78
edits
Lemizh: Difference between revisions
+Examples, Rules Four & Five, noun phrases; copyedit wikilinks
Anypodetos (talk | contribs) (→Syntax: Sentence structure) |
Anypodetos (talk | contribs) (+Examples, Rules Four & Five, noun phrases; copyedit wikilinks) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|notice = IPA | |notice = IPA | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Lemizh''' (<span style="font-family:Gentium,'DejaVu Sans','Segoe UI',sans-serif">[[Help:IPA|[lεmˈiʒ]]]</span>, <small>native pronunciation:</small> <span style="font-family:Gentium,'DejaVu Sans','Segoe UI',sans-serif">[[Help:IPA|[lɛmˈɯ̀ʒ]]]</span>) is a language I invented with the aim of creating a grammar as regular and simple as possible. It was originally intended as an [[w:International auxiliary language|international auxiliary language]]. However, it turned out that a simple grammar is not necessarily a grammar that is easy to learn: the more ways of simplification I found, the further away it moved from [[w:Indo-European|Indo-European]] and probably all other familiar language structures. Expecting anyone to learn Lemizh, at this point, would be completely unrealistic. | '''Lemizh''' (<span style="font-family:Gentium,'DejaVu Sans','Segoe UI',sans-serif">[[Help:IPA|[lεmˈiʒ]]]</span>, <small>native pronunciation:</small> <span style="font-family:Gentium,'DejaVu Sans','Segoe UI',sans-serif">[[Help:IPA|[lɛmˈɯ̀ʒ]]]</span>) is a language I invented with the aim of creating a grammar as regular and simple as possible. It was originally intended as an [[w:International auxiliary language|international auxiliary language]]. However, it turned out that a simple grammar is not necessarily a grammar that is easy to learn: the more ways of simplification I found, the further away it moved from [[w:Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] and probably all other familiar language structures. Expecting anyone to learn Lemizh, at this point, would be completely unrealistic. | ||
So I needed a new justification for the language: enter the Lemizh, a people living to the west and north of the [[w:Black Sea|Black Sea]] in an alternate history that slowly drifted away from ours between two and eight millennia ago. Of course, it is extremely unlikely that they would speak a language that was completely without exceptions. To be precise, the chances are two to the power of two hundred and seventy-six thousand seven hundred and nine to one against. But they say that everything has to happen somewhere in the Multiverse. And everything happens only once. | So I needed a new justification for the language: enter the Lemizh, a people living to the west and north of the [[w:Black Sea|Black Sea]] in an alternate history that slowly drifted away from ours between two and eight millennia ago. Of course, it is extremely unlikely that they would speak a language that was completely without exceptions. To be precise, the chances are two to the power of two hundred and seventy-six thousand seven hundred and nine to one against. But they say that everything has to happen somewhere in the Multiverse. And everything happens only once. | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
===Ghean and Middle Lemizh=== | ===Ghean and Middle Lemizh=== | ||
Ghean (<span style="font-family:Gentium,'DejaVu Sans','Segoe UI',sans-serif">[[Help:IPA|[ˈɣɛən]]]</span>) is a language with no known genetic relationships. It was spoken by a people of unknown origin, who subdued the Lemizh tribes in around 1000 BC and ruled for infamous three generations. Ghean was an | Ghean (<span style="font-family:Gentium,'DejaVu Sans','Segoe UI',sans-serif">[[Help:IPA|[ˈɣɛən]]]</span>) is a language with no known genetic relationships. It was spoken by a people of unknown origin, who subdued the Lemizh tribes in around 1000 BC and ruled for infamous three generations. Ghean was an inflected [[w:Tonal language|register tonal]] language with strict [[w:Verb–subject–object|verb–subject–object]] (VSO) word order and head-first phrases. It had verbs, [[w:Nominal (linguistics)|nominals]] (a combined noun/adjective/participle part of speech), pronouns and particles. | ||
The Gheans discouraged the use of the natives' language, but obviously tolerated Lemizh words (or rather word stems) to stand in for unfamiliar Ghean ones. The grammar of simple sentences was easy enough to learn for the Lemizh, as they were used to inflection and head-first phrases, and likely still knew VSO sentences from poetry. After two or three generations, the natives must have spoken a [[w:Creole language|creole]] with a more or less Ghean grammar but an abundance of Lemizh words, especially outside the core vocabulary. This is a quite unusual development as most creoles draw their lexicon mainly from the dominant group, and tend to be grammatically more innovative. (The Tanzanian language [[w:Mbugu|Mbugu]] might have had a somewhat similar development with more or less analogous outcomes.) After the disappearance of the Gheans, Lemizh patriots tried to revive their old language, which failed spectacularly for the grammar but reintroduced many Lemizh words of the core vocabulary. | The Gheans discouraged the use of the natives' language, but obviously tolerated Lemizh words (or rather word stems) to stand in for unfamiliar Ghean ones. The grammar of simple sentences was easy enough to learn for the Lemizh, as they were used to inflection and head-first phrases, and likely still knew VSO sentences from poetry. After two or three generations, the natives must have spoken a [[w:Creole language|creole]] with a more or less Ghean grammar but an abundance of Lemizh words, especially outside the core vocabulary. This is a quite unusual development as most creoles draw their lexicon mainly from the dominant group, and tend to be grammatically more innovative. (The Tanzanian language [[w:Mbugu language|Mbugu]] might have had a somewhat similar development with more or less analogous outcomes.) After the disappearance of the Gheans, Lemizh patriots tried to revive their old language, which failed spectacularly for the grammar but reintroduced many Lemizh words of the core vocabulary. | ||
===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 | 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. | ||
==Orthography and phonology== | ==Orthography and phonology== | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| e <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[w:Open-mid front unrounded vowel|ɛ]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> || ö <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[w:Open-mid front rounded vowel|œ]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> || a <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[w:Open-mid back unrounded vowel|ʌ]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> || o <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[w:Open-mid back rounded vowel|ɔ]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> | | e <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[w:Open-mid front unrounded vowel|ɛ]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> || ö <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[w:Open-mid front rounded vowel|œ]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> || a <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[w:Open-mid back unrounded vowel|ʌ]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> || o <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[w:Open-mid back rounded vowel|ɔ]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> | ||
|} | |} | ||
Two consecutive different vowels are pronounced as a | Two consecutive different vowels are pronounced as a diphthong; two consecutive identical vowels as a long one. Single vowels are always short. | ||
Lemizh uses [[w:Mora (linguistics)|moræ]] for structuring words: a short syllable equals one mora, and a long syllable equals two. In Lemizh, every vowel is the centre of a mora; consequently, two consecutive vowels result in two moræ or one long syllable. | Lemizh uses [[w:Mora (linguistics)|moræ]] for structuring words: a short syllable equals one mora, and a long syllable equals two. In Lemizh, every vowel is the centre of a mora; consequently, two consecutive vowels result in two moræ or one long syllable. | ||
| Line 330: | Line 330: | ||
The word levels determine the structure of a sentence. | The word levels determine the structure of a sentence. | ||
*'''Rule One of sentence grammar. A word of level n is subordinate to the nearest word of level n−1 in front of it; the parole acts as a word of level zero.''' | * '''Rule One of sentence grammar. A word of level n is subordinate to the nearest word of level n−1 in front of it; the parole acts as a word of level zero.''' | ||
All words of second level are subordinate to the main predicate (which has first level). A word of third level is subordinate to the next second-level word in front of it, and so on. In other words, Lemizh sentences are strictly [[w:Head directionality|head-first]]. The main predicate itself is subordinate to the [[w:Parole (linguistics)|parole]], the action of speaking (or writing) the sentence in question, which consequently has level zero. | All words of second level are subordinate to the main predicate (which has first level). A word of third level is subordinate to the next second-level word in front of it, and so on. In other words, Lemizh sentences are strictly [[w:Head directionality|head-first]]. The main predicate itself is subordinate to the [[w:Parole (linguistics)|parole]], the action of speaking (or writing) the sentence in question, which consequently has level zero. | ||
*'''Rule Two. An object of a word in a sentence is a word subordinate to the former, its predicate, plus all of its own objects.''' | * '''Rule Two. An object of a word in a sentence is a word subordinate to the former, its predicate, plus all of its own objects.''' | ||
In the diagram, the main predicate's three objects are enclosed in ellipses. Objects of the same word are called ''sibling objects'' or just ''siblings'', and the word they are subordinate to is their ''predicate''. Note that ''predicate'' and ''object'' are relative terms like ''parent'' and ''child''. | In the diagram, the main predicate's three objects are enclosed in ellipses. Objects of the same word are called ''sibling objects'' or just ''siblings'', and the word they are subordinate to is their ''predicate''. Note that ''predicate'' and ''object'' are relative terms like ''parent'' and ''child''. | ||
The table of level markers implies that only the first object of a predicate can be marked as agent. (This has been interpreted as Lemizh having VSO word order, although a subject is not quite the same as an agent, and Lemizh grammar strictly speaking does not have the concept of a subject.) | The table of level markers implies that only the first object of a predicate can be marked as agent. (This has been interpreted as Lemizh having VSO word order, although a subject is not quite the same as an agent, and Lemizh grammar strictly speaking does not have the concept of a subject.) | ||
*'''Rule Three. The outer case of the first word of an object defines its relation to its predicate's stem via its descriptor; the outer case of a level 1 word is zero.''' | * '''Rule Three. The outer case of the first word of an object defines its relation to its predicate's stem via its descriptor; the outer case of a level 1 word is zero.''' | ||
This is what we would expect: the nominative object of a predicate defines its source (sender), the accusative object its content, the temporal object its time, etc. | This is what we would expect: the nominative object of a predicate defines its source (sender), the accusative object its content, the temporal object its time, etc. | ||
'''Examples''' | '''Examples''' | ||
{{Interlinear|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2: second level; 2A: second level, agentive | {{Interlinear|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2: second level; 2A: second level, agentive | ||
|dá föpysryfè dwywỳ lusỳi. | |dá föpysryfè dwywỳ lusỳi. | ||
|give-FACT-1 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-2A bottle-ACC-ACC-2 Lucy-ACC-DAT-2 | |give-FACT-1 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-2A bottle-ACC-ACC-2 Lucy-ACC-DAT-2 | ||
|''Father Christmas gives Lucy a bottle.''}} | |''Father Christmas gives Lucy a bottle.''}} | ||
The word stems of the three objects are nominal verbs, hence the inner accusatives. The outer cases indicate the sender, content and recipient of the act of giving. The agent is specified independently of the plot arrow; | The word stems of the three objects are nominal verbs, hence the inner accusatives. The outer cases indicate the sender, content and recipient of the act of giving. The agent is specified independently of the plot arrow; note the difference: | ||
{{Interlinear|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2: second level; 2A: second level, agentive | {{Interlinear|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2: second level; 2A: second level, agentive | ||
|dá lusyì dwywỳ föpysrỳfe. | |dá lusyì dwywỳ föpysrỳfe. | ||
|give-FACT-1 Lucy-ACC-DAT-2A bottle-ACC-ACC-2 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-2 | |give-FACT-1 Lucy-ACC-DAT-2A bottle-ACC-ACC-2 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-2 | ||
|''Lucy takes a bottle from Father Christmas.''}} | |''Lucy takes a bottle from Father Christmas.''}} | ||
== | We need not mark an object as agentive if we consider this information unimportant. The English translations are only rough approximations: | ||
{{Interlinear|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2: second level; 2A: second level, agentive | |||
|dà lusyì dwywỳ föpysrỳfe. | |||
|give-FACT-1 Lucy-ACC-DAT-2 bottle-ACC-ACC-2 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-2 | |||
|''Lucy gets a bottle from Father Christmas. Lucy is given a bottle by Father Christmas.''}} | |||
* '''Rule Four. An instance of a word stem designates a specific action.''' | |||
''dà'' in the above sentence does not just mean "to give", it refers to one specific action of giving. This rule ensures that all the objects refer to the same action of giving. … | |||
* '''Rule Five. A case characterises the action it refers to completely with regard to its case descriptor.''' | |||
… | |||
===Noun phrases=== | ===Noun phrases=== | ||
Forming noun phrases does not require any new grammatical rules. In the following example, the inner case of "give" is changed to the nominative, yielding "one giving something, a giver", and everything is pushed down one level. The third-level words are still sender, content and recipient of the ''action'' of giving, as outer cases define relations to the predicate's ''stem'' per Rule Three. | |||
{{Interlinear|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2: second level; 3: third level; 3A: third level, agentive | |||
|dmàt tryxkì dée föpysryfè dwywỳ lusỳi. | |||
|see-FACT-1 beaver-ACC-DAT-2 give-NOM-NOM-2 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-3A bottle-ACC-ACC-3 Lucy-ACC-DAT-3 | |||
|''The beaver sees the one giving Lucy a bottle, Father Christmas.''}} | |||
Rules Four and Five guarantee that the giver is identical to Father Christmas: both are the sender of the same instance of the word stem ''d–'' "give" (the giver via its inner nominative, Father Christmas via its outer nominative), and both are the ''complete'' sender of this action. This type of construction, where an object's outer case matches its predicate's inner case, is called a '''bracket'''. | |||
Regarding the verb "see", note that the beaver is in the dative, being at the receiving end of the optical stimulus or information. Marking the beaver as agent would translate as "The beaver looks at the one …". | |||
===Verb phrases=== | ===Verb phrases=== | ||
| Line 362: | Line 381: | ||
===Dependent clauses=== | ===Dependent clauses=== | ||
<!-- etc. etc. --> | <!-- etc. etc. --> | ||
===Relative pronouns=== | |||
==Derivational morphology: compounds== | ==Derivational morphology: compounds== | ||