Conlang Random Thread

[jal]

The description of C I have seen is that it is "portable assembly".

Yes, that's the tongue-in-cheek moniker I've encountered as well, although perhaps a bit harsh. It's certainly not that far removed from, say, Pascal, which has never been described as such.

As for BASIC, that covers a wide range of languages from classic interpreted microcomputer BASIC's complete with line numbers to the likes of QuickBasic (and modern-day offshoots like QB64) to the likes of VB.NET. I do have to say that the old interpreted BASIC's were awful (it is a shame that the only old microcomputer that had Forth in ROM was the Jupiter ACE), and while more modern BASIC's are certainly much better, if I need something quick and dirty to hack something together in these days I reach for Python.

I'm pretty fond of BASIC, though perhaps that's more childhood nostalgia than anything else. I'm not a fan of Python, though it has its use in acedemia. It's basically a modern replacement of BASIC, in that it's interpreted, has an awful syntax and can be, and is widely, used by non-programmers for ad-hoc work.


JAL

[Travis B.]

The description of C I have seen is that it is "portable assembly".

Yes, that's the tongue-in-cheek moniker I've encountered as well, although perhaps a bit harsh. It's certainly not that far removed from, say, Pascal, which has never been described as such.

I had mever really interpreted the description of C as "portable assembly" as being a criticism of it.

About C vis-à-vis Pascal, C has a way of encouraging low-level tricks that I hadn't seen associated with Pascal.

As for BASIC, that covers a wide range of languages from classic interpreted microcomputer BASIC's complete with line numbers to the likes of QuickBasic (and modern-day offshoots like QB64) to the likes of VB.NET. I do have to say that the old interpreted BASIC's were awful (it is a shame that the only old microcomputer that had Forth in ROM was the Jupiter ACE), and while more modern BASIC's are certainly much better, if I need something quick and dirty to hack something together in these days I reach for Python.

I'm pretty fond of BASIC, though perhaps that's more childhood nostalgia than anything else. I'm not a fan of Python, though it has its use in acedemia. It's basically a modern replacement of BASIC, in that it's interpreted, has an awful syntax and can be, and is widely, used by non-programmers for ad-hoc work.

I was exposed to Applesoft BASIC around the same time as Logo, and I never really liked Applesoft BASIC as I knew better things were possible (it is unfortunate though that I was unable to take full advantage of Logo for lack of documentation).

About Python, I really don't mind its syntax -- I view its whitespace rules as merely codifying what is good practice to begin with. The only case where I find they can be a problem is when copying and pasting code, where one has to be a bit careful.

[Ahzoh]

I don't know how I will do the sort of things you can do with adjectives without actually having adjectives, like "[adjective] [noun]" = "having [noun] of [adjective] quality"; "white of hair" = "white-haired" or "good of name" = "good repute" or "wide of ear" = "intelligent/attentive".

Ojibwe has a way, which seems like noun incorporation: https://ojibwe.lib.umn.edu/main-entry/w ... indibe-vai
This isn't really an avenue for my language.

[jal]

I don't know how I will do the sort of things you can do with adjectives without actually having adjectives, like "[adjective] [noun]" = "having [noun] of [adjective] quality"; "white of hair" = "white-haired" or "good of name" = "good repute" or "wide of ear" = "intelligent/attentive".

All your alternatives do feature adjectives, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. In "white of hair", white is still an adjective. If you do not like adjectives, look at natlangs that lack them (and I've been told there are quite a lot of these). Afaik they all use either nouns ("whiteness") or verbs ("be-white"), though it would be funny to have a conlang that uses both strategies (either dynamically or statically).


JAL

[bradrn]

Afaik they all use either nouns ("whiteness") or verbs ("be-white"), though it would be funny to have a conlang that uses both strategies (either dynamically or statically).

Two points:

• In languages with nouny ’adjectives‘, they don’t usually refer to abstract qualities like ‘whiteness’. Rather, the corresponding noun will mean ‘white thing’. (We see this in English too: ‘the young’, ‘the poor’, ‘the blind’ do not mean ’youth’, ‘poverty’, ‘blindness’ but rather ‘young people’, ‘poor people’, ‘blind people’.)
• Many languages do in fact have multiple subclasses of adjectives, some nouny and some verby. Nkore-Kiga and Japanese come to mind, though I’d have to look through my sources for a proper description.

[jal]

Two points:

Thanks!


JAL

[Ahzoh]

I don't know how I will do the sort of things you can do with adjectives without actually having adjectives, like "[adjective] [noun]" = "having [noun] of [adjective] quality"; "white of hair" = "white-haired" or "good of name" = "good repute" or "wide of ear" = "intelligent/attentive".

All your alternatives do feature adjectives, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. In "white of hair", white is still an adjective.

faceplam.gif (15.83 KiB) Viewed 9404 times

They're not "alternatives", they're examples. The question is how to do something like that but with all adjectives being verbs.

I'm not sure if "man REL-be_wide-3sg ear-OBL" is allowed or even conveys an idea akin to "the man wide of ear" (> "the attentive, intelligent man")

[bradrn]

I'm not sure if "man REL-be_wide-3sg ear-OBL" is allowed or even conveys an idea akin to "the man wide of ear" (> "the attentive, intelligent man")

Why would it not be ‘allowed’? It’s your language.

[Ahzoh]

I'm not sure if "man REL-be_wide-3sg ear-OBL" is allowed or even conveys an idea akin to "the man wide of ear" (> "the attentive, intelligent man")

Why would it not be ‘allowed’? It’s your language.

It is an intransitive stative verb with an object. Intransitive verbs aren't supposed to have objects unless they're cognate objects like "I dreamt a peaceful dream"

[bradrn]

I'm not sure if "man REL-be_wide-3sg ear-OBL" is allowed or even conveys an idea akin to "the man wide of ear" (> "the attentive, intelligent man")

Why would it not be ‘allowed’? It’s your language.

It is an intransitive stative verb with an object. Intransitive verbs aren't supposed to have objects unless they're cognate objects like "I dreamt a peaceful dream"

Ah, I misparsed the sentence. In that case, I would expect ‘wide’ to modify ‘ear’, not ‘man’: ‘the man wide of ear’ = ‘the man of wide ear’ = ‘the man of ear which is wide’, in which case ‘ear’ is the intransitive subject of ‘is wide’.

[Ahzoh]

Why would it not be ‘allowed’? It’s your language.

It is an intransitive stative verb with an object. Intransitive verbs aren't supposed to have objects unless they're cognate objects like "I dreamt a peaceful dream"

Ah, I misparsed the sentence. In that case, I would expect ‘wide’ to modify ‘ear’, not ‘man’: ‘the man wide of ear’ = ‘the man of wide ear’ = ‘the man of ear which is wide’, in which case ‘ear’ is the intransitive subject of ‘is wide’.

Neither relative clauses nor adpositional phrases in this language can modify possessors/genitival nouns. They only modify the head of a genitive costruction.

"man of ear which is wide" would just be interpreted as "the ear's man who is wide".

I do have an action nominal/verbal noun/infinitive of sorts.

[bradrn]

It is an intransitive stative verb with an object. Intransitive verbs aren't supposed to have objects unless they're cognate objects like "I dreamt a peaceful dream"

Ah, I misparsed the sentence. In that case, I would expect ‘wide’ to modify ‘ear’, not ‘man’: ‘the man wide of ear’ = ‘the man of wide ear’ = ‘the man of ear which is wide’, in which case ‘ear’ is the intransitive subject of ‘is wide’.

Neither relative clauses nor adpositional phrases in this language can modify possessors/genitival nouns. They only modify the head of a genitive costruction.

In that case, ‘man of wide ear’ would make no sense as an idiomatic construction in the first place, unless you’re willing to rephrase it a bit more like ‘man who has ear which is wide’.

[Ahzoh]

Ah, I misparsed the sentence. In that case, I would expect ‘wide’ to modify ‘ear’, not ‘man’: ‘the man wide of ear’ = ‘the man of wide ear’ = ‘the man of ear which is wide’, in which case ‘ear’ is the intransitive subject of ‘is wide’.

Neither relative clauses nor adpositional phrases in this language can modify possessors/genitival nouns. They only modify the head of a genitive costruction.

In that case, ‘man of wide ear’ would make no sense as an idiomatic construction in the first place, unless you’re willing to rephrase it a bit more like ‘man who has ear which is wide’.

It is what Akkadian awīlum rapaš uznim is doing. It is something like an apposition like "Mary queen of Scots"

I guess there is a way to do it, but it's not very parsimonious or poetic or elegant.
"The man, ear is wide and beard is thick, confronts the monster."

[bradrn]

Neither relative clauses nor adpositional phrases in this language can modify possessors/genitival nouns. They only modify the head of a genitive costruction.

In that case, ‘man of wide ear’ would make no sense as an idiomatic construction in the first place, unless you’re willing to rephrase it a bit more like ‘man who has ear which is wide’.

It is what Akkadian awīlum rapaš uznim is doing. It is something like an apposition like "Mary queen of Scots"

Well, does Akkadian have those rules about genitival modifiers?

I guess there is a way to do it, but it's not very parsimonious or poetic or elegant.
"The man, ear is wide and beard is thick, confronts the monster."

Elegance is in the ear of the listener. Perhaps this phrasing is elegant in your language. (I know mine uses such constructions very heavily.)

[zompist]

It is what Akkadian awīlum rapaš uznim is doing. It is something like an apposition like "Mary queen of Scots"

Well, does Akkadian have those rules about genitival modifiers?

Sorry if you both know this already, but here is what's going on in the Akkadian:

awīlum - 'man', s. nom
rapaš uznim - 'wide of ear': rapaš 'wide' in construct state, uznim 'ear' s.gen

It is not 'man of wide of ear'— that would be awīl rapaš uznim and I don't know if you can do that with rapašum. You can do it with ordinary nouns ('the hand of the son of the man').

[bradrn]

It is what Akkadian awīlum rapaš uznim is doing. It is something like an apposition like "Mary queen of Scots"

Well, does Akkadian have those rules about genitival modifiers?

Sorry if you both know this already, but here is what's going on in the Akkadian:

awīlum - 'man', s. nom
rapaš uznim - 'wide of ear': rapaš 'wide' in construct state, uznim 'ear' s.gen

I don’t know Akkadian, but my general Semitic knowledge leaves me confused about the use of the construct state here… ‘man’ is possessed, so why isn’t it in the construct state? And, for that matter, why is ‘wide’ in the construct state, given that semantically it seems to be the modifier of ‘ear’, not the other way round?

[zompist]

‘man’ is possessed, so why isn’t it in the construct state?

I think it's as Ahzoh said: it's an appositive, like "Nathan the prophet", not an X of Y expression.

[Ahzoh]

Well, does Akkadian have those rules about genitival modifiers?

Sorry if you both know this already, but here is what's going on in the Akkadian:

awīlum - 'man', s. nom
rapaš uznim - 'wide of ear': rapaš 'wide' in construct state, uznim 'ear' s.gen

I don’t know Akkadian, but my general Semitic knowledge leaves me confused about the use of the construct state here… ‘man’ is possessed, so why isn’t it in the construct state? And, for that matter, why is ‘wide’ in the construct state, given that semantically it seems to be the modifier of ‘ear’, not the other way round?

"Man" is not possesed here. "Wide of ear" is an apposition and the adjective is acting like a nominalized adjective, just as it would in English. My language, lacking adjectives as a word class, would not have adjectives to nominalize.

[Imralu]

I guess there is a way to do it, but it's not very parsimonious or poetic or elegant.
"The man, ear is wide and beard is thick, confronts the monster."

I do this without adjectives or verbs. Assuming you have verbs, you can have a noun meaning "wide one" or a verb meaning "be wide" and either can be modified by "ear", whether or not you regard that modification of the verb (if you have it as a verb) as its object.

With a verb, you could either have a relativised verb where the subject refers to the man, and it's thus 'to be ear-wide' (the man who is ear-wide), or it could be some kind of subordinated structure with 'ear' as the subject (the man, the ears being wide / the man where the ears are wide) etc. There are endless possibilities, really. Don't feel limited arbitrarily.

(Hu ye) davyo mwogyu u ye ne ba hwyiyoi zoyo (zyi) ndyi.
≈ "The (man who is an) ear-wide one, (being) who is a beard-epitome possessor, is a confronter of the monster / is a monster confronter."

Code: Select all

(hu  ye)   davyo mwogyu u   ye   ne        ba       hwiyo =i   zoyo       (zyi)         ndyi
(man ATTR) wideᴱ ear    SIT ATTR possessor intenseᴱ beard =COP confronter (REL.DEF.SGᴱ) monster

Hu u mwogyui davyo u hwiyoi bai zoyo (zyi) ndyi.
≈ "The man, the ear(s) being big, the beard being extreme, is a confronter of the monster / is a monster confronter."

Code: Select all

hu  u   mwogyu =i   davyo u   hwiyo =i   ba       =i   zoyo       (zyi)         ndyi
man SIT ear    =COP wideᴱ SIT beard =COP intenseᴱ =COP confronter (REL.DEF.SGᴱ) monster

In case the glosses aren't clear, there's a more extended glossary in here:

More: show

ba 'intenseᴱ' [base] — intense entity, extreme one, being intense in the qualities of a following base. It can be translated as 'epitome', but does not indicate being at the absolute pinnacle of intensity in the qualities described by the following base, but merely 'towards' that. It frequently appears as 'very' in a translation.
→ ba hwiyo — a 'proper' beard, a 'real' beard, a thick beard, something towards the epitome of a beard

davyo 'wideᴱ' [base] — wide entity, wide one, wide thing, an entity which is large in the side-to-side dimension
→ davyo mwogyu — an ear-wide entity, an entity which is wide of ear, which has wide ears

hu 'man' [base] — initiated man, adult human male who has passed initiation

hwiyo 'beard' [base] — facial hair

i 'COP' [operator] — copula, predicate marker OR subject marker. Indicates the end of the subject and the beginning of the predicate, with strict coreferentiality. Generally cliticised to preceding word.

mwogyu 'ear' [base] — ear

ne 'possessor' [base] — entity which possesses, generally without control of the possessive relationship, used for inherent possession and a semantic equivalent of passives. Because one is in control of a beard, being able to shave it off, za 'holder' could be used instead.
→ ne ba hwiyo — a beard-epitome possessor

ndyi 'monster' [base] — monster, beast, demon, ghost

u 'SIT' [operator] — situational operator, gives backgrounded 'adverbial' information in these structures: u [x] 'being [X]'; u [X]=i [Y] 'with [X] being [Y][/b]. When it appears before another operator, as in u ye it's purpose is essentially only to allow the operator to attach to something further back than the immediately preceding word.

ye 'ATTR' [operator] — attributive operator, indicates coreferentiality, essentially meaning 'which is' — attaches only to preceding word

zoyo 'confronter' [base] — entity that confronts, faces, fronts up to, goes head to head with (a following relational or appositional modifier)
→ zoyo ndyi — a monster confronter, an entity which confronts a/the/∅ monster(s)

zyi 'REL.DEF.SG' [contraction] — contraction of:
→ ya 'REL' [operator] — relational operator, more or less equivalent to 'of', basically a genitive of relation, not always strictly of possession
→ de 'DEF.SGᴱ' [base] — he, she, it, the one, you know which one I mean

[Qwynegold]

It is a bit hard to find a reason for why such a basic word would be replaced by a new word.

Not really; zompist has noted before that words related to women are particularly susceptible to dramatic shifts. (See for example Leilis’s comments on German, or for that matter English words like ‘hussy’ or ‘mistress’.)

Ah, okay. I need to develop this culture some, because I don't know about their gender attitudes.