Categorizing Etihus

[Ahzoh]

Yes, you are right by sounds. Clearly, by phonetics Etihus has consonants and vowels. But from what I observe most (... all?) languages start with consonants and vowels as a base, usually with some alphabet. There is an official chart to show the sounds they use, there is a note as the consonant/vowel inventory size and their ratio, and then there is description of CVC (consonant-verb-consonant), or CVVC, or "with the exception of..."

There are three things here that absolutely need to be recognized as distinct:

1. phonology: the actual sounds that the speakers pronounce;

2. phonetic notation: graphic signs written down (usually) in IPA that mark the sounds that speakers pronounce.

3. writing system: alphabets, syllabaries, logographies, etc. which are the graphic signs written down on surfaces that let people record language; this may or may not accurately reflect the pronunciation of the spoken language, but it is sufficient as a guide for the speakers to understand what sounds to make;

All spoken human languages have #1.

All spoken human languages have #2, if someone bothers to research the language and figure out the content of #1.

Not all spoken human languages have #3.

The terms "consonant" and "vowel" can apply to all three, with distinct meanings between #1/2 and 3.

Frankly, I am not clear what you mean by "languages start with consonants and vowels as a base, usually with an alphabet"

Specifically, do you mean conlangers start creating a language by providing consonants and vowels (i.e. #2, which indicates #1), and often supply a writing system (#3) used to write it all down?

To also suppliment this post:

phoneme: the basic unit of sound identified by speakers
phone: the actual sounds spoken by speakers, regardless of whether they identify them or not.
grapheme: the basic unit of writing, e.g. letters. Graphemes do not always represent every phoneme and some mark more than one.

[Keenir]

Frankly, I am not clear what you mean by "languages start with consonants and vowels as a base, usually with an alphabet"

Specifically, do you mean conlangers start creating a language by providing consonants and vowels (i.e. #2, which indicates #1), and often supply a writing system (#3) used to write it all down?

that would be my guess, as to what he means by it.

[Sew'Kyetuh]

This is the other part that gets tricky. Which was why I tried introducing the possibility that Etihus doesn't use letters. But I'm not sure.

and the official chart (the IPA, I presume?), is so everyone knows what one another mean.

This chart:

Spoiler:

All natlangs and any developed conlang to be spoken I came across has a chart like this or something to it that can be organized. Even Klingon (which is in the example). Klingon as a fictlang from an alien planet uses a basis of language communication by earth-based natlangs by doing this, even if the choice of consonants is strange. You can break down Klingon into these parts, letters, which are then used to make up the rest of the language, just like natlangs. There are rules that dictate, in every language I've seen so far to be spoken, what is typically allowed in correlation the arrangement of those consonants (or only certain ones) and vowels (or certain ones).

I skipped all of that for Etihus. As a language, it is not possible to make that chart and doing so I'm afraid would betray how the language fundamentally functions. I'll try to explain with my response to Ahzoh...

phoneme: the basic unit of sound identified by speakers
phone: the actual sounds spoken by speakers, regardless of whether they identify them or not.
grapheme: the basic unit of writing, e.g. letters. Graphemes do not always represent every phoneme and some mark more than one.

Yes, which is why in one of my videos I use (my own term) "semaphoneme", which is all 3 of those combined, with the addition of being free morphemes. Etihus as an oligosynthetic language labels each morpheme with a grapheme. See aUI by Doctor John Weilgart, which uses semaphonemes for an example outside of my creation.

In Etihus Each free morpheme has its own grapheme and phone. These then are the smallest most basic unit of the language, phonetically and graphically. Even though they are the smallest units, least common denominators. If you try to break them down further, the conlang no longer holds up.

...unless the language was designed hand-in-hand with an alphabet

Yes it was. The alphabet and the other semaphonemes with it were made first. (And in the fiction of my conworld, my conlang was not something that gradually developed like a natlang. It was given, taught, and used by extra-dimensional beings to them for 1,000 years to ensure the most limited amount of change.)

Also, I don't think a lot of these examples are necessarily one word. I think there are just a lot of clitics in this language.

Every semaphoneme in Etihus can function as a clitic.

= = = =

Take ari [æɾɪ] as an example. In all other languages (to my knowledge) you would attempt to pick apart this morpheme, dividing it up phonetically for examination and usage into [æ], [ɾ], and [ɪ]. But Etihus does not break down those sounds as units. Instead, æɾɪ is the simplest unit and it has a grapheme to it, even though it has two syllables in it! And unlike letters (which simply represent a sound and a sound only), [æɾɪ] also has semantic meaning behind it.

And there is also ih [ɪh]. Both ari and ih share [ɪ], despite being in the same "alphabet" and having no relation to each other. But if you were to speak the word ari+ih, you would merge them into arih. Ih as a suffix becomes a descriptive/adjective to the prefix which serves as the subject/agent within the word itself. But if you reverse them for ihari, you get a new word in which now ari as a suffix is describing the ih as a prefix.

There are 40 such semaphonemes in the Etihus in the "alphabet". (Yes, I know that technically by true linguistic definition, an alphabet is a list of letters for writing in which consonants and vowels are set as "equals" [unlike Hebrew]). And I [just now] figured Etihus could technically use logograms, so it's weird to have an ideographic language using logography which also happens to have an "alphabet". But as I said as well, there are 20 semaphonemes outside the alphabet.

I don't know if this might be useful but it's interesting trivia anyway: This means Etihus cannot do acronyms.

= = =

Because Etihus compiles graphemes, morphemes, and phonemes into the same basic units, it means that I have been able to build a CSL (constructed sign language) for it. Etihus allows a deaf person who has never heard anything, to use the exact same language as a speaker to communicate. All they have to do is sign one of the 60 semaphonemes in sequence.

[Thrice Xandvii]

I think you've conflated the idea of an letters and an alphabet (a system of writing in which individual graphemes equate to a single phoneme, but not necessarily a 1:1 relationship, but the key is that vowels and consonants are given equal weight since they are both written out) with the idea of phonemes themselves.

Mandarin Chinese uses 不 (bù) and 無 (wú) which both have uses as negation, and both contain the phoneme /u/*, and as is clearly demonstrated, are written very differently. However, that in no way changes the inherent fact that they both have /u/ it doesn't change anything fundamental about the phonemes at all. Written conventions don't generally alter the spoken language.

I guess what I mean is that your idea of combining morphemes, phonemes and graphemes doesn't make any sense. Each of those things is inherently different and not interchangeable. Even if each phoneme in the language has a meaning of its own, that is a separate property from the sound. Likewise, it matters not how you write your language, that has no impact on the phonemes its supposed to use.

It sounds to me like your limited grasp of linguistics is actually causing you to think what you are doing defies description because it defies your descriptive powers. I don't mean to sound rude, but that's how this whole discussion appears to me. You keep saying things work in this unique undefinable way, and when folks describe it in normal terms, you come up with more convoluted ways why your language doesn't work that way. I'm sorry, but human language has certain restrictions for it to work for humans. Even if gifted by extra dimensional forces, our brains would pervert it into something that we could actually use by necessity of our brains and mouths. Period.

Finally, if this 'lang were used by people for 1,000 years, it WOULD change and people would adapt other words into it from languages used on Earth. Unless you claim we only use it to speak to these aliens and never in any other circumstance. In that case, we'd be looking at more of a ceremonial language, and it might dodge significant changes then.

(*Note: I'm purposefully simplifying Chinese phonology for sake of argument.)

[Ahzoh]

Have you heard of Pmtxki or whatever?

[clawgrip]

Take ari [æɾɪ] as an example. In all other languages (to my knowledge) you would attempt to pick apart this morpheme, dividing it up phonetically for examination and usage into [æ], [ɾ], and [ɪ]. But Etihus does not break down those sounds as units. Instead, æɾɪ is the simplest unit and it has a grapheme to it, even though it has two syllables in it! And unlike letters (which simply represent a sound and a sound only), [æɾɪ] also has semantic meaning behind it.

You have successfully separated the word /æɾɪ/ into the vowels /æ/ and /ɪ/, and the consonant /ɾ/, proving that it does have vowels and consonants. Whether or not the native script can represent them separately is irrelevant.

And there is also ih [ɪh]. Both ari and ih share [ɪ], despite being in the same "alphabet" and having no relation to each other. But if you were to speak the word ari+ih, you would merge them into arih. Ih as a suffix becomes a descriptive/adjective to the prefix which serves as the subject/agent within the word itself. But if you reverse them for ihari, you get a new word in which now ari as a suffix is describing the ih as a prefix.

Again, you have successfully identified the phoneme /ɪ/ in two words, despite the native script being unable to represent it. The identification of like sounds between words is the entire concept of phonemes.

As Thrice Xandvii said, you are conflating writing and speech. I tried in my previous post to explain that these are entirely distinct things, but it seems perhaps you did get from it what I intended to convey. I will try to give an example to explain clearly.

Graphemes are physical objects arranged in specific patterns. They could be particles of graphite on a paper, carved lines in stone, patterns of light on a computer monitor, shaped noodles in a soup, or whatever.

Phonemes are specific groups of similar sound waves. Sound waves cannot be particles of graphite, carvings light, or noodles.

As you can see, graphemes and phonemes are entirely dissimilar, and you cannot by any means have something that is a combination of them. A sound wave cannot simultaneously be all physical objects that could conceivably be used to represent writing. However, graphemes can and do represent phonemes in the same way a French flag represents France. They are entirely dissimilar things, but the representational relationship is very clear.

[Thrice Xandvii]

This is the other part that gets tricky. Which was why I tried introducing the possibility that Etihus doesn't use letters. But I'm not sure.

You say that like it's unusual. Lots and lots of languages don't use letters: Arabic, Chinese, Thai, Cherokee (assuming they use their syllabary), etc. etc.

[elemtilas]

I'm going to try and respond to each person/concept in separate posts.

Maybe I'm just being dense, but...

how is it that there is no concept "8" (as you say, it does not exist), yet there is a concept "32768", which clearly demonstrates that they must have the concept "8"?

I think the term I was looking for is digit, which up until this moment, I thought was synonymous with number.

Right. A "digit" is simply a figure or symbol used to represent a numeric quantity. In English, we have 10 digits that can be used singularly or in combination to
write numbers. In Latin, they had six digits. In Babylon, they had two digits. In E you have what appear to be digit-like symbols as well.

The difference is how these digits are combined to express numbers. In Latin, you group all the like digits together and add (or subtract as appropriate) to get the sum: MMCCCXLIIJ = 1000 + 1000 + 100 + 100 + 100 + (50-10) + 1 + 1 +1 = 2343. In English, a positional system, we determine the highest rank or place and read down to the lowest: 146740 = (1x100000) + (4x10000) + (6x1000) + (7x100) + (4x10) + (0x1).

E seems to work similarly to a combination of English and Latin. Some groups are multiplied, others are added. In the end you get a sum. The result seems to be read out somewhat like a mathematical expression rather than a plain number. That's cool in its way.

There is no "root/digit" for 7, 8, or 9, and also 11-14. But 15 has it's own glyph and word. In other words, when we write the digit 15 in English, it is technically 10+5 on a base system. Since the "highest" digit we have is 10, we have to represent numbers higher than that by putting the numbers 1-10 together (adding zeros to substitute placement in omission).

But Etihus just skips listing 7-9 and 11-14 as digits altogether. So to communicate the number 8 for instance, you have to use 2^3, or 6+2, etc. (So yes, by Etihus' system, there's multiple ways to write/speak several numbers).

A far cry from saying this number "Does not exist"! They do exist, and can be expressed.

The number 32,768 in Etihus as a digit is: (6+2)^5.

Three digits. Or a root digit plus "diacritic" digits. So, yeah. They express numbers as mathematical statements. Much like we do! Except, as you say elsewhere, they seem to have a preference for powers whereas we tend to add and multiply.

The number 98, written/spoken in two different ways. (So far I think these are the most practical... I might have messed up on the formula for the first but the digits are correct...)

I think 10^2 - (1+2) = 97
And (3^2 x 10) + 3^2 = 99

Neither of those amount to 98. You'd have to add or subtract an extra 1 in there somewhere.

The number 1,500. (In the most efficient way I could find.)

"Efficiency" is a matter for some debate. It works for them, and I guess that's what's important!

It might seem really odd, but the speakers of my conlang as I said are much more familiar with exponents and square roots than they are the times tables like we are.

Given the internal history, not odd at all. Their language and apparently their mathematics were handed down by "extra-dimensional" beings. Ancient aliens, in other words. I think it might be interesting to compare how the more primitive E speakers interpreted what the aliens taught them, and the understanding of the aliens themselves. In other words, how many errors in transcription between teachers and pupils! But, no, I don't find it odd.

If you had said that a primitive people with little or no concept of mathematics just all of a sudden began counting in powers; I might have found that a little more odd!

In explaining to Mr. Gorenc, I used the term diacritic which seemed to click really well for him.

I think it's a good description.

[elemtilas]

(I know there have been some who have posted since, but I'm still replying to concepts and others earlier in the thread, thanks!)

And from the videos it looks like all the qualifying words follow their heads:

fox-quick-brown-the jumped-over dog-lazy-the

Cool.

Yes! Except in Etihus it would be: The-fox-brown-quick. "Sec" (the/this) is the only exception to that rule and comes before that which it describes to clarify specificity as an important factor first. And you are describing "this brown fox" that is"quick" (as opposed to that brown fox, which is fat and slow).

So that's how you describe it? Qualifying words follow their heads. That would have been useful for me to know 7 months ago. :)

In your Frisky the cat example, you say, in E: {Frisky (head) < cat < black < that} {jumps}. What's going on here different?

I could just as easily be distinguishing "this quick fox" that is "brown" from "that quick fox" that is not. At least in the English, fox is the head and all those other words elaborate on that head to the exclusion of all others. So, I'm not even concerned about a fox that might be fat & slow!

But it's good to know that there is a class of word -- what amounts to a demonstrative pronoun -- that comes before the main word of the clause. So, we'll run the same sieve:

if The-fox-brown-quick is valid
is fox-brown-quick-the invalid? Or does it have other meaning?

What about:
Frisky-cat-black-that -- is this valid?
is that-Frisky-cat-black also valid?

Looks you're headed more or less right into philosophical language territory, though without the philosophical baggage.

Lol, that sounds really funny "without the philosophical baggage" I like the description, I assume you're talking about some of the other oligosynthetic languages? There is a bit of philosophy involved in Etihus (remember the alphabet lists them in a hierarchical order), but it isn't based on earth-like principles.

I think philosophical languages tended to be oligosynthetic. By philosophical baggage I mean primarily the notions of creating a language from first principles and trying to recapture the "Adamic" or "Edenic" language that God and Adam used to chat in way back in the day. Of course, for all I know, you may be trying to do something like this!

I think implicit in oligosynthesis -- the limiting of the number of valid -emes -- is the notion of predetermining the number and nature of the "first principles" upon which the language will be based. (This is why I asked for a lexicon of all forty E semaphonemes and their English equivalents.)

It's my opinion, but I think oligosynthesis falls on its face. It's great if you have a very limited reality to describe, but I think it is simply not capable of dealing with ordinary human experience (now of course your conpeople surely have a different ordinary experience, and may be fine with an oligosynthetic language).
You're limiting yourself to only 40 obligatory and irreducible units: how do you say "car" in E? You very quickly find yourself with a heavy burden of long compounds. If you say a car is a "thing that moves", well, a cat is also a thing that moves. So is a baseball and so is a star! If you say a car is a "thing that moves upon application of external stimulus", well, so is a couch potato! What is there about a "car" vs. a "cat" that will allow you to craft a good word within the confines of 40 basic units of meaning? Then, how will distinguish "car" from "truck" from "bus"?

Yes, you are right by sounds. Clearly, by phonetics Etihus has consonants and vowels. But from what I observe most (... all?) languages start with consonants and vowels as a base, usually with some alphabet. There is an official chart to show the sounds they use, there is a note as the consonant/vowel inventory size and their ratio, and then there is description of CVC (consonant-verb-consonant), or CVVC, or "with the exception of..."

What do you mean by languages "start with consonants and vowels as a base"? Consonants and vowels are simply terms used to describe two broad categories of sounds. They don't have anything at all to do with a language per se. ( ) Such sounds are simply artifacts of various anatomical structures inside the body doing things in a relatively coordinated way. Language assigns meaning to those sounds, so that when they are heard in certain combination the brain says "yep, I understand the message being sent!"

antehu wraman et talli et walli.

Does that mean anything to you?

How about: John ate the bread and the meat.

Same basic inventory of sounds, but the order is all different.

Since you mention a "chart", I wonder if you are describing the typical set-up of a grammar book? It is true that very many grammar books are set up in such a way that they deal with the sounds and writing system of a language first, then move on to other aspects of grammar and syntax. If that's what you mean, then you'd still have to deal with that, since E is a spoken language. It's just a matter of convention that those matters are dealt with first.

The Etihus' "semaphoneme" (letter and free morpheme and glyph) are the most basic grammatical units that cannot be broken down further for the building of the language, some of which have multiple syllables and even rhyme with each other. However the sounds in the semaphonemes can be merged/dropped when they are merged like contractions. This simply makes it faster/easier to write but grammatically serves no purpose.

Okay, you're moving also within the realms of prosody -- the sound, the rhythm, the flow of sound within language.

Glyphs in Etihus (in the alphabet) represent what the Uhsey (who use Etihus in my conworld) think the voice box "does" instead of representing objects like natlangs. (If I remember correctly, the letter A is believed to have origins to the horns of an ox in some ancient languages.)

A featural script. Kind of like tengwar. Korean has a featural script, but it too was devised rather than sprung organically.

[elemtilas]

This is the other part that gets tricky. Which was why I tried introducing the possibility that Etihus doesn't use letters. But I'm not sure.

This chart:

Spoiler:

All natlangs and any developed conlang to be spoken I came across has a chart like this or something to it that can be organized. Even Klingon (which is in the example). Klingon as a fictlang from an alien planet uses a basis of language communication by earth-based natlangs by doing this, even if the choice of consonants is strange. You can break down Klingon into these parts, letters, which are then used to make up the rest of the language, just like natlangs. There are rules that dictate, in every language I've seen so far to be spoken, what is typically allowed in correlation the arrangement of those consonants (or only certain ones) and vowels (or certain ones).

I skipped all of that for Etihus. As a language, it is not possible to make that chart and doing so I'm afraid would betray how the language fundamentally functions. I'll try to explain with my response to Ahzoh...

You may have "skipped it" -- but if E is a spoken language, then a chart very much like that is implicit in the language! The chart you showed is simply the phonemic inventory of Klingon. You'll find one for English, French, Quenya, Vrkhazian, Avantimannish, Esperanto, Cantonese and every other language out there, living, dead or otherwise, that is spoken with something akin to a human mouth.

You are incorrect when you say it is "not possible" to make such a chart. Speak enough E for us, and comparing that with the chart of 40 or 60 named semaphonemes, anyone here can produce just such a chart of the sounds you use when speaking Etihus. Please understand: how your conlang "works" is not relevant to the sounds that are being made by its speakers. We English speakers make sounds that do not appear in what we write (we never write glottal stops, for example, yet they're all over the place; we have several "A" sounds that are distinct yet are all written with the same letter). This doesn't stop us from producing phonetic charts.

phoneme: the basic unit of sound identified by speakers
phone: the actual sounds spoken by speakers, regardless of whether they identify them or not.
grapheme: the basic unit of writing, e.g. letters. Graphemes do not always represent every phoneme and some mark more than one.

Yes, which is why in one of my videos I use (my own term) "semaphoneme", which is all 3 of those combined, with the addition of being free morphemes. Etihus as an oligosynthetic language labels each morpheme with a grapheme. See aUI by Doctor John Weilgart, which uses semaphonemes for an example outside of my creation.

In Etihus Each free morpheme has its own grapheme and phone. These then are the smallest most basic unit of the language, phonetically and graphically. Even though they are the smallest units, least common denominators. If you try to break them down further, the conlang no longer holds up. [/quote]

Why would you think the language would no longer "hold up" if we explore units smaller than the semaphoneme? I mean, I gèt that E speakers use a writing system that has one symbol for each of the language's 40 or 60 basic meaning-units. I do not understand why you seem to be so resistant to the exploration of the underlying sounds of the language as they are quite apart from the native writing system.

Take ari [æɾɪ] as an example. In all other languages (to my knowledge) you would attempt to pick apart this morpheme, dividing it up phonetically for examination and usage into [æ], [ɾ], and [ɪ]. But Etihus does not break down those sounds as units.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter what "Etihus does" or does not do within its own context. A linguist does indeed break down things like ari to see what it's composed of and what, if any, submeanings there may be within it.

Clearly, if ari is a fundamental unit in E, then no further meanings can be extruded. That doesn't mean the sounds can not be further examined.

Instead, æɾɪ is the simplest unit and it has a grapheme to it, even though it has two syllables in it! And unlike letters (which simply represent a sound and a sound only), [æɾɪ] also has semantic meaning behind it.

"Ari" might be a simple semantic unit -- a simple unit of meaning -- but it is clearly not the simplest phonetic unit.

And there is also ih [ɪh]. Both ari and ih share [ɪ], despite being in the same "alphabet" and having no relation to each other. But if you were to speak the word ari+ih, you would merge them into arih. Ih as a suffix becomes a descriptive/adjective to the prefix which serves as the subject/agent within the word itself. But if you reverse them for ihari, you get a new word in which now ari as a suffix is describing the ih as a prefix.

Okay. And?... So what if you get a new word when you reverse their positions?

What does its function have to do with its constituent sounds?

Nothing. I think you're hanging yourself up on this notion of "semaphoneme" as a universally irreducible unit. Semantically, it may be irreducible; but phonologically, it is clearly not the simplest unit. (And remember, our job out here is to help you descríbe the language, not uphold its internal propaganda!).

There are 40 such semaphonemes in the Etihus in the "alphabet". (Yes, I know that technically by true linguistic definition, an alphabet is a list of letters for writing in which consonants and vowels are set as "equals" [unlike Hebrew]). And I [just now] figured Etihus could technically use logograms, so it's weird to have an ideographic language using logography which also happens to have an "alphabet". But as I said as well, there are 20 semaphonemes outside the alphabet.

Weird? Probably not so weird. I have a conlang that mixes logograms, syllabary and alphabet for its writing system. Japanese is a good example of a natlang with a mixed system. Rebus writing, txtlish, ad-copy-speak they all use a mixed system in English to some extent.

I don't know if this might be useful but it's interesting trivia anyway: This means Etihus cannot do acronyms.

English acronyms are a function of the writing system. It might be interesting for you to read up on how Chinese, Japanese and Korean form acronyms, since they don't have "initial letters" from which to form the new words. If E speakers discover the need, they will find a way to do it!

Because Etihus compiles graphemes, morphemes, and phonemes into the same basic units, it means that I have been able to build a CSL (constructed sign language) for it. Etihus allows a deaf person who has never heard anything, to use the exact same language as a speaker to communicate. All they have to do is sign one of the 60 semaphonemes in sequence.

This is actually an interesting aspect that most conlangers dón't get into -- sign languages.

Basically what you're proposing is a kind of 'manual alphabet' scheme whereby deaf people simply make a series of signs that parallels the sound utterances of the hearing population. I would imagine that deaf people alive at the time the extra-dimensional Teachers came along and taught everyone to speak Etihus simply would have been given manual signs to go along with the spoken signs everyone else was using. Stands to reason they sign the same language everyone else speaks!

Just my opinion, but I really think deaf people *there* are short changing themselves: they are being shackled to the same two-dimensional, linear progression that word-speakers are limited to. Even *here*, anyone who can only use the manual alphabet is limited to this same progression, for they must S-P-E-L-L-O-U-T-E-A-C-H-I-N-D-I-V-D-U-A-L-W-O-R-D and one letter at a time. Real sign language *here*, though, is three dimensional in its usable space, and things like time and magnitude can be dealt with in non-linear fashions.

[qwed117]

I have a question regarding your verbs.
Are "Syh kye sgh" and "Syh kyehm sgh" different?

[elemtilas]

It sounds to me like your limited grasp of linguistics is actually causing you to think what you are doing defies description because it defies your descriptive powers.

I don't mean to sound rude, but that's how this whole discussion appears to me. You keep saying things work in this unique undefinable way, and when folks describe it in normal terms, you come up with more convoluted ways why your language doesn't work that way. I'm sorry, but human language has certain restrictions for it to work for humans. Even if gifted by extra dimensional forces, our brains would pervert it into something that we could actually use by necessity of our brains and mouths. Period.

Well, this is largely one of his stated goals in coming here: is to get help with improving his descriptive power as regards his conlang! I don't think what you said just now was rude, and I concur with it. We all started out that way, not knowing what we were doing and not knowing what description fit what we did. Few of us were lucky to have the resources now available, to say nothing of scores of people willing to help out!

[HoskhMatriarch]

It sounds to me like your limited grasp of linguistics is actually causing you to think what you are doing defies description because it defies your descriptive powers.

I don't mean to sound rude, but that's how this whole discussion appears to me. You keep saying things work in this unique undefinable way, and when folks describe it in normal terms, you come up with more convoluted ways why your language doesn't work that way. I'm sorry, but human language has certain restrictions for it to work for humans. Even if gifted by extra dimensional forces, our brains would pervert it into something that we could actually use by necessity of our brains and mouths. Period.

Well, this is largely one of his stated goals in coming here: is to get help with improving his descriptive power as regards his conlang! I don't think what you said just now was rude, and I concur with it. We all started out that way, not knowing what we were doing and not knowing what description fit what we did. Few of us were lucky to have the resources now available, to say nothing of scores of people willing to help out!

Yes. He keeps insisting that his language doesn't work how he says it works, however. "You can't break down æɾɪ into æ, ɾ, and ɪ!" Yes, you can, even if Etihus speakers don't know how to do that, you even used the IPA letters yourself... "Morphosyntactic alignment doesn't apply to this conlang!" Yes, we're pretty sure it's direct...

[qwed117]

It sounds to me like your limited grasp of linguistics is actually causing you to think what you are doing defies description because it defies your descriptive powers.

I don't mean to sound rude, but that's how this whole discussion appears to me. You keep saying things work in this unique undefinable way, and when folks describe it in normal terms, you come up with more convoluted ways why your language doesn't work that way. I'm sorry, but human language has certain restrictions for it to work for humans. Even if gifted by extra dimensional forces, our brains would pervert it into something that we could actually use by necessity of our brains and mouths. Period.

Well, this is largely one of his stated goals in coming here: is to get help with improving his descriptive power as regards his conlang! I don't think what you said just now was rude, and I concur with it. We all started out that way, not knowing what we were doing and not knowing what description fit what we did. Few of us were lucky to have the resources now available, to say nothing of scores of people willing to help out!

Yes. He keeps insisting that his language doesn't work how he says it works, however. "You can't break down æɾɪ into æ, ɾ, and ɪ!" Yes, you can, even if Etihus speakers don't know how to do that, you even used the IPA letters yourself... "Morphosyntactic alignment doesn't apply to this conlang!" Yes, we're pretty sure it's direct...

...
*facepalm*

[Salmoneus]

Yes, we're pretty sure it's direct...

No, it's nominative-accusative. You can tell this from the word order. Remember, morphosyntactic alignment is both morphological and syntactic - cases can be distinguished by word order as well as by affixes.

[elemtilas]

Yes, we're pretty sure it's direct...

No, it's nominative-accusative. You can tell this from the word order. Remember, morphosyntactic alignment is both morphological and syntactic - cases can be distinguished by word order as well as by affixes.

Having reviewed this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphosyntactic_alignment), maybe you can help clear up confusion between the two:

Why is Etihus more clearly N-A rather than Direct? I may be missing something here, but to me it looked very much like in Etihus S, O and A are all totally unmarked and totally indistinguishable from one another except by the context of the their placement in the sentence. So why would Direct MSA be out and N-A better?

Perhaps Hoskh could also clarify why he thinks Direct is better than N-A in this case?

In English we cán put the object first and the subject after the object and other such tricks (otherwise, no one would be able to follow what Yoda says!) While this kind of word order is clearly and markedly different in English, we don't treat any S, A or O morphologically different in and of themselves. The hearer thus must rely entirely on context and common sense -- as is said in the article of the Direct alignment.

[Thrice Xandvii]

That's not entirely true, Elemtilas, we do have different forms for pronouns: he, his, him... So there are some different morphologies at play, but for standard nouns, no, we don't alter the word in English.

[elemtilas]

That's not entirely true, Elemtilas, we do have different forms for pronouns: he, his, him... So there are some different morphologies at play, but for standard nouns, no, we don't alter the word in English.

Yes, true that! Was thinking only of nouns...

[Trailsend]

Having reviewed this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphosyntactic_alignment), maybe you can help clear up confusion between the two:

Why is Etihus more clearly N-A rather than Direct? I may be missing something here, but to me it looked very much like in Etihus S, O and A are all totally unmarked and totally indistinguishable from one another except by the context of the their placement in the sentence. So why would Direct MSA be out and N-A better?

I've seen this misunderstanding pop up in a few places. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what "marking" means.

Marking does not mean "morphological inflection." In linguistic discourse, "marking" includes any mechanism for encoding specific information. So, if you ask

"How do you know which noun is the agent in this sentence?"

It is exactly equivalent to ask

"How is the agent marked in this sentence?"

This does not presuppose that the agent is marked by any kind of morphological change. It is perfectly acceptable for the response to be any of the following:

"The agent is marked by its placement before the verb."
"The agent is marked by the -foo nominative case suffix."
"The agent is marked by the voice of the verb, which indicates the higher-animacy participant is the agent."

For purposes of morphosyntactic alignment, the questions you ask are:

1) How do you recognize (read: "What marking indicates") the agent of a transitive clause?
2) How do you recognize the patient of a transitive clause?
3) How do you recognize the subject of an intransitive clause?

If the answers to (1) and (3) are the same and (2) is different, your MSA is nom-acc. If (2) and (3) are the same, (1) different: erg-abs. (1), (2), and (3) all different: tripartite. (1), (2), and (3) all same: direct. (These are not the only possibilities.)

For Etihus:

1) How do you recognize the agent of a transitive clause? It comes before the verb.
2) How do you recognize the patient of a transitive clause? It comes after the verb.
3) How do you recognize the subject of an intransitive clause? It comes before the verb.

Therefore, nom-acc.


I'm working on responses to other parts of the discussion, but I thought I'd knock this out first!

[elemtilas]

Why is Etihus more clearly N-A rather than Direct? I may be missing something here, but to me it looked very much like in Etihus S, O and A are all totally unmarked and totally indistinguishable from one another except by the context of the their placement in the sentence. So why would Direct MSA be out and N-A better?

Marking does not mean "morphological inflection." In linguistic discourse, "marking" includes any mechanism for encoding specific information.

Thank you for the clarification!