Conlang Random Thread

[Glenn]

Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but...

I can't believe I somehow missed this language: https://fiatlingua.org/wp-content/uploa ... 08A-00.pdf I love the colored text on page 14 of the pdf (13 of the text).

Thank you for digging that out! That is really good stuff I had missed, too.

I ran across this conlang years ago, but had forgotten all about it until rotting bones linked to it; I recognized the color text immediately.

When I first encountered it, I only glanced at it fleetingly; this time, I read through the grammar and script in detail, and found a lot of interesting content. (Among other things, I was particularly struck by the way the text merges identical morphemes across words if they adjoin vertically in the text block.)

[jal]

I really don't understand jal's arguments here -- he seems to be saying that any non-fully-productive affixes are collectively part of the stem, and any change in them is a change in the entire stem, and he seems to be denying that ablaut is an example of nonconcatenative morphology that can be analyzed separate from the rest of the stem such that the rest of the stem forms a template into which the ablaut vowel is inserted as an infix.

I get the feeling we're constantly talking past each other. I never said non-productive affixes are part of the stem, I never used that word. We were talking about morphemes, and I do indeed argue that words like <written>, that historically are composed of a stem + affix, are in a synchronic analysis no longer composed, but are a single morpheme. I don't see why we should use an analysis that has the historical affix as a seperate morpheme, even though it's neither productive nor perceived as such (even though the latter is up for debate).

As for ablaut, I argue that considering the ablaut its own morpheme is shoehorning any phonological tranformational processes in a language into morphemes, and I'm not sure how useful that is. Do Turkish words have a seperate morpheme for every vowel just because there's vowel harmony? If not, why would we consider ablaut differently? What about changes in tonal contours in tonal languages? And so on.


JAL

[hwhatting]

I get the feeling we're constantly talking past each other. I never said non-productive affixes are part of the stem, I never used that word. We were talking about morphemes, and I do indeed argue that words like <written>, that historically are composed of a stem + affix, are in a synchronic analysis no longer composed, but are a single morpheme. I don't see why we should use an analysis that has the historical affix as a seperate morpheme, even though it's neither productive nor perceived as such (even though the latter is up for debate).

A morpheme is an idemtifiable element of a word that changes the meaning. driven without the -(e)n would be the base form, not a past participle. Ergo it's a morpheme, even if not a productive one (although even that is debatable, as people have formed things like boughten). And as -en is an identifiable morphem, written can be analyzed as unproductive stem allomorph writt- plus (alomost unproductive) past participle suffix -en.

As for ablaut, I argue that considering the ablaut its own morpheme is shoehorning any phonological tranformational processes in a language into morphemes, and I'm not sure how useful that is. Do Turkish words have a seperate morpheme for every vowel just because there's vowel harmony? If not, why would we consider ablaut differently?

The difference between the two is that Turkish vowel harmony is phonetically predictable and the contrast between (say) the plural suffixes -ler and -lar doesn't carry any difference in meaning. Ablaut (same for grammaticalized umlaut) is not synchronically triggered by the phonetic environment anymore, so it is a morphological category. One can debate whether the allomorphs are (1) the different stem forms (sing vs sang vs sung) or (2) the ablaut vowels alone; it may be language-dependent. E.g., Arabic grammars work with ablaut patterns, and and speakers shoehorn loans and neologisms into existing patterns, so it really looks like the the vowel patterns (plus consonant genimation where applicable) are the morphemes. For languages where ablaut is of limited productivity, (1) may be the better analysis.

[Imralu]

A morpheme is an idemtifiable element of a word that changes the meaning driven without the -(e)n would be the base form, not a past participle.

Bad example. Without the -en, it’s just /drɪv/. The vowel is altered exactly like write > written. It’s just not shown orthographically because v is traditionally not doubled. A better example would be “fallen”, but they’re hard to find.

[Travis B.]

A morpheme is an idemtifiable element of a word that changes the meaning driven without the -(e)n would be the base form, not a past participle.

Bad example. Without the -en, it’s just /drɪv/. The vowel is altered exactly like write > written. It’s just not shown orthographically because v is traditionally not doubled. A better example would be “fallen”, but they’re hard to find.

Actually drive and write are in the same ablaut class.

[Imralu]

Actually drive and write are in the same ablaut class.

Yeah, along with arrive, type, like, (a)rise, chide, glide, guide, ride and oblige … at least in a perfect world.

[hwhatting]

A morpheme is an idemtifiable element of a word that changes the meaning driven without the -(e)n would be the base form, not a past participle.

Bad example. Without the -en, it’s just /drɪv/. The vowel is altered exactly like write > written. It’s just not shown orthographically because v is traditionally not doubled. A better example would be “fallen”, but they’re hard to find.

Yes, you're right, fallen would have been a better example.

[jal]

A morpheme is an idemtifiable element of a word that changes the meaning. driven without the -(e)n would be the base form, not a past participle. Ergo it's a morpheme, even if not a productive one (although even that is debatable, as people have formed things like boughten). And as -en is an identifiable morphem, written can be analyzed as unproductive stem allomorph writt- plus (alomost unproductive) past participle suffix -en.

I understand what you're saying, and it's basically what Travis also wrote, I think, but other than for diachronic analysis, I still don't see the value of calling -en a morpheme in standard English, as I don't think it carries a meaning on it's own (synchronically). You could use "fall/fallen" as a counterexample, but I'm also not sure whether we should instill morphemehood into every historical relic with only one or two examples.

The difference between the two is that Turkish vowel harmony is phonetically predictable and the contrast between (say) the plural suffixes -ler and -lar doesn't carry any difference in meaning.

I realized that as soon as I hit the Submit button, but was too lazy to edit. Thanks for calling me out .

Ablaut (same for grammaticalized umlaut) is not synchronically triggered by the phonetic environment anymore, so it is a morphological category. One can debate whether the allomorphs are (1) the different stem forms (sing vs sang vs sung) or (2) the ablaut vowels alone; it may be language-dependent. E.g., Arabic grammars work with ablaut patterns, and and speakers shoehorn loans and neologisms into existing patterns, so it really looks like the the vowel patterns (plus consonant genimation where applicable) are the morphemes. For languages where ablaut is of limited productivity, (1) may be the better analysis.

Yes, I agree with you on Arabic, the vowel patterns (are they called "ablaut" as well? I didn't know that) clearly behave as a kind of infixes, so I would call them morphemic as well. I would put English (and other Germanic languages) firmly in the "ablaut is of limited productivity" category, hence why I argued for (1).


JAL

[WeepingElf]

Yes, I agree with you on Arabic, the vowel patterns (are they called "ablaut" as well? I didn't know that) clearly behave as a kind of infixes, so I would call them morphemic as well. I would put English (and other Germanic languages) firmly in the "ablaut is of limited productivity" category, hence why I argued for (1).

I have come across the Semitic vowel patterns referred to as "ablaut", too, but AFAIK it is not the usual terminology among Semiticists, and while I can see some similarity between IE ablaut and Semitic vowel patterns, they are quite different from each other, and I think "ablaut" is something of a misnomer for the latter.

[bradrn]

A morpheme is an idemtifiable element of a word that changes the meaning. driven without the -(e)n would be the base form, not a past participle. Ergo it's a morpheme, even if not a productive one (although even that is debatable, as people have formed things like boughten). And as -en is an identifiable morphem, written can be analyzed as unproductive stem allomorph writt- plus (alomost unproductive) past participle suffix -en.

I understand what you're saying, and it's basically what Travis also wrote, I think, but other than for diachronic analysis, I still don't see the value of calling -en a morpheme in standard English, as I don't think it carries a meaning on it's own (synchronically). You could use "fall/fallen" as a counterexample, but I'm also not sure whether we should instill morphemehood into every historical relic with only one or two examples.

So if -en isn’t a morpheme, then what is it?

[jal]

So if -en isn’t a morpheme, then what is it?

A syllable, part of a single morpheme. I don't see much difference between "sleep" / "slept" or "go" / "went" on the one hand, and "write" / "written" on the other, with regards to phonemic analysis.


JAL

[Lērisama]

So if -en isn’t a morpheme, then what is it?

A syllable, part of a single morpheme. I don't see much difference between "sleep" / "slept" or "go" / "went" on the one hand, and "write" / "written" on the other, with regards to phonemic analysis.

So you'd say the cases of analogy to new verbs and the existence of verbs where /-ən/ appears suffixed to a form that otherwise exists (taken, fallen, seen¹ &c.) isn't enough to convince to that it's a morpheme? How would you go about testing if something is/isn't a morpheme, such that this isn't enough evidence².

¹ ish
² There are definitely multiple ways to do this, but they all seem unattractive to me and I'm curious what seems most useful as a test of morphemehood to you, because I can't work it out

[Travis B.]

So if -en isn’t a morpheme, then what is it?

A syllable, part of a single morpheme. I don't see much difference between "sleep" / "slept" or "go" / "went" on the one hand, and "write" / "written" on the other, with regards to phonemic analysis.

I would argue that slept is two morphemes, a stem (that changes) and a weak preterite/past participle suffix -t.

Your position essentially says that anything which is not fully productive cannot be analyzed as a separate morpheme, even if it communicates meaning by itself (e.g. the -en in fallen, taken, or gotten).

[bradrn]

Your position essentially says that anything which is not fully productive cannot be analyzed as a separate morpheme, even if it communicates meaning by itself (e.g. the -en in fallen, taken, or gotten).

Or, moreover, any situation where a feature is realised over two or more surface morphemes, a.k.a. ‘distributed exponence’. (I’d be very interested to know what jal would make of, say, the bipartite TAMP forms in Dorig, or for that matter any of the stuff that Komnzo gets up to…)

[jal]

Or, moreover, any situation where a feature is realised over two or more surface morphemes, a.k.a. ‘distributed exponence’. (I’d be very interested to know what jal would make of, say, the bipartite TAMP forms in Dorig, or for that matter any of the stuff that Komnzo gets up to…)

Lol, I wouldn't burn my fingers on anything that foreign to me :D.

So you'd say the cases of analogy to new verbs and the existence of verbs where /-ən/ appears suffixed to a form that otherwise exists (taken, fallen, seen &c.) isn't enough to convince to that it's a morpheme? How would you go about testing if something is/isn't a morpheme, such that this isn't enough evidence.

Good point on the examples that take a regular form + -en. I might be convinced in light of that evidence. :) I'm not sure whether it's even possible to test for morphemehood, since there's not a single testable definition (when is something "part of a word" or when does something "carry meaning" etc.).

I would argue that slept is two morphemes, a stem (that changes) and a weak preterite/past participle suffix -t.

I entertained that idea, and I'm not fully averse to it.

Your position essentially says that anything which is not fully productive cannot be analyzed as a separate morpheme, even if it communicates meaning by itself (e.g. the -en in fallen, taken, or gotten).

I think there's a whole lot of grey area, though as I wrote above, for the case of -en I might change my mind.


JAL

[bradrn]

Or, moreover, any situation where a feature is realised over two or more surface morphemes, a.k.a. ‘distributed exponence’. (I’d be very interested to know what jal would make of, say, the bipartite TAMP forms in Dorig, or for that matter any of the stuff that Komnzo gets up to…)

Lol, I wouldn't burn my fingers on anything that foreign to me .

A pity; it’s very interesting, and relevant to the topic at hand.

[þeprussianfrog]

Трꙓс фатюс!
[trʲes fatʲus]
Three bears!

[jal]

A pity; it’s very interesting, and relevant to the topic at hand.

Maybe if I can find some time, it's not that linguistics don't interest me, but time is always lacking...


JAL