Random ideas: Morphosyntax

[Omzinesý]

Many languages use the passive only for bad events. They have clauses like:

My bag suffer a theaf steal
A theaf stole my bag.

The language could have another passive auxiliary for good events.

Some sausages benefit my friend grill.
'Some sausages were grilled by my friend.'

The noun with the preposition/auxiliary does not have to be the one benefiting or suffering from the action. The auxiliaries just code if the event was positive or negative.

[Creyeditor]

I'm pretty sure this is ANADEW, but I can't remember where, maybe some Tibeto-Burman language?

---

I was thinking about a conlang where relative clauses (and type of relative clause) are marked on the verb. Let's assume a simple SOV order.

Ake anzeng gigt-em lake lihet.
I dog bite-REL.OBJ man see
'I see the man that the dog bit.

Ake anzeng gigt-en lake lihet.
I dog bite-REL.SUBJ man see
'I see the dog that bit the man.'

Probably also ANADEW

[Omzinesý]

I'm pretty sure this is ANADEW, but I can't remember where, maybe some Tibeto-Burman language?

---

I was thinking about a conlang where relative clauses (and type of relative clause) are marked on the verb. Let's assume a simple SOV order.

Ake anzeng gigt-em lake lihet.
I dog bite-REL.OBJ man see
'I see the man that the dog bit.

Ake anzeng gigt-en lake lihet.
I dog bite-REL.SUBJ man see
'I see the dog that bit the man.'

Probably also ANADEW

Isn't that just how oriented participles work?

'I saw the man bitten by the dog.'
'I saw the dog having-bitten the man.'

[Creyeditor]

Interesting
I was thinking of these verb forms as finite (and participles usually are not) but what does finiteness even mean, right?

[eldin raigmore]

A further twist on ideas that were posted about on this thread in 2018-2019.

Suppose a language (a conlang, probably) has n prepositions and n case-prefixes and n case suffixes and n postpositions.

Suppose every noun-phrase can be used with the following case-like markings;

1 with no adpositions and no case-affixes;

n with any preposition but no postposition and no case-affixes;
n with any case-prefix but no case-suffix and no adpositions;
n with any case-suffix but no case-prefix and no adpositions;
n with any postposition but no preposition and no case-affixes;

n*(n-1) combinations of a preposition and a case-prefix but no case-suffix and no postposition;
n*(n-1) combinations of a preposition and a case-suffix but no case-prefix and no postposition;
n*(n-1) combinations of a preposition and a postposition but no case-affixes;
n*(n-1) combinations of a case-prefix and a case-suffix but no adpositions;
n*(n-1) combinations of a case-prefix and a postposition but no preposition and no case-suffix;
n*(n-1) combinations of a case-suffix and a postposition but no preposition and no case-prefix;

n*(n-1)*(n-2) combinations of a preposition and a case-prefix and a case-suffix but no postposition;
n*(n-1)*(n-2) combinations of a preposition and a case-prefix and a postposition but no case-suffix;
n*(n-1)*(n-2) combinations of a preposition and a case-suffix and a postposition but no case-prefix;
n*(n-1)*(n-2) combinations of a case-prefix and a case-suffix and a postposition but no preposition;

n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3) combinations of a preposition and a case-prefix and a case-suffix and a postposition.

——

Then there are :
1 + 4*n + 6*n*(n-1) + 4*n*(n-1)*(n-2) + n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)
total ways to mark up a noun-phrase.

———

If n is 0, this is 1.
If n is 1, this is 1 + (4*1) = 1+4 = 5.
If n is 2, this is 1 + (4*2) + (6*2*1) = 1+8+12 = 21.
If n is 3, this is 1 + (4*3) + (6*3*2) + (4*3*2*1) = 1+12+36+24 = 73.
If n is 4, this is 1 + (4*4) + (6*4*3) + (4*4*3*2) + (4*3*2*1) = 1+16+72+96+24 = 209 (which is probably enough).
If n is 5, this is 1 + (4*5) + (6*5*4) + (4*5*4*3) + (5*4*3*2) = 1+20+120+240+120 = 501.

———

I don’t think I need to go any further.

[eldin raigmore]

I once read (in Uller Uprising; author’s name escapes me; maybe H. Beam Piper?) a suggestion about a science-fictional species’s language which I’ll paraphrase here (as well as I can).
It had a system of 4 tenses, that applied to nouns and pronouns rather than verbs, and expressed present-vs-nonpresent on two axes; spatial and temporal.
One tense was for things that are here-and-now; both spatially present and temporally present.
One tense was for things that are there-and-now; temporally present but spatially non-present.
One tense was for things that was-or-will-be here-and-then; spatially present but temporally non-present.
And the last tense was for things that was-or-will-be there-and-then; both spatially non-present and temporally non-present.
….
Has any natlang ever had a similar system?
Does anyone know of a conlang with a similar system?
How practical would it be to try to build a conlang with such a system?

[Omzinesý]

I once read (in Uller Uprising; author’s name escapes me; maybe H. Beam Piper?) a suggestion about a science-fictional species’s language which I’ll paraphrase here (as well as I can).
It had a system of 4 tenses, that applied to nouns and pronouns rather than verbs, and expressed present-vs-nonpresent on two axes; spatial and temporal.
One tense was for things that are here-and-now; both spatially present and temporally present.
One tense was for things that are there-and-now; temporally present but spatially non-present.
One tense was for things that was-or-will-be here-and-then; spatially present but temporally non-present.
And the last tense was for things that was-or-will-be there-and-then; both spatially non-present and temporally non-present.
….
Has any natlang ever had a similar system?
Does anyone know of a conlang with a similar system?
How practical would it be to try to build a conlang with such a system?

What about hypothetical entities? Should they have an extra tense cos they are not here or there, now or then?

An interesting idea. Not a fully impossible idea even for a natlang. Though I think it does not exist.

[Creyeditor]

At least three languages have determiners based on the distinction between existent and non-existent things, according to this paper (https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/7685/): St’át’imcets (Salish), Nata (Bantu), and Biak (Austronesian). No temporal dimension though, more of a modality-based one.

[Creyeditor]

At least three languages have determiners based on the distinction between existent and non-existent things, according to this paper (https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/7685/): St’át’imcets (Salish), Nata (Bantu), and Biak (Austronesian). No temporal dimension though, more of a modality-based one.

Edit: Btw, I reallly like the idea of spatial tenses on verbs.

[eldin raigmore]

What about hypothetical entities? Should they have an extra tense cos they are not here or there, now or then?

I think so; but the author didn’t mention it.

An interesting idea. Not a fully impossible idea even for a natlang. Though I think it does not exist.

I didn’t read any mention of moods or aspects or voices or polarities etc. in the story (novel?)!
There are such things as nominal moods and nominal aspects in natlangs, though.

Edit: : Some grammarians call the difference between count nouns and mass-or-measure nouns “nominal aspect”.

And English e.g. has nominal tense; but only temporal, not spatial; and past-present-future, not present-nonpresent.
E.g. “ex-husband” (past) vs “husband” (present) vs “husband-to-be” (future).
One might argue these aren’t morphological tenses; or at least the future isn’t!

I think nominal mood would (or might) be semantically close to nominal tense.
IOW “future wife” and “intended wife” usually mean nearly the same thing.
I could be wrong, or just unimaginative!

In English, “nominal aspect” can be expressed on place-names, by choosing the right preposition. So, some people might sooner call it case than aspect!

Example; “I’m at Rick’s house” (perfective) vs “I’m in Rick’s house” (imperfective).
Or; “It’s on Main Street” (perfective) vs “It’s in Main Street” (imperfective).
Or; “They meet at Osaka this year” (perfective) vs “They meet in Osaka this year” (imperfective).

Maybe I could have thought of better examples; or maybe not.

I think there might be nominal evidentiality in English, too; “an apparent cyclone”, e.g.

….

Thanks for your comment!

Edit: Creyeditor post-ninja’ed me twice! Thanks for those posts, Creyeditor!

[Salmoneus]

I once read (in Uller Uprising; author’s name escapes me; maybe H. Beam Piper?) a suggestion about a science-fictional species’s language which I’ll paraphrase here (as well as I can).
It had a system of 4 tenses, that applied to nouns and pronouns rather than verbs, and expressed present-vs-nonpresent on two axes; spatial and temporal.
One tense was for things that are here-and-now; both spatially present and temporally present.
One tense was for things that are there-and-now; temporally present but spatially non-present.
One tense was for things that was-or-will-be here-and-then; spatially present but temporally non-present.
And the last tense was for things that was-or-will-be there-and-then; both spatially non-present and temporally non-present.
….
Has any natlang ever had a similar system?
Does anyone know of a conlang with a similar system?
How practical would it be to try to build a conlang with such a system?

This is kind of just a pun, based on the fact English refers to the current time as the 'present', even though most of the things in it are not present. So the two 'axes' aren't equivalent: most 'temporally present' things aren't actually present, whereas all spatially present things must be present. So there's no reason a language would have these as an organised system, and in particular I'm skeptical whether any language will have a dedicated marker for "not present, because it doesn't exist yet but if or when it does exist it would probably be present for a future conversation that we might have if we were both around then and having that conversation around about the same place that we're having this conversation". I just don't know how often that would really come up in normal conversation.

Certainly there's no reason to relabel ordinary deixis as 'tense'.

That being said, obviously most (probably all) languages will have a way to mark 'former' and 'future' status on nominal labels - otherwise the world is pretty impossible to talk about - and I'd imagine most can do this directly on nouns in at least some instances. You seem to instead be talking about 'dead/destroyed' and 'not yet born/made', which seems less likely to be worth a dedicated system for indicating.

And it's also very common to have a deictic distinction between things currently visible and things that are out of sight. [English instead generally combines 'out of sight' with 'the one not close to me' as 'that', although dialectically sometimes it could instead be combined with 'yon' (which normally means the one within sight but relatively distant from both of us). Such amalgamations in the deictic system are commonplace]

So it's not unrealistic for a language to have both these systems. But I don't think there's any particular reason why the two systems would be linked, and there's certainly no reason I can see for calling them 'tense'.

[Omzinesý]

The direct evidential can very rarely be used of second person. It has to be replaced by the inferential.
I would be considered too intimate to claim that I know anything about you directly.

[Omzinesý]

There is a case that appears with quatifiers. Say, it's called the partitive. The quantifier is inflected.
There is a word that is both the indefinite article and word 'one'. Then the word inflects and the article is uninflected.

ma-lo kram-s
one-LOC house-PARTVE
'in one house'

ma kram-lo
INDEF house-LOC
'in a house'

[thethief3]

There is a case that appears with quatifiers. Say, it's called the partitive. The quantifier is inflected.
There is a word that is both the indefinite article and word 'one'. Then the word inflects and the article is uninflected.

ma-lo kram-s
one-LOC house-PARTVE
'in one house'

ma kram-lo
INDEF house-LOC
'in a house'

nice

[Creyeditor]

There is a case that appears with quatifiers. Say, it's called the partitive. The quantifier is inflected.
There is a word that is both the indefinite article and word 'one'. Then the word inflects and the article is uninflected.

ma-lo kram-s
one-LOC house-PARTVE
'in one house'

ma kram-lo
INDEF house-LOC
'in a house'

Could that lead to systematic ambiguity between quantifiers and non-quantifiers? Like and adjective meaning `whole' being the same as the quantifier `all'. Maybe someone can think of more.

ti-lo kram-s
all-LOC house-PARTVE
'in all houses'

ti kram-lo
whole house-LOC
'in the whole house'

[Omzinesý]

There is a case that appears with quatifiers. Say, it's called the partitive. The quantifier is inflected.
There is a word that is both the indefinite article and word 'one'. Then the word inflects and the article is uninflected.

ma-lo kram-s
one-LOC house-PARTVE
'in one house'

ma kram-lo
INDEF house-LOC
'in a house'

Could that lead to systematic ambiguity between quantifiers and non-quantifiers? Like and adjective meaning `whole' being the same as the quantifier `all'. Maybe someone can think of more.

ti-lo kram-s
all-LOC house-PARTVE
'in all houses'

ti kram-lo
whole house-LOC
'in the whole house'

Maybe, though I think it's better to maintain irregularity and also have quantifiers that cannot appear without the partitive.

[Creyeditor]

Very true

[Creyeditor]

What about objects agreeing with subjects? (Maybe this idea popped up before, if so, sorry). Diachronically, this could come from an auxiliary that was dropped in intransitive clauses but attached to the object in transitive clauses. The following examples are SVO but maybe SOV makes more sense.

We ru ti-zo.
boy admire woman-3SG.M
'The boy admires the woman.'

Pa ru ti-sy.
girl admire woman-3PL.F
'The girls admire the woman'

Ru ti-fi.
admire woman-2SG.F
'You (f.sg) admire the woman'

[VaptuantaDoi]

What about objects agreeing with subjects? (Maybe this idea popped up before, if so, sorry). Diachronically, this could come from an auxiliary that was dropped in intransitive clauses but attached to the object in transitive clauses. The following examples are SVO but maybe SOV makes more sense.

We ru ti-zo.
boy admire woman-3SG.M
'The boy admires the woman.'

Pa ru ti-sy.
girl admire woman-3PL.F
'The girls admire the woman'

Ru ti-fi.
admire woman-2SG.F
'You (f.sg) admire the woman'

Reminds me of southern Marchigiano dialects:

set-i rəmaʃt-i a rrom-i
be.2PL-MPL stayed-MPL in rome-MPL
'You.M.PL stayed in Rome."

tʃ ajj-u sɔnn-u
1SG have-MSG sleepiness-MSG
"I.M am sleepy."

I don't know how that arose though.

[lsd]

an agreement on the predicate rather than on the verb,
perhaps it should be seen as an incorporating verb
(we rutizo, pa rutisy, rutifi)