I actually love watching Bibz go through his thought processes, changing his mind, throwing things away, etc. As a novice conlanger, seeing a master at work is fascinating, and it gives the audience an opportunity to take discarded ideas that could work in other contexts. It's like raiding Tolkien's waste bin.
Aesthetics is very important for me in conlanging, so I did something very similar in Itlani, switching things around until I got the sound I was going for.
For the r sequence, you can justify implementing a sporadic or even mandatory lateralisation like it happens a lot in romance languages with for exemple peregrinus > pellerin in french. For example you could have a nice alternation with niilwa as niirwa niiriü niilaar niirwas niilwirlü niilaaras niirwën ni'irwinlü nilaarrin niilwaar niilwaari. niilaarra Or allternatively : niirwa niiriü niiraal niirwas niirwillü niiraalas niirwën ni'irwinlü niraallin niirwaal niirwaali niiraalla and the -rür sufix in rilinrür coud become lür or rül giving rilinlür or rilinrül
The north-germanic word(s) for child (as far as I know, they are all written as 'barn') actually comes from a pie word meaning to bear or carry as in you would carry a child in your arms.
Would that not be the same stem born, as in carrying a child, so that the child is the one that has been carried? That's what would feel intuitive to me, as a Swede, though that obviously doesn't mean it's right.
actually regarding patient-omission in English (33:00), it's pretty common, though exact structures vary. see Raina Heaton's work on the typology of antipassives (it isn't actually an antipassive, obviously, but has some similar functions) also, while compounding (noun-verb) is very close to the stem, the same is not necessarily true of noun incorporation. the obvious example is in the Dene languages, where incorporates are generally way out in the disjunct domain.
I would truly, actually, factually buy a Biblaridion book. He's already made one guaranteed sale. I already have Peterson, Rosenfelder, and Cole on my shelf.
I could totally see a future stage of this lang reinterpreting that -ra as a negative marker... Also, very good to see an argument that you *can* use applicatives derivationally! I had been trying to find that out
Once, long ago, you said it wasn't intuitive to you at all why "head", "body", or "face" wuld become reflexive morphemes. It makes sense if you think of it this way: If, I HEAD HIT, and YOU HEAD HIT is interpreted as "I hit (my) head.", and "You hit (your) head." rather than just "I/You hit (a) head.", or "I/You hit (the) head.", it makes it lot more sense that that might evolve to mean "I hit myself.", and "You hit yourself." Sometimes in English, definite body parts are intereted as belonging to other nouns in a sentence, even if it isn't explicitly stated, e.g., "She shot him in the head." means "She shot him in his head." I suspect things like this might be more extensive in other languages, considering things like how the topic in Japanese stays the same for multiple sentences until a new topic is explicitly stated, even as new subjects are given, and new sentences are interpreted in way related to that topic which isn't necessarily intuitive from the words in that sentence alone, or how some nouns like body parts and family member always have to be possessed by someone in languages like Navajo, where they must always have a prefix indicating theor possessor attatched. (Incidentally, in my first completish conlang, nouns in the construct state with no explicitly given possessor are usually interpreted as possessed by the topic, or maybe the subject.)
If /r/ is fully trilled, it's difficult not to trill straight through an unstressed short vowel between two (making a long [r:] with the vowel as a secondary articulation), so you could very believably have a change like this that specifically removed a lot of repeated /r/, but not other repeated consonants. You seem to dislike repeated /j/ and some other repeated consonants, too, though, so maybe that's not necessary.
Dude it's not that we forget how seasons it work, it's more that we forget that the southern hemisphere exists, at all. it's like it's no more real than Narnia or Middle-earth
Maybe just assume the adposition though normally an postposition had this added to the end preposition style? I think there is like that in Hungarian that eg -nek is a dative ending , but with pronauns it goes before the pronoun thing. So alma-nak "to apple", but nek-em "to me". THe same way could be "to/with/for something" in your conlang. And then it would go (adposition + something) + root, instead of adposition + (something + root) or something + (adposition + root) Edit: this way you could make also personal forms so (adpostion + pronoun) + root, so to have person marker as kindof infix
The more I think about his problem, the smarter this comment sounds. We could, for example, say this: Long ago, an ancestor of the language used prepositions. Pronouns got suffixed onto these prepositions to make inflecting prepositions. These could be lost and give way to the modern non-inflecting post-position system in one or both of two ways I can immediately think of: 1) They just got gradually replaced with verb-like post-positions. If pronouns only attatched when the prepositional object wasn't explicitly stated, then adpositions that were previously prepositions might even just become postpositions to match the pattern. (I understand Proto-Indo-European adpositions were probably pretty free to be either postpositions or prepositions based on the mess of both, often in the same language, in daughter languages, maybe because noun-case made it clearer what was an adpositional object, and I think PIE adpositions were probably closest related to adverbs, as we still have some words that go back and forth between being adverbs or verbal particles and being adpositions.) 2) Perhaps the clarifying noun used when a pronoun wasn't enough could be said before the inflected preposition, so that "in the forest" could be literally said: FOREST IN-IT (which sounds very reasonable to me.) If the third person pronouns that originally affixed to prepsitions were very simple and easily lost (and remember that this affixed long before the proto-lang, so they might have changed, especially if the gender-system did), it's possible that gender-distinctions or what-not in adpositions could be leveled in 3rd person and MAYBE the 3rd person forms could even be generalized for use on first and second person pronouns, at least with most adpositions. (I think 2 is cooler but 1 is probably better for our purposes.) In any case, these inflecting prepositions could stick around as weird pronominal forms like you say Hungarian has for a long time (or, indeed, like pronoun-only grammatical cases) long after postpositions became the norm, and a few could even last long after others as sort of person-specific adverbs (???like "contigo" and "conmigo" in Spanish and maybe like something in Japanese). As you say sometime during this preposition-to-postposition transition, pronominal prepositions, including for the "something" pronoun that became the detransitive marker could happen, could prefix onto verbs as pronominal applicatives eith the adposition before the pronoun, while still letting applicatives with explicitly stated objects be prefixed alone: I ([ROCK USE] HIT). >I [ROCK USE-HIT].= I hit ... with (a) rock. I (USE-THING HIT). >I USE-THING-HIT. = I hit ... with something.
@@Mr.Nichan yeah, and the Spanish example reminded me about Latin tecum, mecum, vobiscum, so normally preposition "cum" is used with prenominal forms attached in front, kind of counter-intuitively. My latin teacher speculated that it's because cum is also conjunction meaning "when" so it could be sometimes not clear whether pronoun belongs to preposition cum or to another sentence. So maybe it could be there was some similar form abd for clarification people started messing with the order. Though I mark it was speculation, no scientific basis
You could keep the applicative destransitive order by saying it worked in the proto-lang like how split infinitives work in English where the modifier comes between the adposition and the verb and so they attached to the verb in that order.
That would make sense if the main verb was analyzed as an adverb/prefix* modifying the postpostional verb, e.g., I ROCK HIT = I hit the rock. I ROCK USE = I use the rock. I ROCK HIT-USE = I use the rock for hitting. That also explains why the direct object of HIT is no longer needed (which would be mysterious if it were just a post-positional phrase that got added on, but is necessary for to be an applicative). However, it does mean that the detransitive will be a prefix and applicatives will be suffixes, so they can't merge with each other. *Syntactically/logically/semantically (whatever the right word is), the word HIT is being prefixed onto the word USE to make the head-final compound word HIT-USE. However since the HIT slot can be filled with pretty much any verb and the USE slot (the head of the compound) can only be filled with 5 or so generic words, the applicative suffix, while etymologically the head of these compounds, will later be considered an applicative suffix on verbs in the same way as postpositions are the heads of their phrases but become seen as case suffixes.
An applicative kind of IS a detransitive for transitive verbs, because it removes the need for the old direct object role. It's just that applicatives replace the old direct object role with another. If the valency of verbs can't be changed by zero derivation as in English, than, while it makes sense for intransitive verbs to become transitive with the affixation of an adposition, it's a bit odd that an applicative for transitive verbs could form this way and replace the direct object role with the adpositional object role rather than just introducing another role IN ADDITION to the direct object role, thus making a ditransitive verb. (Now I think about it, I think I did make applicatives optionally work that way in my first completish conlang, and actually the applicative affix went in a different place depending on if the final verb was monotransitive or ditransitive.)
I don't see why you can't have the template be applicative-detransitive-root and still have the applicative take precedence. If the applicatives evolved from a serial verb construction, they could have remained separate words for a while until after the noun incorporation. The noun would then incorporate into the main verb, which in this case is the second verb, and then later down the line the verbs glom together. Evolution might look a little something like this: applicative.verb main.verb applicative.verb incorporated.noun-main.verb appl-detrans-root.verb
Maybe I'm confused,* but I don't think this could work because, for the applicative to be semantically added first means that the incorporated reflexive noun must be interpreted as the object of the applicative verb/postposition, not the main verb, so why would it prefix to the main verb instead of the applicative verb? E.g. Stage 1: I rock use hit. = I hit ... with (a) rock. I thing use hit. = I hit ... with something. AS OPPOSED TO I rock use thing hit. = I hit something with a rock. or I thing use thing hit. = I hit something with somthing. ?Stage 2 (according to you): I use thing-hit. ?= I hit ... with something. (This feels to me like "use" has no object and that "thing" should be the thing being hit not the thing being used to hit.) I would think it would either be: I thing-use hit. = I hit ... with something. (In which case you've evolved an instrumental case that for some reason removes the need for the verb HIT to have a direct object. I.e., changing the case of the single object changes it's role in the action.) OR I head use-hit. = I hit ... with my head/self. (In which case you have an applicative with a reflexive pronoun before it that can then later prefix on as head-use-hit, but that's the morpheme order you were trying to avoid.) OR I thing-hit = I hit something. and I rock use thing-hit = I hit something with the rock. (These verbs could further combine into "use-thing-hit", which is the morpheme order you want, but the detransitive is being applied first semantically as well as morphologically, which is what you were trying to avoid.) *Actually I'm DEFINITELY confused. For example, I originally did this all with "head" instead of "thing" becaused I confused detransitive and reflexive (since he want the reflexive to become a middle voice that could be reflexive, reciprocal, passive, or antipassive, depending on other words in the sentence). The question is whether or not I'm wrong because I'm confused.
While explaining what I saw wrong with your idea I discovered very simple fix. My basic idea was that the postpositional phrase that the applicative comes from could go after the main verb, which is not uncommon even on verb-final languages. Thus: I hit ... using something = I HIT THING USE >I HIT-THING USE* >I HIT-THING-USE THING is still the object of USE not HIT, but it affixes first because it's closer. This does have some weird implications, though: 1) The word order for plain detransitives would still be the same. Thus, plain detransitives would be prefixes, but detransitive applicatives would be suffixes: I THING HIT. >I THING-HIT. as opposed to I HIT THING USE. >I HIT-THING-USE. 2) Unless you want to incorporate every object of an applicative** (which I don't think he does, even if that's possible), plain applicatives probably wouldn't evolve from post-verbal postpositional phrases: I HIT ROCK USE ?>I HIT-USE ROCK??? ?>I ROCK HIT-USE??? (These actually sound a lot more reasonable than I thought they would, but I think that's because I'm interpreting HIT as a prefix on USE indicating the type of use. That sounds like a perfectly fine to evolve an applicative, but so is the following.) However, postpositional phrases, like all adverbials, tend to be pretty free in where you can put them, in which case we can just say they could go EITHER before or after the main verb. Thus, we can still have: I ROCK USE HIT. >I ROCK USE-HIT. Combined, this means paradigm would be: VERB (e.g. HIT) APPL-VERB (e.g., USE-HIT) DTRN-VERB (e.g., THING-HIT) VERB-DTRN-APPL (e.g., HIT-THING-USE) Thus, the only difference from his system I'm suggesting is that, when BOTH are used, they mysteriously become a suffix. This seems weird and contrived, but it makes since when realize that (A) the phrases that became detransitive applicatives contain very little information and so might be backed to background them, (B) the detransitive prefix come from a direct object, which could not be so easily backed as a postpositional phrase, and (C) the post-positional phrases that became plain applicative phrases actually had important and informative objects, and so would be less likely to be backgrounded and backed, and it's unlikely that the postposition would be backed without it's object even if it were seen as less important (and it wouldn't necessarily be, since both the object and it's role are important). (That being said, the postposition MIGHT APPEAR to be backed if it were actually a verb and the main verb were prefixed onto it to make the applicative, as I suggested.) *There is nothing odd about this merging of words across syntactic boundaries in step 2, c.f. English and German contractions. As long as two words frequently occur next to each other, especially when the common, semantically weak, word comes after the uncommon semantically strong word, so that no pause to think needs to come between. However, we could also just have both affix on at once eith the same effect: I HIT THING USE >I HIT-THING-USE **There actually is a less crazy way: You could incorporate a gendered pronoun rather than the full noun and restate the full noun elsewhere if further clarification is needed, e.g., something like: I HIT-INAN-use ROCK(?case) but that's kind-of weird when you do it that, and even if you found a better way to do it, that would be copying my first completish conlang :) and I think it violates some of the the things he Biblaridion wants for this language anyway. E.g., it makes it too heavily verb-marking.
Actually, my latter suggestion wouldn't solve Biblaridion's problem, which is that he wanted the detransitive to come literally AFTER the applicative in speech to make vowel merging more likely (based on the assumption that vowel-final roots would be much more common than vowel-initial roots in the CV(R) protolang), whether or not that means closer to the root.
8:37 "Want" used to mean LACK in English and still sometimes sort of does, as in "found wanting" or "for want of" (if I'm not just making that 2nd 1 up).
At around 6:30 Isn't that how suffixes form, though? Like, the next step in a daughter language might just be to reanalyze this whole process as just a “ra” suffix and regularize the other forms. I guess that'd leave you with a less complex language, but… isn't that how it works either way? I'd actually go so far to have the speakers switch to “tamra” as a negative and use “tam” as the new positive sometime after that. At 10:30 I mean, it could become a causative. That'd be cool!
I think his whole goal with this particular language is to make the morphology as nonconcatenative as possible, so while analogy is common, I think he's avoiding it on purpose for the sake of the language's aesthetic.
Are you going to go back through these videos and find all the ad hoc sound changes you made to words to record which ones should be added to the list of regular sound changes and where irregular sound changes have happened. I recently rewatched all the videos in this series, and I've notice you seem to want to exclude glydes from the "consonant" and "resinant consonant" categories in some of your sound changes, and you seem to have rather definite ideas about how long sequences of vowels and glydes shold be simplified. You also just generally implement a lot of irregular sound changes like skipping over consonants to reduce the number of syllables of common words, and I have no idea how consistent it is. As for irregular sound changes, I don't really understand it well, and it's hard to look up because "irregular sound change" is so overshadowed by all the people explaining "regular sound change" (open suggestion for a Feature Focus video), but I suspect patterns happen, just not completely regular ones. I understand irregular sound changes usually happen a lot in very common words (e.g. maked>made and other shortenings, as well as the sandhi-driven voicing of some fricatives in common words in English) and in very rare words (e.g. spelling pronounciations, common mishearings and mispronuncuations, conscous decisions based on etymology, and they don't HAVE to be THAT rare, afterall sporadic metatheses like "psghetti" might be like this) and sometimes they happen in in-between words because of borrowing between dialects (I know English has some great examples of spelling from one dialect and pronuncuation from a different one, neither of which are the primary source of modern dialects and also has some words like "vixen" which was borrowed from a dialect of English where that's related "fox").
A certain amount of ambiguity is normal in some cases. I personally like the idea of a language where context plays a role. Maybe you wouldn’t say a cow hits a rock but “runs into” it? That’d mean the inverse is something that would never even be a possibility.
it's kinda weird, when you were going over the sentences, it sounded like a Highland Scot saying something in another language, something akin to Gaelic but very different. I think it's just the vowels, and maybe just for that bird sentence in near future.
38:20 which is confusing, because the way you wrote the glossing made it look like the detransitive is applied first in all cases. I paused to read all of them before you spoke and was very confused.
As he said in one of the early videos, (specifically concerning why he wanted to use rather than ), he prefers to make his romanizations more intuitive for both first-time readers and people (like himself it seems) who are liable to accidentally forget the real meaning of weirdly written sounds when reading, even though they do know them. I'm tend to feel the same way, although that's partly just because I just like diacritics and have a desire to use them even when they're not necessary and only make things harder to type.
Wouldn't the locative and ablative applicatives likely use the same postposition roots as became noun-case and converb suffixes? You say the ablative applicative might come from the FROM postposition, but you've earlier said that the old genitive (now accusative) case and thus also the perfective converb come from this, also. The TO postposition you suggest the locative applicative comes from seems likely be the same as either the source for your dative/purposive (earlier called "imperfective") converb or your old accuative (now "locative")/imperfective converb (earlier called the "infinitive"). This is not a problem, it just means that first they PREFIXED onto verbs to make applicatives, then, from their remaining postpositional role, they later SUFFIXED onto nouns and nominalized verbs to make cases and converbs respectively. You don't have to use the same roots of course. It's just that, if you don't, it means one of 3 things (that I can think of): 1) There were synonymous or very similar postpositions floating around in the past, and different ones affixed onto verbs to make applicative than affixed onto nouns to mark cases. 2) The postpositions which prefixed onto verbs as applicatives either ceased to be used as independent postpositions later or shifted in meaning (???semantic bleaching), and new postpositions moved in to fill there old roles. (These would necessarily have to be brand new post positions. They could just be other pre-existing positions whose meanings expanded or shifted to fill the role of the old lost or meaning-shifted ones.) 3) You'll have to change what you say the lexical source for some of them are.
As if you want the applicative to semantically apply before the root, but you want the detransitive to come after it, then obvious answer is to make the both suffixes. The problem is, if the proto-language is OV, and the detransitive affix comes from a vague pronoun replacing the object of either the postposition or, after the applicative is formed, the verb, how can we justify it suffixing on after the applicative suffix. I can see it being suffixed UNDER the applicative, e.g.: I (HIT [THING WITH]) >I HIT-THING-WITH =SUBJ VERB-DTRN-APPL (Incidentally, in this scheme, the lone detransitive and the lone applicative would likely both still be prefixes, and only the combined detransitive aplicative would be a suffix. See my 2nd reply to The Impish Dullahan.) I can also see the applicative being a suffix while detransitive is a prefix, if the applicative was actually etymologiclly the main verb, with the lexical verb being prefixed onto it, e.g.: I ROCK USE. = I use the rock. I ROCK HIT-USE. = I use the rock for hitting. I THING-HIT-USE = I use something for hitting. I CAT HELP = I help the cat. I CAT EAT-HELP = I help the cat to eat. Here "hit-using" is a kind of "using", so ROCK is object of USE, not HIT, and HIT is not really a verb any more at all, just a modifier (which explains why it does't need IT'S direct object, i.e., why you don't need to say what was hit). Likwise "eat-helping" is a kind of "helping", and you don't need to say what the cat is eating because EAT is not a real verb here, CAT being the party being helped, not the party being eaten. (Sidenote, I wonder if the benefactive applicative could literally be the exact same verb form as the causative, with the difference being marked simply by how many noun argumants are given and what their cases are.) However, in that case, the detransitive would still be prefix, and perhaps worse-yet, nowhere near the applicative suffixes: I THING-HIT. I THING-HIT-USE. I THING-EAT. I THING-EAT-HELP. One option that does occur to me is that MAYBE the lexical verb could actually be the object of the applicative verb, so that the "applicative" form of the verb was actually intransitive, and the applicative object could be put in some other case that could go after the verb. If this other case happened to be the old genitive (which we said came from an ablative postposition, i.e. "from"), then it would look just like the accusative once the auxiliary verb construction became mandatory and the the old genitive became the new accusative. This would allow the detransitive to suffix after the applicative, but the problem with this is that then the detransitive suffix would have to have a genitive (or some other) case marker on it, which would make it bulkier and pretty much complerely undo the entire point of this exercise. At this point, I'm reminded of Piotr Węgrzyniak's comment, and will now go reply to that.
I actually love watching Bibz go through his thought processes, changing his mind, throwing things away, etc. As a novice conlanger, seeing a master at work is fascinating, and it gives the audience an opportunity to take discarded ideas that could work in other contexts. It's like raiding Tolkien's waste bin.
#UnBlockHamibin
Somehow bib saying "the only problem is..." is really iconic!
#UnBlockHamibin
Whenever it comes to making verb morphology for a conlang, I cry out in pain and hope it gets done by itself, until I have to do it on my own
Me too
I usually just start with some basic tense/aspectual morphology and then make some decisions from there.
@卡比卡比 Yes, I did several analytic languages, but then I often wanted something more challenging, and started making agglutinative proto-langs
@卡比卡比 I know that, just felt like starting with something more challending, as I said
thank you anyway
#UnBlockHamibin
Wake up babe, new conlanging case study
Aesthetics is very important for me in conlanging, so I did something very similar in Itlani, switching things around until I got the sound I was going for.
#UnBlockHamibin
34:39 In physics terms, hitting a cow with a rock and hitting a rock with a cow are technically synonomous.
they are also synonymous in my current conlang
for final -yay syllables, you could have a dissimilatory process whereby yVy>yV in unstressed syllables.
#UnBlockHamibin
For the r sequence, you can justify implementing a sporadic or even mandatory lateralisation like it happens a lot in romance languages with for exemple peregrinus > pellerin in french. For example you could have a nice alternation with niilwa as
niirwa niiriü niilaar
niirwas niilwirlü niilaaras
niirwën ni'irwinlü nilaarrin
niilwaar niilwaari. niilaarra
Or allternatively :
niirwa niiriü niiraal
niirwas niirwillü niiraalas
niirwën ni'irwinlü niraallin
niirwaal niirwaali niiraalla
and the -rür sufix in rilinrür coud become lür or rül giving rilinlür or rilinrül
#UnBlockHamibin
The north-germanic word(s) for child (as far as I know, they are all written as 'barn') actually comes from a pie word meaning to bear or carry as in you would carry a child in your arms.
Would that not be the same stem born, as in carrying a child, so that the child is the one that has been carried? That's what would feel intuitive to me, as a Swede, though that obviously doesn't mean it's right.
@@vde1846 Yeah I also do think that it is the same stem, quite sure of it actually.
29:08 and another instance of Bib accidentally making already existing words: 'muur /my:r/' is Dutch for 'wall'
Interesting, is this a romance loanword or just a Germanic cognate to the Latin word?
@@wtc5198 I think it’s the second, native Dutch myself
@@Enceladus2106 cool, what's the English cognate then
@@wtc5198 Actually in French its 'mur' as well, and it appears to come from the latin word 'mu:rus'
@@user-se1kb1cd8g yeah so a romance loanword
actually regarding patient-omission in English (33:00), it's pretty common, though exact structures vary. see Raina Heaton's work on the typology of antipassives (it isn't actually an antipassive, obviously, but has some similar functions)
also, while compounding (noun-verb) is very close to the stem, the same is not necessarily true of noun incorporation. the obvious example is in the Dene languages, where incorporates are generally way out in the disjunct domain.
#UnBlockHamibin
Tamra and tim being opposite of the ra/negative pattern is interesting.
#UnBlockHamibin
Iranians use solar calendar, but they have New Year with the beginning of spring (aka Nou Ruz). (tudududu)
for some reason i read depressing verb morphology
Working on verbal morphology does indeed depress me
Have you ever thought about publishing reference grammars of your languages?
I would truly, actually, factually buy a Biblaridion book. He's already made one guaranteed sale. I already have Peterson, Rosenfelder, and Cole on my shelf.
New bibs upload!!!!
I could totally see a future stage of this lang reinterpreting that -ra as a negative marker... Also, very good to see an argument that you *can* use applicatives derivationally! I had been trying to find that out
"It's amazing how I forgot how seasons work"
Yeah, adds up
Hello extus-chan~
Mind me saying that *returns to Eden64
A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
Once, long ago, you said it wasn't intuitive to you at all why "head", "body", or "face" wuld become reflexive morphemes. It makes sense if you think of it this way:
If,
I HEAD HIT, and
YOU HEAD HIT
is interpreted as
"I hit (my) head.", and
"You hit (your) head."
rather than just
"I/You hit (a) head.", or
"I/You hit (the) head.",
it makes it lot more sense that that might evolve to mean
"I hit myself.", and
"You hit yourself."
Sometimes in English, definite body parts are intereted as belonging to other nouns in a sentence, even if it isn't explicitly stated, e.g.,
"She shot him in the head."
means
"She shot him in his head."
I suspect things like this might be more extensive in other languages, considering things like how the topic in Japanese stays the same for multiple sentences until a new topic is explicitly stated, even as new subjects are given, and new sentences are interpreted in way related to that topic which isn't necessarily intuitive from the words in that sentence alone, or how some nouns like body parts and family member always have to be possessed by someone in languages like Navajo, where they must always have a prefix indicating theor possessor attatched. (Incidentally, in my first completish conlang, nouns in the construct state with no explicitly given possessor are usually interpreted as possessed by the topic, or maybe the subject.)
If /r/ is fully trilled, it's difficult not to trill straight through an unstressed short vowel between two (making a long [r:] with the vowel as a secondary articulation), so you could very believably have a change like this that specifically removed a lot of repeated /r/, but not other repeated consonants. You seem to dislike repeated /j/ and some other repeated consonants, too, though, so maybe that's not necessary.
Dude it's not that we forget how seasons it work, it's more that we forget that the southern hemisphere exists, at all. it's like it's no more real than Narnia or Middle-earth
Honestly witching things around happens an awful lot.
Maybe just assume the adposition though normally an postposition had this added to the end preposition style? I think there is like that in Hungarian that eg -nek is a dative ending , but with pronauns it goes before the pronoun thing. So alma-nak "to apple", but nek-em "to me". THe same way could be "to/with/for something" in your conlang. And then it would go (adposition + something) + root, instead of adposition + (something + root) or something + (adposition + root)
Edit: this way you could make also personal forms so (adpostion + pronoun) + root, so to have person marker as kindof infix
The more I think about his problem, the smarter this comment sounds.
We could, for example, say this:
Long ago, an ancestor of the language used prepositions. Pronouns got suffixed onto these prepositions to make inflecting prepositions. These could be lost and give way to the modern non-inflecting post-position system in one or both of two ways I can immediately think of:
1) They just got gradually replaced with verb-like post-positions. If pronouns only attatched when the prepositional object wasn't explicitly stated, then adpositions that were previously prepositions might even just become postpositions to match the pattern. (I understand Proto-Indo-European adpositions were probably pretty free to be either postpositions or prepositions based on the mess of both, often in the same language, in daughter languages, maybe because noun-case made it clearer what was an adpositional object, and I think PIE adpositions were probably closest related to adverbs, as we still have some words that go back and forth between being adverbs or verbal particles and being adpositions.)
2) Perhaps the clarifying noun used when a pronoun wasn't enough could be said before the inflected preposition, so that "in the forest" could be literally said:
FOREST IN-IT
(which sounds very reasonable to me.)
If the third person pronouns that originally affixed to prepsitions were very simple and easily lost (and remember that this affixed long before the proto-lang, so they might have changed, especially if the gender-system did), it's possible that gender-distinctions or what-not in adpositions could be leveled in 3rd person and MAYBE the 3rd person forms could even be generalized for use on first and second person pronouns, at least with most adpositions.
(I think 2 is cooler but 1 is probably better for our purposes.)
In any case, these inflecting prepositions could stick around as weird pronominal forms like you say Hungarian has for a long time (or, indeed, like pronoun-only grammatical cases) long after postpositions became the norm, and a few could even last long after others as sort of person-specific adverbs (???like "contigo" and "conmigo" in Spanish and maybe like something in Japanese). As you say sometime during this preposition-to-postposition transition, pronominal prepositions, including for the "something" pronoun that became the detransitive marker could happen, could prefix onto verbs as pronominal applicatives eith the adposition before the pronoun, while still letting applicatives with explicitly stated objects be prefixed alone:
I ([ROCK USE] HIT).
>I [ROCK USE-HIT].= I hit ... with (a) rock.
I (USE-THING HIT).
>I USE-THING-HIT. = I hit ... with something.
@@Mr.Nichan yeah, and the Spanish example reminded me about Latin tecum, mecum, vobiscum, so normally preposition "cum" is used with prenominal forms attached in front, kind of counter-intuitively. My latin teacher speculated that it's because cum is also conjunction meaning "when" so it could be sometimes not clear whether pronoun belongs to preposition cum or to another sentence. So maybe it could be there was some similar form abd for clarification people started messing with the order. Though I mark it was speculation, no scientific basis
You could keep the applicative destransitive order by saying it worked in the proto-lang like how split infinitives work in English where the modifier comes between the adposition and the verb and so they attached to the verb in that order.
That would make sense if the main verb was analyzed as an adverb/prefix* modifying the postpostional verb, e.g.,
I ROCK HIT = I hit the rock.
I ROCK USE = I use the rock.
I ROCK HIT-USE = I use the rock for hitting.
That also explains why the direct object of HIT is no longer needed (which would be mysterious if it were just a post-positional phrase that got added on, but is necessary for to be an applicative). However, it does mean that the detransitive will be a prefix and applicatives will be suffixes, so they can't merge with each other.
*Syntactically/logically/semantically (whatever the right word is), the word HIT is being prefixed onto the word USE to make the head-final compound word HIT-USE. However since the HIT slot can be filled with pretty much any verb and the USE slot (the head of the compound) can only be filled with 5 or so generic words, the applicative suffix, while etymologically the head of these compounds, will later be considered an applicative suffix on verbs in the same way as postpositions are the heads of their phrases but become seen as case suffixes.
An applicative kind of IS a detransitive for transitive verbs, because it removes the need for the old direct object role. It's just that applicatives replace the old direct object role with another. If the valency of verbs can't be changed by zero derivation as in English, than, while it makes sense for intransitive verbs to become transitive with the affixation of an adposition, it's a bit odd that an applicative for transitive verbs could form this way and replace the direct object role with the adpositional object role rather than just introducing another role IN ADDITION to the direct object role, thus making a ditransitive verb. (Now I think about it, I think I did make applicatives optionally work that way in my first completish conlang, and actually the applicative affix went in a different place depending on if the final verb was monotransitive or ditransitive.)
Well this was a pleasant surprise
I don't see why you can't have the template be applicative-detransitive-root and still have the applicative take precedence. If the applicatives evolved from a serial verb construction, they could have remained separate words for a while until after the noun incorporation. The noun would then incorporate into the main verb, which in this case is the second verb, and then later down the line the verbs glom together.
Evolution might look a little something like this:
applicative.verb main.verb
applicative.verb incorporated.noun-main.verb
appl-detrans-root.verb
Maybe I'm confused,* but I don't think this could work because, for the applicative to be semantically added first means that the incorporated reflexive noun must be interpreted as the object of the applicative verb/postposition, not the main verb, so why would it prefix to the main verb instead of the applicative verb?
E.g.
Stage 1:
I rock use hit. = I hit ... with (a) rock.
I thing use hit. = I hit ... with something.
AS OPPOSED TO
I rock use thing hit. = I hit something with a rock.
or
I thing use thing hit. = I hit something with somthing.
?Stage 2 (according to you):
I use thing-hit. ?= I hit ... with something.
(This feels to me like "use" has no object and that "thing" should be the thing being hit not the thing being used to hit.)
I would think it would either be:
I thing-use hit. = I hit ... with something.
(In which case you've evolved an instrumental case that for some reason removes the need for the verb HIT to have a direct object. I.e., changing the case of the single object changes it's role in the action.)
OR
I head use-hit. = I hit ... with my head/self.
(In which case you have an applicative with a reflexive pronoun before it that can then later prefix on as head-use-hit, but that's the morpheme order you were trying to avoid.)
OR
I thing-hit = I hit something.
and
I rock use thing-hit = I hit something with the rock.
(These verbs could further combine into "use-thing-hit", which is the morpheme order you want, but the detransitive is being applied first semantically as well as morphologically, which is what you were trying to avoid.)
*Actually I'm DEFINITELY confused. For example, I originally did this all with "head" instead of "thing" becaused I confused detransitive and reflexive (since he want the reflexive to become a middle voice that could be reflexive, reciprocal, passive, or antipassive, depending on other words in the sentence). The question is whether or not I'm wrong because I'm confused.
While explaining what I saw wrong with your idea I discovered very simple fix.
My basic idea was that the postpositional phrase that the applicative comes from could go after the main verb, which is not uncommon even on verb-final languages. Thus:
I hit ... using something =
I HIT THING USE
>I HIT-THING USE*
>I HIT-THING-USE
THING is still the object of USE not HIT, but it affixes first because it's closer.
This does have some weird implications, though:
1) The word order for plain detransitives would still be the same. Thus, plain detransitives would be prefixes, but detransitive applicatives would be suffixes:
I THING HIT.
>I THING-HIT.
as opposed to
I HIT THING USE.
>I HIT-THING-USE.
2) Unless you want to incorporate every object of an applicative** (which I don't think he does, even if that's possible), plain applicatives probably wouldn't evolve from post-verbal postpositional phrases:
I HIT ROCK USE
?>I HIT-USE ROCK???
?>I ROCK HIT-USE???
(These actually sound a lot more reasonable than I thought they would, but I think that's because I'm interpreting HIT as a prefix on USE indicating the type of use. That sounds like a perfectly fine to evolve an applicative, but so is the following.)
However, postpositional phrases, like all adverbials, tend to be pretty free in where you can put them, in which case we can just say they could go EITHER before or after the main verb. Thus, we can still have:
I ROCK USE HIT.
>I ROCK USE-HIT.
Combined, this means paradigm would be:
VERB (e.g. HIT)
APPL-VERB (e.g., USE-HIT)
DTRN-VERB (e.g., THING-HIT)
VERB-DTRN-APPL (e.g., HIT-THING-USE)
Thus, the only difference from his system I'm suggesting is that, when BOTH are used, they mysteriously become a suffix. This seems weird and contrived, but it makes since when realize that (A) the phrases that became detransitive applicatives contain very little information and so might be backed to background them, (B) the detransitive prefix come from a direct object, which could not be so easily backed as a postpositional phrase, and (C) the post-positional phrases that became plain applicative phrases actually had important and informative objects, and so would be less likely to be backgrounded and backed, and it's unlikely that the postposition would be backed without it's object even if it were seen as less important (and it wouldn't necessarily be, since both the object and it's role are important). (That being said, the postposition MIGHT APPEAR to be backed if it were actually a verb and the main verb were prefixed onto it to make the applicative, as I suggested.)
*There is nothing odd about this merging of words across syntactic boundaries in step 2, c.f. English and German contractions. As long as two words frequently occur next to each other, especially when the common, semantically weak, word comes after the uncommon semantically strong word, so that no pause to think needs to come between. However, we could also just have both affix on at once eith the same effect:
I HIT THING USE
>I HIT-THING-USE
**There actually is a less crazy way: You could incorporate a gendered pronoun rather than the full noun and restate the full noun elsewhere if further clarification is needed, e.g., something like:
I HIT-INAN-use ROCK(?case)
but that's kind-of weird when you do it that, and even if you found a better way to do it, that would be copying my first completish conlang :) and I think it violates some of the the things he Biblaridion wants for this language anyway. E.g., it makes it too heavily verb-marking.
Actually, my latter suggestion wouldn't solve Biblaridion's problem, which is that he wanted the detransitive to come literally AFTER the applicative in speech to make vowel merging more likely (based on the assumption that vowel-final roots would be much more common than vowel-initial roots in the CV(R) protolang), whether or not that means closer to the root.
This could be hours long I'd keep watching.
8:37 "Want" used to mean LACK in English and still sometimes sort of does, as in "found wanting" or "for want of" (if I'm not just making that 2nd 1 up).
At around 6:30
Isn't that how suffixes form, though? Like, the next step in a daughter language might just be to reanalyze this whole process as just a “ra” suffix and regularize the other forms. I guess that'd leave you with a less complex language, but… isn't that how it works either way?
I'd actually go so far to have the speakers switch to “tamra” as a negative and use “tam” as the new positive sometime after that.
At 10:30
I mean, it could become a causative. That'd be cool!
I think his whole goal with this particular language is to make the morphology as nonconcatenative as possible, so while analogy is common, I think he's avoiding it on purpose for the sake of the language's aesthetic.
Are you going to go back through these videos and find all the ad hoc sound changes you made to words to record which ones should be added to the list of regular sound changes and where irregular sound changes have happened. I recently rewatched all the videos in this series, and I've notice you seem to want to exclude glydes from the "consonant" and "resinant consonant" categories in some of your sound changes, and you seem to have rather definite ideas about how long sequences of vowels and glydes shold be simplified. You also just generally implement a lot of irregular sound changes like skipping over consonants to reduce the number of syllables of common words, and I have no idea how consistent it is.
As for irregular sound changes, I don't really understand it well, and it's hard to look up because "irregular sound change" is so overshadowed by all the people explaining "regular sound change" (open suggestion for a Feature Focus video), but I suspect patterns happen, just not completely regular ones. I understand irregular sound changes usually happen a lot in very common words (e.g. maked>made and other shortenings, as well as the sandhi-driven voicing of some fricatives in common words in English) and in very rare words (e.g. spelling pronounciations, common mishearings and mispronuncuations, conscous decisions based on etymology, and they don't HAVE to be THAT rare, afterall sporadic metatheses like "psghetti" might be like this) and sometimes they happen in in-between words because of borrowing between dialects (I know English has some great examples of spelling from one dialect and pronuncuation from a different one, neither of which are the primary source of modern dialects and also has some words like "vixen" which was borrowed from a dialect of English where that's related "fox").
A certain amount of ambiguity is normal in some cases. I personally like the idea of a language where context plays a role.
Maybe you wouldn’t say a cow hits a rock but “runs into” it? That’d mean the inverse is something that would never even be a possibility.
Funny coincidence, raak (infinitive raken) is a Dutch word that can be used to mean "to hit". Its English cognate is reach
it's kinda weird, when you were going over the sentences, it sounded like a Highland Scot saying something in another language, something akin to Gaelic but very different. I think it's just the vowels, and maybe just for that bird sentence in near future.
38:20 which is confusing, because the way you wrote the glossing made it look like the detransitive is applied first in all cases. I paused to read all of them before you spoke and was very confused.
Please make more about the refugium
'raak' actually means to hit in Dutch, but only when using something to hit something else
Why do you use ü and ë, even if you don't have any u or e to distinguish them from?
As he said in one of the early videos, (specifically concerning why he wanted to use rather than ), he prefers to make his romanizations more intuitive for both first-time readers and people (like himself it seems) who are liable to accidentally forget the real meaning of weirdly written sounds when reading, even though they do know them. I'm tend to feel the same way, although that's partly just because I just like diacritics and have a desire to use them even when they're not necessary and only make things harder to type.
Wouldn't the locative and ablative applicatives likely use the same postposition roots as became noun-case and converb suffixes?
You say the ablative applicative might come from the FROM postposition, but you've earlier said that the old genitive (now accusative) case and thus also the perfective converb come from this, also. The TO postposition you suggest the locative applicative comes from seems likely be the same as either the source for your dative/purposive (earlier called "imperfective") converb or your old accuative (now "locative")/imperfective converb (earlier called the "infinitive").
This is not a problem, it just means that first they PREFIXED onto verbs to make applicatives, then, from their remaining postpositional role, they later SUFFIXED onto nouns and nominalized verbs to make cases and converbs respectively.
You don't have to use the same roots of course. It's just that, if you don't, it means one of 3 things (that I can think of):
1) There were synonymous or very similar postpositions floating around in the past, and different ones affixed onto verbs to make applicative than affixed onto nouns to mark cases.
2) The postpositions which prefixed onto verbs as applicatives either ceased to be used as independent postpositions later or shifted in meaning (???semantic bleaching), and new postpositions moved in to fill there old roles. (These would necessarily have to be brand new post positions. They could just be other pre-existing positions whose meanings expanded or shifted to fill the role of the old lost or meaning-shifted ones.)
3) You'll have to change what you say the lexical source for some of them are.
I guess likely not, since you imply later in the episode that the applicatives were formed particularly early and likely in a different way.
Hi! Do you know any method for making automatic declension tables on Google Sheets or Excel? Thanks!
#UnBlockHamibin
Which country do you live in?
im in the wrong class not kidding wrong video bye
#UnBlockHamibin
38:07 The way you wrote the reflexives makes it look like your using reflexive object pronouns (as in English).
As if you want the applicative to semantically apply before the root, but you want the detransitive to come after it, then obvious answer is to make the both suffixes. The problem is, if the proto-language is OV, and the detransitive affix comes from a vague pronoun replacing the object of either the postposition or, after the applicative is formed, the verb, how can we justify it suffixing on after the applicative suffix.
I can see it being suffixed UNDER the applicative, e.g.:
I (HIT [THING WITH])
>I HIT-THING-WITH
=SUBJ VERB-DTRN-APPL
(Incidentally, in this scheme, the lone detransitive and the lone applicative would likely both still be prefixes, and only the combined detransitive aplicative would be a suffix. See my 2nd reply to The Impish Dullahan.)
I can also see the applicative being a suffix while detransitive is a prefix, if the applicative was actually etymologiclly the main verb, with the lexical verb being prefixed onto it, e.g.:
I ROCK USE. = I use the rock.
I ROCK HIT-USE. = I use the rock for hitting.
I THING-HIT-USE = I use something for hitting.
I CAT HELP = I help the cat.
I CAT EAT-HELP = I help the cat to eat.
Here "hit-using" is a kind of "using", so ROCK is object of USE, not HIT, and HIT is not really a verb any more at all, just a modifier (which explains why it does't need IT'S direct object, i.e., why you don't need to say what was hit). Likwise "eat-helping" is a kind of "helping", and you don't need to say what the cat is eating because EAT is not a real verb here, CAT being the party being helped, not the party being eaten.
(Sidenote, I wonder if the benefactive applicative could literally be the exact same verb form as the causative, with the difference being marked simply by how many noun argumants are given and what their cases are.)
However, in that case, the detransitive would still be prefix, and perhaps worse-yet, nowhere near the applicative suffixes:
I THING-HIT.
I THING-HIT-USE.
I THING-EAT.
I THING-EAT-HELP.
One option that does occur to me is that MAYBE the lexical verb could actually be the object of the applicative verb, so that the "applicative" form of the verb was actually intransitive, and the applicative object could be put in some other case that could go after the verb. If this other case happened to be the old genitive (which we said came from an ablative postposition, i.e. "from"), then it would look just like the accusative once the auxiliary verb construction became mandatory and the the old genitive became the new accusative. This would allow the detransitive to suffix after the applicative, but the problem with this is that then the detransitive suffix would have to have a genitive (or some other) case marker on it, which would make it bulkier and pretty much complerely undo the entire point of this exercise.
At this point, I'm reminded of Piotr Węgrzyniak's comment, and will now go reply to that.
#UnBlockHamibin
#UnBlockHamibin
#UnBlockHamibin
#UnBlockHamibin
#UnBlockHamibin
#UnBlockHamibin
Это не Biblaridion
#UnBlockHamibin
Это не Biblaridion