(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2020]

[gestaltist]

I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.

One idea would be to have this originally come from aristocratic usage where they would look down on farmers as "resources" more than people.

[DesEsseintes]

I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.

One idea would be to have this originally come from aristocratic usage where they would look down on farmers as "resources" more than people.

*sniggers*

[Davush]

I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.

One idea would be to have this originally come from aristocratic usage where they would look down on farmers as "resources" more than people.

Poor farmers... That is certainly a good explanation though! I wonder if there are any more language-based ways I could derive it. I was thinking that the original noun gets an extra suffix meaning something like -tion, and then the original noun just ends up being used to denote occupation.

*nauj- 'to cultivate'
*na:uja 'cultivation' > *-na:uja (suffixed) 'cultivator'
*na:ujatam 'cultivation-tion' (lol)

Although this still doesn't seem satisfactory.

[Reyzadren]

*na:ujatam 'cultivation-tion' (lol)

Don't laugh. In griuskant, these "tion-tion" suffix constructions are grammatically acceptable and encouraged enough to not be awkward, though unusual. In fact, I can even think of 1 particular griuskant word on top of my head now which goes as far as "tion-tion-tion", and even that seems totally fine

[Salmoneus]

I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.

One idea would be to have this originally come from aristocratic usage where they would look down on farmers as "resources" more than people.

Doesn't "cultivation" mean "farmer" anyway, semantically?

I mean, OK, no, pedantically one can draw a line between the people doing something and the abstract noun for the thing they do. But in practice, it's a very vague line. We talk of a population being people, for instance, rather than just the act of people or the state of being people. We talk of institutions when we really mean the people in them. We talk of "labour", when we mean the labouring workforce, not just when we mean the act of labouring - we talk of "relations between labour and management", where "labour" means "labouring people" and "management" means "managing people". We also, while we're at it, talk of our relations and connexions, when we really mean the people we are related or connected to, not the act of relation or connexion. We talk of "the propulsion" in a spaceship and "the drive" in a vehicle (not 'the thing causing propulsion' and 'the thing causing drive'). We talk about the government, when we mean the people doing the government. We talk about "the home help" (the people who provide the help) and sometimes "the care" (the people who provide care), and when people "live in care" we mean that they live in an institution in which people provide care for them, not that they have been translated into a realm of pure abstract Care.

This sort of conflation is absolutely normal, and just because English has "person who labours in a factory" > "labour" and "someone who helps in a home" > "help", but doesn't have "person who cultivates a field" > "cultivation" is absolutely no reason any other language couldn't have all three (or just the latter).

[Keenir]

I have a few suffixes in Qutrussan that I am finding difficult to create a suitable etymology for.

The -nóya suffix is for people involved in some sort of agriculture or farming, but the form of this word actually suggests a verbal-noun 'farming, cultivation' as a common method of derivation is to add -a to the stem. How could this end up denoting the person doing the job, when such words are usually formed differently? I.e. a farmer would be nóyansa with the usual -ansa suffix comparable to English -er.

I would say association -- e.g.,
"I'm going to watch Hawaii 5-0" (a show about cops)...then gives us
"Look out for the 5-0" (the police in general)...then gives us
"You're a 5-0" (an individual cop)

or slang?

[Keenir]

*na:ujatam 'cultivation-tion' (lol)

Don't laugh. In griuskant, these "tion-tion" suffix constructions are grammatically acceptable and encouraged enough to not be awkward, though unusual. In fact, I can even think of 1 particular griuskant word on top of my head now which goes as far as "tion-tion-tion", and even that seems totally fine

so its the occupation equivilent of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpenhow_Hill

[sangi39]

Took me long enough to remember this one, but the Icelandic word for "farmer", bóndi, comes from the present participle of Old Norse búa, "to reside". I don't know, though, whether the change came about because it was modifying a noun, e.g. maðr, that was later dropped, or if it underwent some sort of slight semantic change, e.g. "residing" > "being one who resides". So, to use "to farm", "farming is a hard" > "to be a farming person is a hard", with the verb "to farm" in this going from something you do to an aspect of who you are.

[Dormouse559]

Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.

[Creyeditor]

Took me long enough to remember this one, but the Icelandic word for "farmer", bóndi, comes from the present participle of Old Norse búa, "to reside". I don't know, though, whether the change came about because it was modifying a noun, e.g. maðr, that was later dropped, or if it underwent some sort of slight semantic change, e.g. "residing" > "being one who resides". So, to use "to farm", "farming is a hard" > "to be a farming person is a hard", with the verb "to farm" in this going from something you do to an aspect of who you are.

I don't think there is a term in German, but there is definitely some kind of link between "farmers" and "general population" maybe that's similar to the Icelandic thing. The idea would be that people who reside are the "normal population" meaning everyone who is not a noble.

[Reyzadren]

Don't laugh. In griuskant, these "tion-tion" suffix constructions are grammatically acceptable and encouraged enough to not be awkward, though unusual. In fact, I can even think of 1 particular griuskant word on top of my head now which goes as far as "tion-tion-tion", and even that seems totally fine

so its the occupation equivilent of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpenhow_Hill

In his conlang, probably, if he wants to include it as such.

In my conlang, nah, said construction is probably not tautological.

[Thrice Xandvii]

Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.

Isn't the present participle ending in Spanish -ando and not -ante, though?

[Davush]

@Sangi: Thanks for the example.

@Salmoneus: Thanks, yes once you put it like that I can see what you mean. Not something I had considered before.

@Reyzadren: Perhaps you could give us an example of a tion-tion-tion in action...?

[Reyzadren]

@Reyzadren: Perhaps you could give us an example of a tion-tion-tion in action...?

griuskant (without the conscript)

onon
/'ɔnɔn/
NN-NN (literal gloss: tion-tion)
concept

ononon
/'ɔnɔnɔn/
NN-NN-NN (literal gloss: tion-tion-tion)
conception (the concept of a concept, not the act of conceptualisation)

[zyma]

Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.

Isn't the present participle ending in Spanish -ando and not -ante, though?

Yes, it is -ando. The translations given for those three words are correct, though.

[DesEsseintes]

Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.

Isn't the present participle ending in Spanish -ando and not -ante, though?

Yes, it is -ando. The translations given for those three words are correct, though.

The Spanish forms in -ante -iente are descended from the Latin present participle in -āns /-ēns and are called present participles in traditional grammar. However, they’ve largely lost their participial functionality* in verbal constructions and are mostly used as adjectives and nouns. The gerundio in -ando -iendo has assumed the function of a present participle in forming continuous tenses, so modern grammars may prefer to refer to these forms as present participles.

*Actually, I don’t think Latin ever used the present participle to form any compounds but I’m very possibly wrong.

[zyma]

Present participles are a fairly common agentive in Romance languages. Take Spanish cantante (singer), hablante (speaker) and andante (wanderer) for example.

Isn't the present participle ending in Spanish -ando and not -ante, though?

Yes, it is -ando. The translations given for those three words are correct, though.

The Spanish forms in -ante -iente are descended from the Latin present participle in -āns /-ēns and are called present participles in traditional grammar. However, they’ve largely lost their participial functionality* in verbal constructions and are mostly used as adjectives and nouns. The gerundio in -ando -iendo has assumed the function of a present participle in forming continuous tenses, so modern grammars may prefer to refer to these forms as present participles.

*Actually, I don’t think Latin ever used the present participle to form any compounds but I’m very possibly wrong.

Ah, I see. I don't think I've ever heard anything other than the "modern" description.

[Dormouse559]

The Spanish forms in -ante -iente are descended from the Latin present participle in -āns /-ēns and are called present participles in traditional grammar. However, they’ve largely lost their participial functionality* in verbal constructions and are mostly used as adjectives and nouns. The gerundio in -ando -iendo has assumed the function of a present participle in forming continuous tenses, so modern grammars may prefer to refer to these forms as present participles.

*Actually, I don’t think Latin ever used the present participle to form any compounds but I’m very possibly wrong.

Regardless of their current state, I think we can agree these words are examples of what was once a participle becoming an agentive noun.

[DesEsseintes]

The Spanish forms in -ante -iente are descended from the Latin present participle in -āns /-ēns and are called present participles in traditional grammar. However, they’ve largely lost their participial functionality* in verbal constructions and are mostly used as adjectives and nouns. The gerundio in -ando -iendo has assumed the function of a present participle in forming continuous tenses, so modern grammars may prefer to refer to these forms as present participles.

*Actually, I don’t think Latin ever used the present participle to form any compounds but I’m very possibly wrong.

Regardless of their current state, I think we can agree these words are examples of what was once a participle becoming an agentive noun.

Indeed. My point was to clarify that what you said was not wrong.

[zyma]

Just realized that I didn't know what the discussion surrounding the post I replied to was about. Sorry!