New CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Thu 23 May 2013, 22:07

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1961 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 ... 99  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri 18 May 2012, 20:41 
mayan
mayan

Joined: Mon 30 Aug 2010, 01:23
Posts: 1024
eldin raigmore wrote:
--Terrific answer--

Thanks!

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

:eng: = [:D] | :fra: = [:S] | :zaf: = [:'(]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 18 May 2012, 20:56 
fire
fire

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 19:38
Posts: 2809
Solarius wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
--Terrific answer--
Thanks!

Thanks for saying "thanks"! [:)]
The cockles of my [<3] are all warmed now.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 22 May 2012, 17:03 
mayan
mayan

Joined: Mon 30 Aug 2010, 01:23
Posts: 1024
eldin raigmore wrote:
Fundamentally, yes.

Except that for many or most languages with switch-reference marking, the reference clause is after the marked clause instead of before it. (The direction in which the switch-reference refers is statistically correlated with the "word"-order.)

What would SOV word order be correlated with?

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

:eng: = [:D] | :fra: = [:S] | :zaf: = [:'(]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 May 2012, 02:36 
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
User avatar

Joined: Tue 20 Mar 2012, 23:46
Posts: 51
If a language does not distinguish number within it's nouns, will it also not distinguish number within its pronouns?

_________________
"We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it's forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 May 2012, 08:10 
moderator
moderator

Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2010, 05:22
Posts: 1539
QuantumWraith wrote:
If a language does not distinguish number within it's nouns, will it also not distinguish number within its pronouns?

No, that is not the case. Mandarin is a counterexample; it does not mark number on nouns, but it does on pronouns.

_________________
任何事物的发展都是物极必反,否极泰来。


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 May 2012, 08:12 
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
User avatar

Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 19:48
Posts: 4889
To give another counterexample: Navajo distinguishes plurality in its pronouns, but not in normal nouns. (Well, technically there's the distributive affix, but that's not what you mean.)

_________________
♀♥Ø


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 May 2012, 23:04 
fire
fire

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 19:38
Posts: 2809
Solarius wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
.... for many or most languages with switch-reference marking, the reference clause is after the marked clause instead of before it. (The direction in which the switch-reference refers is statistically correlated with the "word"-order.)
What would SOV word order be correlated with?


in this thread, I wrote:
As I understand it:

Verb-initial clause-chaining languages tend to have the first clause in the chain be the anchor clause; and
verb-initial switch-reference languages tend to have the referenced clause before the marked clause. (Maybe always the anchor clause; maybe always the previous clause; or maybe just any prior clause; I'm not sure how many languages adopt which rule.)

Verb-final clause-chaining languages tend the have the last clause in the chain be the anchor clause; and
verb-final switch-reference languages tend to have the referenced clause after the marked clause. (Maybe always the anchor clause; maybe always the next clause; or maybe just any later clause; I'm not sure how many languages adopt which rule.)


As for verb-medial languages, I'm not sure, but I think SVO clause-chaining languages' clause-chains tend to be anchored by their first clause, and SVO switch-reference-marking languages' marked clauses tend to be marked in reference to earlier clauses in their chain. I'm not sure there even are any OVS clause-chaining or switch-referencing languages.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 May 2012, 23:15 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun 16 May 2010, 00:25
Posts: 529
Trailsend wrote:
QuantumWraith wrote:
If a language does not distinguish number within it's nouns, will it also not distinguish number within its pronouns?

No, that is not the case. Mandarin is a counterexample; it does not mark number on nouns, but it does on pronouns.

Well, strictly speaking, you can attach the plural marker -men to some nouns (those with human referents, primarily), but yeah... Number marking is at least more regular on pronouns. And anyway, there are plenty of languages where pronouns distinguish, say, case while nouns don't, so I see no reason why the same couldn't apply to number in some language out there.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 25 May 2012, 02:07 
moderator
moderator

Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2010, 05:22
Posts: 1539
Xonen wrote:
Well, strictly speaking, you can attach the plural marker -men to some nouns (those with human referents, primarily), but yeah... Number marking is at least more regular on pronouns. And anyway, there are plenty of languages where pronouns distinguish, say, case while nouns don't, so I see no reason why the same couldn't apply to number in some language out there.

Is that the rule? I haven't read up on it, but I didn't mention it because I've gotten the sense that the non-pronouns you can mark number on are very restricted. E.g., I've never heard anyone say

*xuesheng-men
student-PL

*laoshi-men
teacher-PL

*fuyuan-men
steward-PL

(or any other occupation-based term)

*zhongguo-ren-men
china-person-PL

(or any other compound ending in ren)

*nüzi-men
woman-PL

*fuqin-men
father-PL

(or just about any other family-based terms)


But I often hear

pengyou-men
friend-PL

haizi-men
child-PL


Again though, I am not a native speaker and I haven't read the literature on this. I'm just sharing my own experience with what I've heard.

_________________
任何事物的发展都是物极必反,否极泰来。


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 25 May 2012, 15:29 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun 16 May 2010, 00:25
Posts: 529
Trailsend wrote:
Xonen wrote:
Well, strictly speaking, you can attach the plural marker -men to some nouns (those with human referents, primarily), but yeah... Number marking is at least more regular on pronouns. And anyway, there are plenty of languages where pronouns distinguish, say, case while nouns don't, so I see no reason why the same couldn't apply to number in some language out there.

Is that the rule? I haven't read up on it, but I didn't mention it because I've gotten the sense that the non-pronouns you can mark number on are very restricted. E.g., I've never heard anyone say

*xuesheng-men
student-PL

I'm no expert on the subject, either, but this exact form occurs in my beginner-level Chinese textbook, at least.

EDIT: No, wait, that could've been tongxuemen; I don't have the book at hand right now, so I can't check. Anyway, Google gives 1060 hits for xueshengmen, and over 31 million for "学生们".

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 25 May 2012, 16:12 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1175
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Is there another quite agglutinative language than Georgian with as conlex verb?
Of course there is, but what?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 25 May 2012, 18:26 
fire
fire

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 19:38
Posts: 2809
Omzinesý wrote:
Is there another quite agglutinative language than Georgian with as conlex verb?

Sorry? What do the phrases I colored amber mean?


Omzinesý wrote:
Of course there is, but what?

Look at http://wals.info/feature/combined/20A/22A, and at http://wals.info/feature/combined/21B/22A, for agglutinating languages with complex verbs.

Look at http://wals.info/feature/combined/22A/20A and look at the languages Koasati and Wichita. Are they the kind of thing you mean? Their verbs are more complex than Georgians, I think, depending on what you meant by "complex"; and they're listed as "exclusively concatenating" verbal morphology.

And/or you might look at http://wals.info/feature/combined/22A/21A and look at Imonda and Ingush.

Or, look at Awa Pit, Aymara, Burushaski, Maricopa, Quechua (Imbabura), or Squamish. Their verbs are as complex as Georgians, and they are as agglutinating as Georgian.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 25 May 2012, 22:07 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1175
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Yes, I'm unclear.

The georgian verb is guite agglutinative - the affixes are visible - but they don't bear simple meanings. To form a grammatical form you have to change several affexes. all kinds of present/future dtem formants and preradical vowels that don't mean anyhting on their own. Complexity was a wronh term.

So, there must be other languages with the same property.
But maybe I can begin with checking you links, thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 27 May 2012, 02:01 
mayan
mayan

Joined: Fri 29 Apr 2011, 01:43
Posts: 775
Navajo marks aspect on both the verb root (which is changed unpredictably to reflect a change in aspect) *and* changes the prefixes on the verb, and also the affixes that convey the morphological agent are often changed. In some cases the verb will become almost unrecognizable with certain changes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 May 2012, 02:48 
mayan
mayan

Joined: Mon 30 Aug 2010, 01:23
Posts: 1024
Theta wrote:
Navajo marks aspect on both the verb root (which is changed unpredictably to reflect a change in aspect) *and* changes the prefixes on the verb, and also the affixes that convey the morphological agent are often changed. In some cases the verb will become almost unrecognizable with certain changes.

Just when I think I come up with something inventive, Navajo has to invent something new.

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

:eng: = [:D] | :fra: = [:S] | :zaf: = [:'(]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 29 May 2012, 22:36 
fire
fire

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 19:38
Posts: 2809
Solarius wrote:
Just when I think I come up with something inventive, Navajo has to invent something new old.

That's called "ANADEW", which stands for "A Natlang Already Does Even Worse".

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 04 Jun 2012, 18:51 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
1. Are there languages known to have cases, but that lack a proper accusative case? Other than Finnish, please. [:)]

2. Are there languages that while having an accusative, use other cases for the direct object as well?

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 04 Jun 2012, 19:42 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 02:57
Posts: 1561
Dear Natlangers:

This was originally a conscript question, but since most languages have some sort of writing system attached to it, I believe I can pose the question here, also. Specifically it deals with classifying writing systems by direction. Is "boustrophedon" the only name for a specific writing system's direction? Do any (nat/con)languages have specific names for, say, vertical writing that starts from the left, vertical writing that starts from the right? For example, my Rozwi conlanguage writes in vertical columns that go from right to left across the page. This is a lot like Japanese tategaki style writing, which I learned in college Nihongo class. Is there a name (in English, Greek, Esperanto, etc) for that kind of writing?
Has any philologist/linguist/calligrapher been connected with starting his/her own system of classification. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here?

I posted this with the conlangers as well.

Wondering,

Lambuzhao


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 04 Jun 2012, 22:03 
fire
fire

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 19:38
Posts: 2809
@Lambuzhao; see http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75#p92180.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 05:26 
greek
greek

Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 03:05
Posts: 442
Solarius wrote:
Theta wrote:
Navajo marks aspect on both the verb root (which is changed unpredictably to reflect a change in aspect) *and* changes the prefixes on the verb, and also the affixes that convey the morphological agent are often changed. In some cases the verb will become almost unrecognizable with certain changes.

Just when I think I come up with something inventive, Navajo has to invent something new.


...and then go back in time to install it earlier.

well, now we know where all the TARDISes went after the Time War.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1961 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 ... 99  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abi and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group