Phaleran, my conlang
Tom Wier
Hello all. Since I've been speaking about my languages off and on on this
group, I thought I might announce some changes I've recently made to my
website for Phaleran.
I've updated the conculture pages for it:
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/phalerademo.html>
As well as some info about its nominal morphology:
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/phaleramorpho.html#nominalmorpho>
And, of course, you can just go to the index page at
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/phalera.html>
I'm just curious: what is y'all's impression of the language?
===========================================
Tom Wier <arta...@mail.utexas.edu>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
===========================================
Ben
Interesant, sehr interesant. I think a little more explanation of the cases
would be nice (i. e. what the hell are durative and abessive? I know
abessive used to be used in Finnish, but no Finnish webpage tells how it is
used, because it's obsolete, or at least archaic). Also, a description of
syntax would be nice.
Miekko
car; can also be used as an adverb. Can also mark infinitives, when they
work as modifiers.
"Juoksematta" means "without having run". (In modern Finnish, this is the
place you'll find the abessive mostly; it is still used, and during the '90s
it's become more common. (if you wonder, it's marked by -tta, -ttä; and I
think it has strong stem.)
Ben <bwe...@simons-rock.edu> wrote in message
news:7p82i3$bo0$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
AlanGiles
A work of art. Reflecting the time and imagination
that must have gone to its production.
To be admired by many, understood by few.
Keen entertainment but not enlightenment
and therefore, regretfully, of little practical use to anyone.
Tom Wier <arta...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:37B7428D...@mail.utexas.edu...
>
> Hello all. Since I've been speaking about my languages off and on on this
> group, I thought I might announce some changes I've recently made to my
> website for Phaleran.
>
> I've updated the conculture pages for it:
>
> <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/phalerademo.html>
>
> As well as some info about its nominal morphology:
>
> <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/phaleramorpho.html#nominalmorpho>
>
> And, of course, you can just go to the index page at
>
> <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/phalera.html>
>
> I'm just curious: what is y'all's impression of the language?
>
Ben
Miekko <tor...@pp.qnet.fi> wrote in message
news:XKPt3.40$rS5...@read2.inet.fi...
> Abessiv marks lacking of the marked noun : mies autotta = the man without
a
> car; can also be used as an adverb. Can also mark infinitives, when they
> work as modifiers.
> "Juoksematta" means "without having run". (In modern Finnish, this is the
> place you'll find the abessive mostly; it is still used, and during the
'90s
> it's become more common. (if you wonder, it's marked by -tta, -ttä; and I
> think it has strong stem.)
>
PJS
>> I'm just curious: what is y'all's impression of the language?
>
cases
>would be nice (i. e. what the hell are durative and abessive? I know
>abessive used to be used in Finnish, but no Finnish webpage tells how it is
>used, because it's obsolete, or at least archaic). Also, a description of
>syntax would be nice.
Durative means to do with continuing action . . . although I defy even the
Finns to find a use for such as case with a noun :)
---
"...and the Scottish division one game between Taste of Dunfermline
and Strathcarnage cannot be stopped."
Tom Wier
> > I'm just curious: what is y'all's impression of the language?
>
> Interesant, sehr interesant. I think a little more explanation of the cases
> would be nice (i. e. what the hell are durative and abessive? I know
> abessive used to be used in Finnish, but no Finnish webpage tells how it is
> used, because it's obsolete, or at least archaic).
Okay, sorry for the lateness of this post. Here're the case appelations and
meanings:
Nominative: subject of a verb; used with nouns
Absolutive: subject of an intransitive verb, or direct object of a
transitive verb; used with pronouns.
Ergative: subject of a transitive verb; used with pronouns.
Diergative: subject of a ditransitive verb; used with pronouns.
All of the following are used with both nouns and pronouns:
Dative: indirect object, roughly equivalent to English "to"; time as a point in time.
Benefactive: indirect object, roughly equivalent to English "for".
Instrumental: indicating the instrument with which or the agent by which the action
is done.
Durative: this case carries a fairly wide variety of meanings, and is basicly the
catch-all case for rare usages. The most basic meaning, and the one
most commonly associated with it, is the idea of a transformation of one
state of
being into another. This can be as simple as "Zhuangzi [the great Daoist
sage]
turned *into a butterfly*", but is also often used to indicate a duration
of time.
So, "a *day's* wage" would be durative, while "We went to school *for the
day*"
and "*The whole day* we did nothing." are also good examples.
Abessive: is kinda the opposite of the dative; it implies that the origin of the action
comes
from someone *other than* the person who actually did. So, "The soldiers
sacked
the city *in the name of their king*", "My father handed down the heirloom
*from his grandfather* to me" are all examples of this case.
Note that none of these cases are spacial cases like the ones similarly named in
Finnish, Hungarian, etc. They are purely grammatical cases.
> Also, a description of syntax would be nice.
I'll be getting to that shortly. :)
Tom Wier
Abessive: kinda the opposite of the dative; it implies that the origin of the action
Miekko
(Abessive)...
I'd call "durative" - translative (but perhaps also call it durative, since
schoolars sometimes have very hard to agree.
If you know latin, you could use latin words to form case-names (dative
comes from the word for "to give", et cetera, ergative, I think, comes from
"ergo" (or something), meaning "to work"...)
I suggest "causative" for the *indirect subject* (or whatever we're gonna
call it...), that you presently call "abessive", since the root of this word
comes from some "abscence" like word (I guess "abscence" has been borrowed
from latin.).
> They are purely grammatical cases.
Aren't spacial cases grammatical in one or another sense? (Or are
prepositions completely ungrammatical?) (Durative is a spacial case,
(pseudo-locative, that is), and so it is in FU-languages (though it's called
translative).
Tom Wier
> What reasons have you to use case names that give wrong assumptions?
> (Abessive)...
> I'd call "durative" - translative (but perhaps also call it durative, since
> schoolars sometimes have very hard to agree.
Remember that I said that you should not think that these have the
same function that cases in (what appears to be your native language)
Finnish. Just because the name is similar does not mean the function
will be.
Besides, the function does have to do with "duration", which is (a) how the
case originated, and (b) still one of the most commonly used functions of
this case in particular. So I think the name is quite a appropriate, as case
names go.
> If you know latin, you could use latin words to form case-names (dative
> comes from the word for "to give", et cetera, ergative, I think, comes from
> "ergo" (or something), meaning "to work"...)
Why would I have to use the Latin forms of words for case names when
we already have case names that work well enough? English <dative>
does indeed come (indirectly) from <dare>, "to give", but it's direct
antecedent is <dativus>, which has a whole host of connotations that
any other word built off of <dare> would not immediately convey, so
I think <dative> is just fine.
And, <ergative> in English is from Greek, not Latin. ("ergo" means
"therefore", and has no synchronic connotation of work in Latin, though
I think it might have originally come from such a word).
> I suggest "causative" for the *indirect subject* (or whatever we're gonna
> call it...), that you presently call "abessive", since the root of this word
> comes from some "abscence" like word (I guess "abscence" has been borrowed
> from latin.).
But "causative" already has common use in English for verb forms, and also
might give the impression that the noun in what I call the abessive case is
the cause, which might not be the case. There's no reason to assume, for
example, that the grandfather in the example I gave was the cause of the
money, or that he somehow had a hand in the action. No, the sentence
I gave could also imply that the Father had actually taken it without his
grandfather's knowledge, because he might have been dead, senile, or
any other host of reasons. In such a case, one can't really say the grandfather
was the "cause" of the action, as he is only indirectly related to the action,
though in the opposite way as the dative object.
> > They are purely grammatical cases.
>
> Aren't spacial cases grammatical in one or another sense? (Or are
> prepositions completely ungrammatical?) (Durative is a spacial case,
> (pseudo-locative, that is), and so it is in FU-languages (though it's called
> translative).
I think you're confusing two very distinct senses of the word "grammatical".
In the sense you're using it, you seem to be implying that just because a morpheme
is inherently affixed to another, because it is *grammaticalized*, that it is therefore
also "grammatical", which is by no means necessarily the case. What I mean by
"grammatical" is the conveying of core syntactic relationships among words in a
sentence, metaphorical relationships like direct object or subject, rather than
concrete physical relationships like locative or allative.
Miekko
> same function that cases in (what appears to be your native language)
> Finnish. Just because the name is similar does not mean the function
> will be.
(Info:Finnish is my second language, Swedish my first.)
If you can put up some arguments for the case-names you use,
then OK, but just giving a case a name that gives faulty assumptions can
often be a drawback..I don't think you did anything wrong, just made it
harder, or perhaps more difficult.
> Besides, the function does have to do with "duration", which is (a) how
the
> case originated, and (b) still one of the most commonly used functions of
Yes, that is OK, a good argument!
> Why would I have to use the Latin forms of words for case names when
> we already have case names that work well enough? English <dative>
> does indeed come (indirectly) from <dare>, "to give", but it's direct
> antecedent is <dativus>, which has a whole host of connotations that
> any other word built off of <dare> would not immediately convey, so
> I think <dative> is just fine.
Yes, but they are derivates...often, I must spend alot of time searching for
my English-Swedish lexicons, to find a grammatical term - supinum: supine,
particip - participle, ( I'm perfectionist when it's about names of things).
> And, <ergative> in English is from Greek, not Latin. ("ergo" means
> "therefore", and has no synchronic connotation of work in Latin, though
> I think it might have originally come from such a word).
My mistake ... sorry, eh?
Nenad Aliiç - urbejia esperantparolanto
:
>
>Aren't spacial cases grammatical in one or another sense? (Or are
>prepositions completely ungrammatical?) (Durative is a spacial case,
>(pseudo-locative, that is), and so it is in FU-languages (though it's called
>translative).
>
I think cases are the same thing as prepositions although nowadays it
is asserted by ami linguists that the accusative is the only real
case because it is a grammatical one , which i don't believe .
i think nowaday's grammar is too much subject oriented which causes
a lot of problems with the understanding of the accusative case .
cases and prepositions are part of verbs . i think the creator
of vorlin recognized that correctly .
"the most important thing in a sentence is the verb ."
If one looks at german and dutch splitable words one
will understand what I mean .
here are some samples : " hinein/geh/en" - "go into" , ...
" hinuter/fall/en" - "fall down" , ...
" ab/schneid/en " - "cut off" , ...
and thousands of other examples
"Wo geh/st du hin ?" [hin/geh/en - to go to ] ( where do you go ? )
Er fiel hinuter . [ hinuter/fall/en ] ( he felt down )
Er schnitt es ab . [ ab/schneid/en ] ( he cut it off ) .
something also exists in hungarian but i don't know if this is
because it's finno-ugric or because it is influenced by german
well , finally , i like to say that i like this property of vorlin .
also it avoids one of the most often errors and difficulties of
L2-acquistion which is wrong usage of prepositions .
one of the greatest faults in english teaching is that the verbs
are taught with out the proper preposition and which causes
a lot of grammatical mistakes afterwards .
i recommend every language constructor to indicate which case
or prepostion has to be used with the verb .
PJS
>What reasons have you to use case names that give wrong assumptions?
>(Abessive)...
>I'd call "durative" - translative (but perhaps also call it durative, since
>schoolars sometimes have very hard to agree.
>
>comes from the word for "to give", et cetera, ergative, I think, comes from
>"ergo" (or something), meaning "to work"...)
That's Greek isn't it?
Miekko
abessive making complete sence, after a while:
-essive : sometimes used as role, and others (inessive, (inside)
essive(role))
ab- prefix denoting origin, or source of event, item, or anything.
So, the role of the source of the event in an indirect subject could be
"abessive". Durative does make sence. OK, sorry.
Tom Wier
No prob. :)
Peter
I missed the earlier postings on this, can you help, please?
ATBPeter
Waiting wrote in message
<63DFEA072EC94C04.CE184630...@lp.airnews.net>...
>On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 02:45:42 -0500, Tom Wier
><arta...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>Ben wrote:
>>> Also, a description of syntax would be nice.
>>
>>I'll be getting to that shortly. :)
>
>Hey, buster, we're still waiting for one for Degaspregos!