The Great Exposition of Ruykkarraber

[_Just_A_Sketch]

Edit: There's an account on here that is sketch, and one that is _Just_A_Sketch ─ I don't think they're the same person? The former said he was a teenager, and I think the latter is too, but am not sure.

I am indeed a different person from sketch, we unfortunately just have very similar names. I also usually go by sketch instead of my full username, making this even more confusing :/
I am also a teenager, so you're correct on both parts.

[Solarius]

This looks quite interesting; I always have a soft spot for languages with /p/ as a gap (as opposed to /g/ or other common stops.) What's the deal with these nominalized verbs?
---------
On the Mark Rosenfelder stuff, I'm always appreciative of his work. Verdurian may be a Euroclone, but it's a self-aware one; the only problem with a conlang being too European is if it's not intentional. There are definite some of his languages which I like a little less, but there are a few which are quite strong (I've always had a soft spot for Xurnese and Uyseʔ), and the conlanging and worldbuilding feels extremely cohesive even when aspects don't quite work.

[Visions1]

You said it. Every piece fits together.
I mean, a lot of what he writes sounds really believable. Like you'd expect it in our world.
Tzhuro is my favourite. It's one of the languages that when I looked at, it really looked holistic to me - a mark of real language IMO.

[WeepingElf]

This looks quite interesting; I always have a soft spot for languages with /p/ as a gap (as opposed to /g/ or other common stops.) What's the deal with these nominalized verbs?
---------
On the Mark Rosenfelder stuff, I'm always appreciative of his work. Verdurian may be a Euroclone, but it's a self-aware one; the only problem with a conlang being too European is if it's not intentional. There are definite some of his languages which I like a little less, but there are a few which are quite strong (I've always had a soft spot for Xurnese and Uyseʔ), and the conlanging and worldbuilding feels extremely cohesive even when aspects don't quite work.

Fine. Verdurian was made for a culture that in many ways resembles an Early Modern Western European culture, so it IMHO made sense to make it European-like. And as I said, he was young and probably knew close to nothing about non-European languages. When I was in that age, I wasn't any better. Over all, what he did is impressive, even if he has made mistakes, or rather, has done things which could have been better - well, you can't be equally good at anything. At least, he avoided the "bloated timeline" error that Tolkien and many other fantasy fell victim to.

[Arayaz]

Edit: There's an account on here that is sketch, and one that is _Just_A_Sketch ─ I don't think they're the same person? The former said he was a teenager, and I think the latter is too, but am not sure.

I am indeed a different person from sketch, we unfortunately just have very similar names. I also usually go by sketch instead of my full username, making this even more confusing :/
I am also a teenager, so you're correct on both parts.

Oh...
So that's why Sketch the Former reacted so strangely when I acted like his friend on a discord server ─ I thought it was you!

[_Just_A_Sketch]

Edit: There's an account on here that is sketch, and one that is _Just_A_Sketch ─ I don't think they're the same person? The former said he was a teenager, and I think the latter is too, but am not sure.

I am indeed a different person from sketch, we unfortunately just have very similar names. I also usually go by sketch instead of my full username, making this even more confusing :/
I am also a teenager, so you're correct on both parts.

Oh...
So that's why Sketch the Former reacted so strangely when I acted like his friend on a discord server ─ I thought it was you! [xD]

Haha, yeah that definitely wasn't me. I'm not very active on discord, though I do have an account.

[Arayaz]

What's the deal with these nominalized verbs?

Here you go

Verbs 1: Inflection

Tense

Ruykkarraber has less inflection on verbs than on nouns, mostly relying on auxiliaries to express verbal information. However, there is some tense-based inflection.

Past: -[i/y]r ─ -ir after a consonant, -yr after a vowel
Nonpast: unmarked

Despite its name, the nonpast actually can indicate a recent-past action. Unless any aspect is indicated, it may be perfective or imperfective, and the perfective nonpast is generally actually a recent past.

Ruya serren uyna. "Ruya sees you." OR "Ruya just saw you."
Ruya kasti. "Ruya is walking." OR "Ruya just walked."

Nominalization

Ruykkarraber makes prolific use of nominalization. No extra morphology is attached to a nominalized VP to mark it as such (though, as seen in the Nominal Inflection section, case marking may be altered upon nominalizing a verb). However, once nominalized, a verb may decline for case in the same manner as a true noun. Nominalized verbs do not, though, take number marking.

[Arayaz]

Verbs 2: Auxiliaries (and more nominalization)

Auxiliaries in Ruykkarraber follow a verb and shift the case roles of the verb's arguments, and possibly the verb itself, in unpredictable ways that vary from auxiliary to auxiliary. It is even possible to combine auxiliaries, triggering many more complicated case roles.

Kra, Kruy, and Ig

Kra, kruy, and ig are, respectively, the future tense auxiliary, the future-in-the-past or conditional auxiliary, and the volitional auxiliary. They all use the same construction: S-nom O-abs V-acc AUX.

Ruya serren uyna.
ruya 2.FORM-ACC see
Ruya sees you.

Ruya serreg uynan kra.
ruya 2.FORM-ABS see-ACC FUT
Ruya will see you.

Ruya serreg uynan kruy.
ruya 2.FORM-ABS see-ACC COND
Ruya would have seen you.

Ruya serreg uynan ig.
ruya 2.FORM-ABS see-ACC VOL
Ruya wishes to see you.

[Salmoneus]

Please don't use the word "experiencer" for 'intransitive subject'. It's WRONG. Rather, "experiencer" is a semantic role that may or may not be an intransitive subject. Many, in fact, most intransitive subjects aren't experiencers.

Thank you; I've looked it up, and of course, I was misinformed, as usual. Thanks again; I'll update my original post.

FWIW, I also encourage people to avoid using "transitive" and "intransitive" when they simply mean "bivalent" and "univalent" or "dyadic" and "monadic". Bivalency is a syntactic property; transitivity is a semantic property that may or may not be associated with bivalency. Dyadicity is a vaguer term but is generally also semantic/pragmatic - it's the property of a verb having two implied semantic participants, IIUC.

Transitive verbs do not have to be bivalent, and bivalent verbs do not have to be transitive, in a language in which transitivity is a relevant concept.

People (sometimes even me) use "transitive" when they mean "bivalent" or "dyadic", and 90% of the time there's no problem, but then 10% of the time there's a problem that they may not even understand is a problem.

To get around this some people on this board distinguish "semantic transitivity" from "syntactic transitivity", but since there's already a word for the later and "bivalent" is quicker to type than "syntactically transitive", I don't see the advantage of this.


[simplification: different languages may define it differently, but broadly speaking a transitive verb is one that refers to a transitive act, and a transitive act is one that:
- has an agent
- the agent of which is definite, specific and identifiable
- the agent of which initiates the act voluntarily
- the agent of which is in control of the course of the act
- has a patient
- the patient of which is definite, specific and identifiable
- the patient of which does not initiate the act voluntarily
- the patient of which is not in control of the course of the act
- the patient of which undergoes an enduring and significant alteration of physical properties or state as a result of the act
- is completed
- is effectual
- is successful.

In other words, a transitive act is somebody doing something to somebody. Transitive acts and hence verbs are inherently dyadic - there are two participants. They do not always involve bivalent verbs - for instance, "I already ate" is transitive (because whatever I ate is certainly affected by my eating it!), but in this case univalent. Conversely, a bivalent verb like the one in "I considered the dog" is not transitive, because the dog is not in any way affected by my consideration - I'm not doing anything to it - but is dyadic.]

Anyway, it's a really common thing, and many people will argue it's not "wrong" (i.e. even academics do it sometimes), but I advice against it because actually transitivity in the narrow is a really important concept in many languages and it's better not to confuse yourself in advance by using "transitive" to mean two different things...

[Arayaz]

FWIW, I also encourage people to avoid using "transitive" and "intransitive" when they simply mean "bivalent" and "univalent" or "dyadic" and "monadic". [...]

Thank you. Would there also be an alternative for "(de)transitivize"?

[Omzinesý]

Please don't use the word "experiencer" for 'intransitive subject'. It's WRONG. Rather, "experiencer" is a semantic role that may or may not be an intransitive subject. Many, in fact, most intransitive subjects aren't experiencers.

Thank you; I've looked it up, and of course, I was misinformed, as usual. Thanks again; I'll update my original post.

FWIW, I also encourage people to avoid using "transitive" and "intransitive" when they simply mean "bivalent" and "univalent" or "dyadic" and "monadic". Bivalency is a syntactic property; transitivity is a semantic property that may or may not be associated with bivalency. Dyadicity is a vaguer term but is generally also semantic/pragmatic - it's the property of a verb having two implied semantic participants, IIUC.

Transitive verbs do not have to be bivalent, and bivalent verbs do not have to be transitive, in a language in which transitivity is a relevant concept.

People (sometimes even me) use "transitive" when they mean "bivalent" or "dyadic", and 90% of the time there's no problem, but then 10% of the time there's a problem that they may not even understand is a problem.

To get around this some people on this board distinguish "semantic transitivity" from "syntactic transitivity", but since there's already a word for the later and "bivalent" is quicker to type than "syntactically transitive", I don't see the advantage of this.


[simplification: different languages may define it differently, but broadly speaking a transitive verb is one that refers to a transitive act, and a transitive act is one that:
- has an agent
- the agent of which is definite, specific and identifiable
- the agent of which initiates the act voluntarily
- the agent of which is in control of the course of the act
- has a patient
- the patient of which is definite, specific and identifiable
- the patient of which does not initiate the act voluntarily
- the patient of which is not in control of the course of the act
- the patient of which undergoes an enduring and significant alteration of physical properties or state as a result of the act
- is completed
- is effectual
- is successful.

In other words, a transitive act is somebody doing something to somebody. Transitive acts and hence verbs are inherently dyadic - there are two participants. They do not always involve bivalent verbs - for instance, "I already ate" is transitive (because whatever I ate is certainly affected by my eating it!), but in this case univalent. Conversely, a bivalent verb like the one in "I considered the dog" is not transitive, because the dog is not in any way affected by my consideration - I'm not doing anything to it - but is dyadic.]

Anyway, it's a really common thing, and many people will argue it's not "wrong" (i.e. even academics do it sometimes), but I advice against it because actually transitivity in the narrow is a really important concept in many languages and it's better not to confuse yourself in advance by using "transitive" to mean two different things...

Am I right that 'I'm waiting for you.' is bivalent?
But it is not (syntactically) transitive cos 'you' is not a direct object but a preposition argument.

[Arayaz]

Please don't use the word "experiencer" for 'intransitive subject'. It's WRONG. Rather, "experiencer" is a semantic role that may or may not be an intransitive subject. Many, in fact, most intransitive subjects aren't experiencers.

Thank you; I've looked it up, and of course, I was misinformed, as usual. Thanks again; I'll update my original post.

FWIW, I also encourage people to avoid using "transitive" and "intransitive" when they simply mean "bivalent" and "univalent" or "dyadic" and "monadic". Bivalency is a syntactic property; transitivity is a semantic property that may or may not be associated with bivalency. Dyadicity is a vaguer term but is generally also semantic/pragmatic - it's the property of a verb having two implied semantic participants, IIUC.

Transitive verbs do not have to be bivalent, and bivalent verbs do not have to be transitive, in a language in which transitivity is a relevant concept.

People (sometimes even me) use "transitive" when they mean "bivalent" or "dyadic", and 90% of the time there's no problem, but then 10% of the time there's a problem that they may not even understand is a problem.

To get around this some people on this board distinguish "semantic transitivity" from "syntactic transitivity", but since there's already a word for the later and "bivalent" is quicker to type than "syntactically transitive", I don't see the advantage of this.


[simplification: different languages may define it differently, but broadly speaking a transitive verb is one that refers to a transitive act, and a transitive act is one that:
- has an agent
- the agent of which is definite, specific and identifiable
- the agent of which initiates the act voluntarily
- the agent of which is in control of the course of the act
- has a patient
- the patient of which is definite, specific and identifiable
- the patient of which does not initiate the act voluntarily
- the patient of which is not in control of the course of the act
- the patient of which undergoes an enduring and significant alteration of physical properties or state as a result of the act
- is completed
- is effectual
- is successful.

In other words, a transitive act is somebody doing something to somebody. Transitive acts and hence verbs are inherently dyadic - there are two participants. They do not always involve bivalent verbs - for instance, "I already ate" is transitive (because whatever I ate is certainly affected by my eating it!), but in this case univalent. Conversely, a bivalent verb like the one in "I considered the dog" is not transitive, because the dog is not in any way affected by my consideration - I'm not doing anything to it - but is dyadic.]

Anyway, it's a really common thing, and many people will argue it's not "wrong" (i.e. even academics do it sometimes), but I advice against it because actually transitivity in the narrow is a really important concept in many languages and it's better not to confuse yourself in advance by using "transitive" to mean two different things...

Okay, but I checked on Wikipedia, and it seems to not agree.

In linguistics, transitivity is a property of verbs that relates to whether a verb can take objects and how many such objects a verb can take. It is closely related to valency, which considers other verb arguments in addition to direct objects.

It later mentions "traditional" grammar versus "functional" grammar, which seems to be the difference here. But it doesn't seem I'd be wrong to call "to see" transitive.

[Visions1]

I thought see was fundamentally transitive - as in, the word implies something is being seen? Halkomelem treats it that way too.