78
edits
Lemizh: Difference between revisions
Standard dialect; compounds; license
Anypodetos (talk | contribs) m (Copyedit) |
Anypodetos (talk | contribs) (Standard dialect; compounds; license) |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===The last three millennia=== | ===The last three millennia=== | ||
While Middle Lemizh as spoken after the Ghean occupation already had a non-Indo-European and unusually regular grammar, this trend was to continue over the following millennia. The factive case was innovated to express verbal nouns, which eventually supplanted verbs altogether. (At least part of the blame goes to the Tlöngö̀l, an epic novel published in 1351, which popularised the use of verbal nouns.) The tonal system was simplified to the present two-way [[w:Pitch-accent language|pitch-accent]] system. Pronouns lost their status as a separate part of speech. The last particles died out a few hundred years ago, leaving the language with a single part of speech which is often called a "verb" but, historically speaking, is really a nominal. This means that the concept of ''parts of speech'' does not make sense in Modern Lemizh. | While Middle Lemizh as spoken after the Ghean occupation already had a non-Indo-European and unusually regular grammar, this trend was to continue over the following millennia. The factive case was innovated to express verbal nouns, which eventually supplanted verbs altogether. (At least part of the blame goes to the Tlöngö̀l, an epic novel published in 1351, which popularised the use of verbal nouns.) The tonal system was simplified to the present two-way [[w:Pitch-accent language|pitch-accent]] system. Pronouns lost their status as a separate part of speech. The last particles died out a few hundred years ago, leaving the language with a single part of speech which is often called a "verb" but, historically speaking, is really a nominal. This means that the concept of ''parts of speech'' does not make sense in Modern Lemizh. | ||
This article describes the dialect spoken to the north of the [[w:Danube Delta|Danube delta]], which prevailed against other variants and is considered the standard language today. | |||
==Orthography and phonology== | ==Orthography and phonology== | ||
| Line 593: | Line 595: | ||
# '''Poststem''': the predicate's poststem | # '''Poststem''': the predicate's poststem | ||
# '''Outer case''' | # '''Outer case''' | ||
Note that the object's stem comes before the predicate's; and also that the object's outer case (and, less importantly, the predicate's inner case) is lost. The separator can be used, for example, if the word boundary would be unclear otherwise, or for placing the second part of the word on a new line. | Note that the object's stem comes before the predicate's; and also that the object's outer case (and, less importantly, the predicate's inner case) is lost. The object's inner case becomes part of the compound's prestem and is then called its ''epenthetic case''. The separator can be used, for example, if the word boundary would be unclear otherwise, or for placing the second part of the word on a new line. | ||
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2:second level | |||
|làxt àdhy. ⇒ adhlàxt. | |||
|want-FACT-1 eat-FACT-ACC-2. ⇒ eat-FACT-want-FACT-1. | |||
|''[She] wants to eat.'' (See the inflection of [[#Verbs|verbs]].)}} | |||
Here, the lost accusative ending has to be deduced from context. | |||
'''Rule Two. In the relationship between the original predicate and object, the rules of sentence grammar are retained as far as applicable.''' | '''Rule Two. In the relationship between the original predicate and object, the rules of sentence grammar are retained as far as applicable.''' | ||
The consequences of this rule are somewhat technical; but the last one, pertaining to degree of reality, is important for correctly interpreting compounds. | |||
* Rules One to Three of sentence grammar are not applicable to compounds, as can be easily seen. | |||
* Four: Both modifier and head are instantiations of specific actions in the original sentence (which however do not necessarily match the instantiation of the compound). | |||
* Five: The epenthetic case characterises the head completely with regard to its descriptor. | |||
* Six: The only overt object of the modifier is the head. All other objects are missing and thus indicate the absence of information about their descriptors. | |||
* Seven: The modifier has a higher degree of reality than the head. Therefore, the above compound does not claim that she actually eats. | |||
'''Rule Three. Regarding all outward relations, cases refer to the head.''' | '''Rule Three. Regarding all outward relations, cases refer to the head.''' | ||
| Line 620: | Line 631: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* [https://lemizh.conlang.org Lemizh homepage] with comprehensive coverage of the language, including a dictionary with etymologies, information on the language's pragmatics, and more background information | * [https://lemizh.conlang.org Lemizh homepage] with comprehensive coverage of the language, including a dictionary with etymologies, information on the language's pragmatics, and more background information | ||
[[File:Copyleft1.png|20px]] ''This article | [[File:Copyleft1.png|20px]] ''This article is available under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License]. It includes material from the Lemizh homepage, which has the same license.'' | ||
<!--[[Category:Lemizh language]]--> | <!--[[Category:Lemizh language]]--> | ||