or they may not allow a main clause to have two or more clauses both subordinate to it; or some such thing.

But languages that don't allow unlimited subordination do have ways to say the same things that can be said in other languages. If the language is highly polysynthetic this may involve a sentence with several extra-long words in it. Whatever the means the language has, I like it.

_______________________________________________________________________________
roninbodhisattva wrote:Because remember, kids, polysynthetic languages don't have syntax.
I'm sure you meant to point out that all natlangs do in fact use some syntax no matter how polysynthetic they are, just as all natlangs do in fact use some morphology rather than being completely isolating and analytic.

But there's no reason a conlang couldn't be designed that had the morphology perform all the functions that syntax might perform in another language, just as there's no reason a conlang couldn't be so completely isolating and analytic that all the functions performed by morphology in any other language would be performed by syntax in that conlang.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Do you think the post to which you were replying may have been talking about languages that have free word-order? Or those that have no phrase-structure (that is, if you make a tree-diagram of a clause, it has only the root (the whole clause) and the leaves (the individual words), not any nodes on its "spine")?

Polysynthetic languages might have free word-order, though natlangs seldom have totally free word-order; but usually polylangs' word-order is closer to free than is that of nearly-isolating or nearly-analytic languages.

It has been hypothesized, in print, by academic linguisticians, that some natpolylangs do have a "flat tree" grammar, one without phrase-structure. I don't know that that idea has been accepted.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 03 May 2011 23:40, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Itsuki Kohaku
sinic
sinic
Posts: 238
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:36
Location: Antwerpen, België

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Itsuki Kohaku »

I like Polysynthetic languages, And lots of declensions/inflections.
In order of knowledge: :eng: :vls: :epo: :fra: :deu: :esp: :jpn: :zho: :fin: :tur: :eus:
Conlangs: :con: Literary Makurungou, :con: Common Makurungou
taylorS
sinic
sinic
Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 05:06
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by taylorS »

I like agglutinative synthetic languages. I hate dealing with both complex syntax and zillions of fusional declensions and conjugations and irregular verbs.

I also like polypersonal agreement.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6354
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by eldin raigmore »

taylorS wrote:I like agglutinative synthetic languages.
Me too.

taylorS wrote:I hate dealing with both complex syntax
Not me.

taylorS wrote:and zillions of fusional declensions and conjugations and irregular verbs.
With emphasis on "fusional" and "irregular", me too.

taylorS wrote:I also like polypersonal agreement.
Me too.
But I don't have any problem with it being fusional; that is, a single morpheme showing agreement both with the subject and with the object, without any way to separate out agreement-with-subject from agreement-with-object.
User avatar
Sodomor
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 13:18
Location: St. Paul, MN

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Sodomor »

I have recently developed a love for fusional Languages and have dabbled with extremely fusional verbs in the past.

I love big declensions paradigms and table that I realized I couldn't do with solely agglutinative constructions.
User avatar
Ànradh
roman
roman
Posts: 1376
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 03:57
Location: Cumbernauld, Scotland

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Ànradh »

I hate tone, and the concept of moraic timing is making my head hurt... Why-oh-why have I included both in my conlang?
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6354
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by eldin raigmore »

Sodomor wrote:I have recently developed a love for fusional Languages and have dabbled with extremely fusional verbs in the past.

I love big declensions paradigms and table that I realized I couldn't do with solely agglutinative constructions.
Lodhas wrote:I hate tone, and the concept of moraic timing is making my head hurt... Why-oh-why have I included both in my conlang?
@Sodomor, @Lodhas;
Tell us more!
Thanks.
User avatar
Ànradh
roman
roman
Posts: 1376
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 03:57
Location: Cumbernauld, Scotland

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Ànradh »

Basically, in an attempt to minimise the number of 'unatural' elements in my language, I included two elements I would rather have left until I was a touch more experienced in linguistics.

The idea of tone isn't going to be new to many of you; using spoken pitch in a similar way as (as one example) English uses stress. I have never spoken (or tried to speak) a language that does this and I'm having a hell of a time hearing or producing the tones and keep falling into the English intonation system which just muddies it further...
In an attempt to keep it simple, I've limited the system to two contrasting tones that will distinguish between past and non-past tense: I feel this should satisfy the statistical averages without totally breaking my poor mind.

As for morae? They appear totally arbitrary to me and I'm not entirley sure what a mora actually constitutes...
From what I've gathered, the general rule is that a syllable nucleus consists of one mora... and that's about it! Aparently the coda may or may not constitute another mora, long vowels and/or heavy consonants may constitute several morae and nasals may constitute a mora if in coda position. This all leaves me rather confused!
The idea of then using morae to create an isochronic language is so beyond me, I'm just not going to try it (the stats' say I should have morae but they don't specify how I must use them!).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other end of the spectrum, I've become rather enamoured with vowel harmony (where the vowels in the language are separated into opposing groups that can't appear within the same word) and lenition (which I presume most of you will be familiar with).
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6354
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by eldin raigmore »

Well:
TONE:
In most languages the major component of stress is pitch.
A language whose stress system is a tone system and whose tone system is used just for stress is called "a pitch-accent language". Classical Ancient Greek was one of those.

It sounds like you want your language to have "morphological tone"; that is, the tone-pattern with which you pronounce a word can inflect it into different forms of the same word. English does a little of that; the noun "object" and the verb "object" differ in which syllable gets the stress, and if you listen closely you'll see that's mostly a pitch difference. Although actually the stressed syllable is usually longer and louder as well, try to pronounce it only longer and not louder nor higher pitched, then only louder and not longer nor higher pitched, then only higher pitched and not longer nor louder, and see what's easiest to notice. My bet is that pitch is easiest and volume is most difficult, with time in between.

Some languages have "lexical tone", where the tone-pattern can mean a completely different root. In such languages, if there's stress, it probably isn't mostly pitch.

English mostly uses tone over entire clauses, or sometimes multi-word phrases shorter than a whole clause. Questions tend to rise in pitch at the end; commands and declarations tend to fall in pitch at the end. I forgot what that's called, but it's neither lexical nor morphological.

There may be such a thing as phonemic tone too; I can't remember for certain.

More languages use tone for something than don't, though it's awfully close to half-and-half.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORAE:

See this link: STRESSTYP

Languages that have stress -- that is, most of them -- have various means for deciding what syllable of two-or-more-syllable-words to put the primary stress on, and which syllable(s), if any, of three-or-more-syllable words to put secondary stresses on.

If all syllables are treated the same in these two processes, that language's system is not weight-sensitive.

But for some languages there's a definite rank in how likely a syllable is to get stress and in how much influence it has on the placement of stress.

If there are just two levels for such a language, some syllables are "light" and some are "heavy".

A "light" syllable is said to have one mora; a "heavy" syllable is said to have two morae.

If a language has three or more levels, all those heavier than "heavy" are called "superheavy", and are said to have three (or more) morae.

What a mora is depends on the language; every language is free to define it differently from any other.

So to that degree, yes, it's totally arbitrary.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

For languages with weight-sensitive stress and two weights, ordinarily a syllable's onset doesn't affect its weight one way or another; the weight (in most such languages) depends entirely on the rime (the nucleus and the coda).

Suppose all a language's syllables are open (no codas) and all vowels are monophthongs (no diphthongs), but some are short and some are long (vowels have phonemic length).

Then in that language, syllables with a short vowel are light and those with a long vowel are heavy.

Now suppose again that all a language's syllables are open (no codas), but now suppose all vowels are short, but some are monophthongs and some are diphthongs.

Then in that language, syllables with a monophthong are light and those with a diphthong are heavy.

A third example; suppose all the vowels are short monophthongs and all the codas are single consonants (no coda clusters).

Then in that language, open syllables -- those without a coda -- are light; syllables with a sonorant coda (nasal or liquid or semivowel or glide) are heavy. Whether other closed syllables are light or heavy will depend on the language.

Other things can happen too. Maltese, for example, counts any syllable with a non-cluster coda as light, and any syllable with a coda-cluster as heavy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's heavy and what's light depends on the language.
If your language has long vowels and diphthongs and closed syllables, usually any one of those is enough to make the syllable heavy.
You can be sure that an open syllable with a short monophthong vowel is light.
The difference the coda makes varies from language to language. Ordinarily coda-clusters make the syllable heavy; ordinarily sonorant codas make the syllable heavy. But whether single-consonant non-sonorant codas make the syllable heavy, depends on the language.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 07 Sep 2011 23:35, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Ànradh
roman
roman
Posts: 1376
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 03:57
Location: Cumbernauld, Scotland

Re: Favorite/Hated... Grammar!

Post by Ànradh »

That actually helps clear up morae quite a bit, cheers eldin!

I still need to work on my 'pitch-accent' system though, given it isn't actually a pitch-accent system at all. Bah!
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
Post Reply