User:Nicomega/Kareyku: Difference between revisions

From Linguifex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Nicomega moved page Kareyku to User:Nicomega/Kareyku)
 
(34 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{private}} {{construction}}
{{construction}}{{private}}
 
{{Infobox language
|name          = Kareyku
|nativename    = Kareyku
|creator      = [[User:Nicomega|Nicolás Campi]]
|pronunciation = /ka.ˈrej.ku/
|setting      = Earth-like planet
|region        = Unknown
|speakers      = Unknown
|date          = 2010
|familycolor  = lightgray
|fam1          = Kareykian
|fam2          = Old Kareyku
|script        = Latin
}}
[[Category:User:Nicomega]] [[Category:A priori]] [[Category:Languages]] [[Category:Conlangs]]
[[Category:User:Nicomega]] [[Category:A priori]] [[Category:Languages]] [[Category:Conlangs]]


'''Kareyku''' is a case-heavy language with 11 cases and 6 evidentials. Here I was trying a new concept using more evidentials than verb-heavy morphology and being influenced from [[w:Japanese language|Japanese]] and [[w:Quechua language|Quechua]], among others. It also uses some particles not unlike [[w:Chinese language|Chinese]]. Mostly the idea was to create a language where a lot of meaning could be conveyed as shortly as possible and using suffixes that convey a who-to-who relationship rather than personal suffixes.
'''Kareyku''' is a case-heavy language with 11 cases and 6 evidentials. Here I was trying a new concept using more evidentials than verb-heavy morphology and being influenced from [[w:Japanese language|Japanese]] and [[w:Quechua language|Quechua]], among others. It also uses some particles not unlike [[w:Chinese language|Chinese]]. Mostly the idea was to create a language where a lot of meaning could be conveyed as shortly as possible and using suffixes that convey a who-to-who relationship rather than personal suffixes.
::Sample:
:'''qappakas pilelcha'''
:''Of course I'm eating fish!''


==Introduction==
<!--  
<!--  


Line 16: Line 29:


-->
-->
==Introduction==


<!-- Design goals, inspiration, ideas, who speaks it?, when was it created?, where does it come from?, any peculiarities? -->
<!-- Design goals, inspiration, ideas, who speaks it?, when was it created?, where does it come from?, any peculiarities? -->
Line 40: Line 51:


-->
-->
While I was working on some college exams I came across a very old paper with, what seemed to be, notes on a language I had apparently abandoned. When I started looking at it I realized immediately that it was a very old jotting and that it had been discarded long ago. However as time passed I decided I could give this language a better finale.
The notes were very inconsistent (and even contradictory at times), with few examples jotted down with no translation which cannot be understood now. I tried to take as much of the original general shape and aesthetic of the language and give it some structure. What resulted is Kareyku.
Many years of reading about this and that language gave me plenty of ideas I didn't have at the time I discarded it (which might have been very early in my conlanging). Mostly this language consists of these new ideas rather than the original which is scarce and impossible to decipher, but certainly not very developed. Basically I wanted to retain the frame and general shape, but change the grammar to something more interesting.
==Phonology==
==Phonology==
<!-- ***Phonology*** -->
<!-- ***Phonology*** -->
Line 52: Line 69:


-->
-->
===Orthography===
===Consonants===
===Consonants===
{| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="wikitable" style="width: 660px; text-align:center;"
! style="width: 68px; "|
! style="width: 68px; " |Bilabial
! style="width: 68px; " |Dental
! style="width: 68px; " |Palatal
! style="width: 68px; " |Velar
! style="width: 68px; " |Uvular
! style="width: 68px; " |Labio-Velar
! style="width: 68px; " |Glottal
|-
! style="" |Stop
| p b
| t d
| ch j [t͡ʃ d͡ʒ]
| k g
| q
|
|
|-
! style="" |Fricative
|
|
|
|
|
|
| h
|-
! style="" |Sibilant
|
| s z
| sh [ʃ]
|
|
|
|
|-
! style="" |Nasal
| m
| n
|
|
|
|
|-
! style="" |Liquid
|
| l r
|
|
|
|
|
|-
! style="" |Approximant
|
|
| y [j]
|
|
| w
|
|}


===Vowels===
===Vowels===
===Phonotactics===
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
<!-- Explain the consonant clusters and vowel clusters that are permissible for use in the language. For example, "st" is an allowed consonant cluster in English while onset "ng" isn't. -->
|-
==Morphology==
! !! Front !! Central !! Back
|-
! Close
| i || || u
|-
! Mid
| e ɛ || || o ɔ
|-
! Open
| || a ||
|}
Kareyku diphthongs are: ay, ey, oy, au, eu, ou. Notice that e, i shift to /ɛ/ and o, u to /ɔ/ when next to the uvular.
 
==Grammar==
<!-- How do the words in your language look? How do you derive words from others? Do you have cases? Are verbs inflected? Do nouns differ from adjectives? Do adjectives differ from verbs? Etc. -->
<!-- How do the words in your language look? How do you derive words from others? Do you have cases? Are verbs inflected? Do nouns differ from adjectives? Do adjectives differ from verbs? Etc. -->


<!-- Here are some example subcategories:
<!-- Here are some example subcategories:


Nouns
 
Adjectives
Verbs
Adverbs
Particles
Derivational morphology


-->
-->
Kareyku doesn't use pronominal affixes per se. Although it does have independent pronouns, the verb is inflected with what are called natively "transitions". The transitions indicate the "who–to–whom" character of the verb. Independent pronouns can also be provided to avoid confusion when needed. The language also uses a host of seven evidentials. Other features include a number of postpositions that act as declensional cases and commentary particles.
=== Evidentials ===
Evidentials are used in Kareyku to mark how evident one statement is or the source of said statement. Only one evidential marker can be used each time, and they can be used either with verbs, adjectives or nouns. There are seven evidentials in Kareyku:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Evidential !! Description !! Form
|-
| Empiric || statement is fact either empiric or to the speaker. || '''-s''', '''-si'''
|-
| Hearsay (reportative) || the speaker heard about the statement. || '''-n''', '''-ni'''
|-
| Inferential || the speaker assumes the statement to be true. || '''-ch''', '''-chi'''
|-
| Renown || the thing being referred is famous for what is stated. || '''-l''', '''-li'''
|-
| Belief || the speaker believes the statement to be true. || '''-sha'''
|-
| Infamy || the thing being referred is infamous for what is stated. || '''-lya'''
|-
| Obviative || the statement is obvious, or should be, to the speaker. || '''-lcha'''
|}
So for instance, if we have the previous example sentence: qappaka pile 'I eat fish'. We can further develop it into:
qappakas pile. I eat fish (it's a fact, I'm doing it).
qappakan pile. I eat fish (I have heard, I don't remember).
qappakach pile. I eat fish (I assume, because I'm eating it).
qappakal pile. I eat fish! (I'm famous for that!)
qappakasha pile. I believe I eat fish.
qappakalya pile. I eat fish (I'm infamous for it, because I eat too much or I don't finish them).
qappakalcha pile. I eat fish (duh! It's obvious!)
Evidentials have an active role in formality and informality contrast and in politeness vs. rudeness. For instance, it is considered in Kareyku culture that you should not always be sure of things you say, even when talking about yourself the continuous use of the "fact evidential" can result in rudeness. The rudest of them all, of course, is the "obvious evidential" which is considered very aggressive and rude, you should never point out to others they don't know something, even when you are right or even if the fact is really obvious.
The case with the "infamous evidential" is interesting. It used to be a respectful or augmentative equivalent of the "famous evidential" but as time passed it started to be felt pompous and so developed as a satirical comment, thus infamity for doing something too much.
==== Evidential usage ====
To clear up some doubts about evidentials I will clarify some with examples. For instance, how the "obvious evidential" is used. It is the equivalent to the usage we give to tone in this context, "duh!" and the like.
In a given dialogue:
- Chaman koy?
- pilelcha!
This can be translated into:
- What is this?
- Duh! It's a fish! or It's a fish, don't you see it?
Hence the interpretation as a rude or very informal referential. The "fact evidential" is really more neutral, but still informal. While it is common in normal speech, it can be rude using it to someone you don't know or an elder, or someone who deserves respect altogether.
Now the "infamous evidential" always marks someone for something his famous for abusing. For instance if you say qappatal can mean "he is famous for eating" as in "he enjoys it very much". But saying qappatalya will yield the sense "he is famous for eating" as in "he can't stop eating" or "he's a fat-ass". This ending used to be the much more formal, much older form of -l, used about people like the king "his majesty is most famous for defeating his enemies" and over time through popular usage it came to be pejorative but in a sense of excess.
Even if between friends you would tend to use -s the "fact evidential" it would be good to remind that when facing someone's father, for instance, it'd probably be better to use -sha "I believe". Even in the same example as before:
- Chaman koy?
- What is this?
- pilesha.
- I believe it is fish.
While you could answer pile or piles to a friend or acquaintance.
odanibeki las wile.
I'm happy for being with you.
==== Evidentials focus ====
As mentioned before, the evidentials can be affixed to verbs, nouns or adjectives with different results. In fact in a sentence the place where one affixes the evidentials makes subtle changes in the sense of the sentence. For example, if we go back to our sample sentence: qappaka pile.
Using the "hear-say evidential" we can get qappakan pile or qappaka pilen. The first one means "I've heard I eat fish", while the second would be closer in meaning to "Fish is what I've heard I eat". The difference is very subtle, but can be used for rhetorical purposes.
In fact qappakach pile means "I assume I eat fish", but qappaka pilech means "I assume that what I eat is fish". That's why a sentence like qappaka piles sounds a lot like "What I'm eating IS fish". Depending where the evidential is placed the focus shifts.
=== Nouns ===
==== Noun Declensions ====
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Case !! Suffix !! Example !! Translation
|-
| Allative || -lto || poko'''lto''' || towards the house
|-
| Benefactive || -kume || poko'''kume''' || for the house
|-
| Translative || -bara || poko'''bara''' || through the house
|-
| Locativo || -lyo || poko'''lyo''' || at the house
|-
| Commitative || -ni || poko'''ni''' || with the house
|-
| Abessive || -wan || poko'''wan''' || without the house
|-
| Causative || -beki || poko'''beki''' || because of the house
|-
| Ablative || -wo || poko'''wo''' || from the house
|-
| Genitive || -na || poko'''na''' || the house's
|-
| Instrumental || -qa || poko'''qa''' || with a house, by a house
|-
| Dative || -ran || poko'''ran''' || for the house
|}
=== Adjectives ===
=== Verbs ===
There are 3 main transitions:
From 1st person to someone else
From 2nd person to someone else
From 3rd person to someone else
The logic for Kareyku speakers behind this is that you can only know your intentions. When someone has a present only the giver can know if you are going to give the present to me or to him, hence, the most complete transitions are from the first person, the one I'm sure.
Transition 1 is expressed by infix -ka
Transition 2 is expressed by infix -da
Transition 3 is expressed by infix -ta


==Syntax==
This transitions are only for the Present tense. Kareyku doesn't use a negative particle, there are two different conjugations, positive and negative, for each tense. The negatives being:
===Constituent order===
 
===Noun phrase===
Transition 1 is expressed by infix -ke
===Verb phrase===
Transition 2 is expressed by infix -de
===Sentence phrase===
Transition 3 is expressed by infix -te
===Dependent clauses===
 
<!-- etc. etc. -->
So, if you have the verb qappa 'to eat', qappaka means 'I eat (it)'. If you use pilé meaning 'fish' then you get qappaka pilé 'I eat fish' and the negative would be qappake pilé 'I don't eat fish'. The transitions are needed even when there is a subject present, and intransitive verbs take a transition as a subject but regardless the object. Thus, qappaka, can mean 'I eat (it)' as well as 'I am eating'.
 
=== Adverbs ===
=== Particles ===
=== Derivational morphology ===


==Example texts==
==Example texts==
Line 86: Line 296:


<!-- Template area -->
<!-- Template area -->


[[Category:Kareyku]]
[[Category:Kareyku]]
[[Category:Languages]]
[[Category:Languages]]
[[Category:Conlangs]]
[[Category:Conlangs]]

Latest revision as of 01:01, 2 January 2021


Kareyku
Kareyku
Pronunciation[/ka.ˈrej.ku/]
Created byNicolás Campi
SettingEarth-like planet
Native speakersUnknown (2010)
Kareykian
  • Old Kareyku
    • Kareyku

Kareyku is a case-heavy language with 11 cases and 6 evidentials. Here I was trying a new concept using more evidentials than verb-heavy morphology and being influenced from Japanese and Quechua, among others. It also uses some particles not unlike Chinese. Mostly the idea was to create a language where a lot of meaning could be conveyed as shortly as possible and using suffixes that convey a who-to-who relationship rather than personal suffixes.

Introduction

While I was working on some college exams I came across a very old paper with, what seemed to be, notes on a language I had apparently abandoned. When I started looking at it I realized immediately that it was a very old jotting and that it had been discarded long ago. However as time passed I decided I could give this language a better finale.

The notes were very inconsistent (and even contradictory at times), with few examples jotted down with no translation which cannot be understood now. I tried to take as much of the original general shape and aesthetic of the language and give it some structure. What resulted is Kareyku.

Many years of reading about this and that language gave me plenty of ideas I didn't have at the time I discarded it (which might have been very early in my conlanging). Mostly this language consists of these new ideas rather than the original which is scarce and impossible to decipher, but certainly not very developed. Basically I wanted to retain the frame and general shape, but change the grammar to something more interesting.

Phonology

Consonants

Bilabial Dental Palatal Velar Uvular Labio-Velar Glottal
Stop p b t d ch j [t͡ʃ d͡ʒ] k g q
Fricative h
Sibilant s z sh [ʃ]
Nasal m n
Liquid l r
Approximant y [j] w

Vowels

Front Central Back
Close i u
Mid e ɛ o ɔ
Open a

Kareyku diphthongs are: ay, ey, oy, au, eu, ou. Notice that e, i shift to /ɛ/ and o, u to /ɔ/ when next to the uvular.

Grammar

Kareyku doesn't use pronominal affixes per se. Although it does have independent pronouns, the verb is inflected with what are called natively "transitions". The transitions indicate the "who–to–whom" character of the verb. Independent pronouns can also be provided to avoid confusion when needed. The language also uses a host of seven evidentials. Other features include a number of postpositions that act as declensional cases and commentary particles.

Evidentials

Evidentials are used in Kareyku to mark how evident one statement is or the source of said statement. Only one evidential marker can be used each time, and they can be used either with verbs, adjectives or nouns. There are seven evidentials in Kareyku:

Evidential Description Form
Empiric statement is fact either empiric or to the speaker. -s, -si
Hearsay (reportative) the speaker heard about the statement. -n, -ni
Inferential the speaker assumes the statement to be true. -ch, -chi
Renown the thing being referred is famous for what is stated. -l, -li
Belief the speaker believes the statement to be true. -sha
Infamy the thing being referred is infamous for what is stated. -lya
Obviative the statement is obvious, or should be, to the speaker. -lcha

So for instance, if we have the previous example sentence: qappaka pile 'I eat fish'. We can further develop it into:

qappakas pile. I eat fish (it's a fact, I'm doing it). qappakan pile. I eat fish (I have heard, I don't remember). qappakach pile. I eat fish (I assume, because I'm eating it). qappakal pile. I eat fish! (I'm famous for that!)

qappakasha pile. I believe I eat fish. qappakalya pile. I eat fish (I'm infamous for it, because I eat too much or I don't finish them). qappakalcha pile. I eat fish (duh! It's obvious!)

Evidentials have an active role in formality and informality contrast and in politeness vs. rudeness. For instance, it is considered in Kareyku culture that you should not always be sure of things you say, even when talking about yourself the continuous use of the "fact evidential" can result in rudeness. The rudest of them all, of course, is the "obvious evidential" which is considered very aggressive and rude, you should never point out to others they don't know something, even when you are right or even if the fact is really obvious.

The case with the "infamous evidential" is interesting. It used to be a respectful or augmentative equivalent of the "famous evidential" but as time passed it started to be felt pompous and so developed as a satirical comment, thus infamity for doing something too much.

Evidential usage

To clear up some doubts about evidentials I will clarify some with examples. For instance, how the "obvious evidential" is used. It is the equivalent to the usage we give to tone in this context, "duh!" and the like.

In a given dialogue:

- Chaman koy? - pilelcha!

This can be translated into:

- What is this? - Duh! It's a fish! or It's a fish, don't you see it?

Hence the interpretation as a rude or very informal referential. The "fact evidential" is really more neutral, but still informal. While it is common in normal speech, it can be rude using it to someone you don't know or an elder, or someone who deserves respect altogether.

Now the "infamous evidential" always marks someone for something his famous for abusing. For instance if you say qappatal can mean "he is famous for eating" as in "he enjoys it very much". But saying qappatalya will yield the sense "he is famous for eating" as in "he can't stop eating" or "he's a fat-ass". This ending used to be the much more formal, much older form of -l, used about people like the king "his majesty is most famous for defeating his enemies" and over time through popular usage it came to be pejorative but in a sense of excess.

Even if between friends you would tend to use -s the "fact evidential" it would be good to remind that when facing someone's father, for instance, it'd probably be better to use -sha "I believe". Even in the same example as before:

- Chaman koy? - What is this? - pilesha. - I believe it is fish.

While you could answer pile or piles to a friend or acquaintance. odanibeki las wile. I'm happy for being with you.

Evidentials focus

As mentioned before, the evidentials can be affixed to verbs, nouns or adjectives with different results. In fact in a sentence the place where one affixes the evidentials makes subtle changes in the sense of the sentence. For example, if we go back to our sample sentence: qappaka pile.

Using the "hear-say evidential" we can get qappakan pile or qappaka pilen. The first one means "I've heard I eat fish", while the second would be closer in meaning to "Fish is what I've heard I eat". The difference is very subtle, but can be used for rhetorical purposes.

In fact qappakach pile means "I assume I eat fish", but qappaka pilech means "I assume that what I eat is fish". That's why a sentence like qappaka piles sounds a lot like "What I'm eating IS fish". Depending where the evidential is placed the focus shifts.

Nouns

Noun Declensions

Case Suffix Example Translation
Allative -lto pokolto towards the house
Benefactive -kume pokokume for the house
Translative -bara pokobara through the house
Locativo -lyo pokolyo at the house
Commitative -ni pokoni with the house
Abessive -wan pokowan without the house
Causative -beki pokobeki because of the house
Ablative -wo pokowo from the house
Genitive -na pokona the house's
Instrumental -qa pokoqa with a house, by a house
Dative -ran pokoran for the house

Adjectives

Verbs

There are 3 main transitions:

From 1st person to someone else From 2nd person to someone else From 3rd person to someone else

The logic for Kareyku speakers behind this is that you can only know your intentions. When someone has a present only the giver can know if you are going to give the present to me or to him, hence, the most complete transitions are from the first person, the one I'm sure.

Transition 1 is expressed by infix -ka Transition 2 is expressed by infix -da Transition 3 is expressed by infix -ta

This transitions are only for the Present tense. Kareyku doesn't use a negative particle, there are two different conjugations, positive and negative, for each tense. The negatives being:

Transition 1 is expressed by infix -ke Transition 2 is expressed by infix -de Transition 3 is expressed by infix -te

So, if you have the verb qappa 'to eat', qappaka means 'I eat (it)'. If you use pilé meaning 'fish' then you get qappaka pilé 'I eat fish' and the negative would be qappake pilé 'I don't eat fish'. The transitions are needed even when there is a subject present, and intransitive verbs take a transition as a subject but regardless the object. Thus, qappaka, can mean 'I eat (it)' as well as 'I am eating'.

Adverbs

Particles

Derivational morphology

Example texts

Other resources