On 10/10/05, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...> wrote:

> > 3) So let's use the final vowel as a lexical class marker.
> Here I have a problem.  Does this perhaps imply that the
> number of lexical classes must equal the number of vowels
> in the phoneme inventory?  If so, are we sure that gives us
> enough lexical classes to construct almost any interesting
> utterance?

If you look back in the group archives, you'll see
we talked about a possible scheme with four semantic
categories (substance, action/process, relationship,
and quality) which correspond to four "parts of
speech", noun, verb, preposition, and adjective/adverb.
But I think Larry finally went with a simpler scheme
that folds relationships into the other categories.

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/review/log.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field

On 9/19/05, HandyDad <lsulky@...> wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
> > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:

> > > 1) "kon-pan-tixun-wi" for 'student' is way ugly. Do we really need
> > to
> > > build 'learn' from 'teach' or vice versa? Is the 'opposite'
> > > marker "pa" appropriate for this use? How many verb pairs like this
> > > are there, anyway?

> > Rick Morneau has a lot to say about "opposites," and while some of it
> > is hair-splitting, the opposite of teaching would be sucking
> > knowledge out of someone's brain. (Imagine a kid watching TV over
> > summer vacation.) The relationship between teaching and learning is
> > more reciprocal.


> > forms for some mal- words (though even Eo doesn't have ?malinstrui
> > for lerni), though there is also more pressure to use such extra
> > forms. A course between Eo and Ido would be wise.

A more logical way of deriving one
from the other would be something like
"lernigi" for "to teach".  I did something like
this in gzb, though the affix is not a simple
causative; it indicates attempting to effect
something and is unmarked for whether the
attempt is successful or not.

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field

On 9/17/05, ansric <ansric@...> wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:

> ....... My
> > thinking is this: 'We' meaning 'I and others on whose behalf I
> speak' is not plural in the
> > same sense that 'dogs' is plural -- that is, a simple distinction
> between 'one' and 'more-
> > than-one'. 'I' is a special member of the group denoted by 'we'. So
> having a word that
> > means both 'I' and 'we' seems less appealing to me than it once did.

> Correct. In _A New International Language_, Jespersen observed that
> the Volapuk gag of simply pluralizing the first-person pronoun ("ob"
> I, "obs" we) was unrealistic.

It does have the advantage of giving a monsyllable
for "we" that is mnemonically if not logically
related to the pronoun "I".  But it wouldn't
work with Konya's phonotactics,
and "mintenwi" and "minkonwi" are more
specific, more logical, and have no more
syllables than a "pluralized" form.

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field

On 9/28/05, HandyDad <lsulky@...> wrote:

hyphen.) So in addition to "yo"
> and "kayo", for example, we could also have "kyo" and "nakyo".
>
> This significantly increases the number of single-syllable functionals
available, which in
> turn makes it possible to handle some word classes as functionals that I
currently handle
> otherwise. I wouldn't mind making personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns,
and
> interjections into functionals, for example.

That sounds like a good idea.  The only thing I don't
like about Konya-2 (I haven't had time to look at
it very much yet) is the disyllabic pronouns.


--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field

Larry,
You wrote:
>
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com,
> "yahya_melb" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> >
> ---SNIP---
> > I suggest you don't NEED any ditransitives at all.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yahya
>
> Yep, it's settled. No ditransitives for Konya.

Wow!  Don't think I can argue with that decision ... :-)

But seriously, I think it's good that -
a)  You've identified and thought about the issue;
b)  You've discussed it publicly and listened to others;
and
c)  You've made a decision.

Seems so unlike real life, somehow ... unless it's the
pattern of effective decision-making I've seen in
several good managers over the years.  Keep it up!

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 9/10/05

Larry,
You wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com,
> "yahya_melb" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com,
> > "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> > >
> ---SNIP---
> > >... any suggestions for
> > > cutting down on the syllable count?
> > >
> > Hi Larry,
> >
> > Can you think of any natlang that uses words of more than two
> > syllables
> > for here and there, this and that?  I can't.
> >
> > Ignoring nouns, most natlangs seem to have short words for pronouns
> > (both relative and personal) and for the commonest verbs and
> > adjectives, especially the auxiliary verbs.  When building
> > vocabulary,
> > I'd suggest that any conlang you want to get many people to speak
> > should do likewise.  Do you have a few unused disyllables to spare
> > for
> > here and there, this and that?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yahya
> >
> With the recent advent in Konya of functionals of the form CSV, a
> whole new crop of monosyllables has become available. As I work on
> version 038, I'm finding it that it would be handy to define some
> functionals of this form simply as "synonyms of convenience" for
> words that are properly of a lexical class. For example, "swi" as a
> synonym for the interjection "sinye" = 'yes'; or "kyo" = 'me' and
> just flat-out discarding "minwi", as though it were archaic :-).

It's a neat scheme, that clearly distinguishes these words by their
phonetics.  When generating these functionals, would it be practical
to also retain the vowel that marks the lexical class? eg sinye -> sye,
minwi -> mwi ?


> By assigning a handful of these synonyms, I'd be setting a precedent
> such that other words that turn out to be extremely common might be
> assigned (by other people) as the language matures. And I'm thinking
> that this would be okay.

I agree, as long as this does not become a recipe for a new Tower of
Babel!

And it would be even better if there was an agreed method for
generating the functional from the long form, for example the kind
of contraction or deletion rule given in my examples above.  Then
Konya speakers would have a productive rule that they could apply
to generate new words whenever occasion demanded.  Of course,
a deletion rule, as in my example, would in turn exert pressure on the
possible choices of root words; it would be preferable if any listener
could say with authority: "Ah! 'sye' has the CSV pattern, so it must
be a contraction of 'sinye'."

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 9/10/05

Larry,
You wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com,
> "yahya_melb" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com,
> > "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
> > > > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
> ---SNIP---
> > Now let's turn to Konya.  The difference here is that we can't
> > just say either "paipi xelen" or "xelen paipi"; you need a noun-
> > marker "[-w]i" at the end of the compound.  I note also that
> > the head-initial form *"paipin-xelen-wi" is longer than your
> > chosen "xelen-paipi".
> >
> > What would you say to either *"paipin-xeleni" or *"paipin-xeli"
> > instead?  (Depending on whether the root for "yellow" is "xelen"
> > or "xele".)
>
> We've run into this little bind because we're trying to be clear
> about derivations. "xele" is a core modifier,
> meaning 'yellow'. "xeli" is some other word entirely, by design. To
> convert "xele" into an abstract noun, we suffix it
> with "nwi": "xelenwi" = 'yellowness'. So having the head "paipi" in
> initial position pretty much forces an additional syllable in order
> to get the noun marker at the end of "xele".

Interestingly here, Malay has also many simple verbs of form
CVCV.  It creates many abstract nouns by adding the suffix "-an",
corresponding to Konya "-nwi".  (Others, depending on the root, may
also take a prefix "ke-" or "peN-" along with the suffix.)  But I'm
here mainly considering the phonetic form: "-nwi" has the form CSV,
while "-an" has form VC.  If you used that form instead, while
retaining the use of"i" to mark a noun, you might replace "-nwi" by
"-in"; thus "paipi"=bird, "xele"=yellow, "paipixelein"=bird-yellow
or canary. (Note I removed the "n" after the element "paipi";
this way the presence of the "n" after "xelei" marks the end of
the compound.)  And if "keri"=tail, "paipikerixonweikalunein"=
bird-tail-big-green or peacock.


>
> Version 036 of Konya did just change the ending vowels, but the
> drawback there was that there was no way to know which form
> of the word was the true core concept, and which were derived.
> This put more pressure on us to choose the core lexical class of
> a word wisely.

And we don't want to make that an exercise in mathematical
logic!  It must remain fairly easy to coin a new root.


> Also, having defined a word, say "xele", we had perforce used
> up "xelo", "xelu", and "xeli"; even though some of these words
> would never be used, we couldn't use them for anything else.

Obviously unsatisfactory, and wasteful of possible CVCV roots.

>
> So here's the chain of logic that led us here:
>
> 1) Lexical class marking is a good thing.
It can be.

> 2) CV syllable structure is a good thing.
It's a very popular choice in natlangs, and is the simplest of
the most productive syllable structure rules.

> 3) So let's use the final vowel as a lexical class marker.
Here I have a problem.  Does this perhaps imply that the
number of lexical classes must equal the number of vowels
in the phoneme inventory?  If so, are we sure that gives us
enough lexical classes to construct almost any interesting
utterance?

Again, I have suggested using a different syllable structure,
VC, to mark a derived word of a given lexical class.

> 4) Which means that the final core word in a compound needs
> to carry the lexical class marker.
Or to append it.

You might consider appending the marker (eg "i") to each
component of the compound, or appending a "final component"
marker (eg "n") to the last component, as in my example of the
peacock.

> 5) Which in turn means that the final core word usually needs
> to be the headword, because it will most often carry the right
> lexical class marker already.

Not if you choose to append it.

> 6) But this slightly conflicts with the phrase order, which puts
> headwords first.
>
> Now, it would be possible to construct 'canary' as "paipin-xele"
> ('bird-yellow') if the lexical class rule for compounds were that
> the final vowel of the _first_ core word indicates the class. So
> "paipin-xele" would be a noun because of the "i" on "paipi". This
> would require a slightly greater degree of linguistic
> sophistication for hearers of compound words.

How sophisticated would the hearer need to be to distinguish
*"paipikerixonweikalunein" as a compound with head "paipi" and
tail finishing with "-kalunein"?  If that's too hard, would you
need to mark both the head and the end, eg with "-t" and "-in":
*"paipitkerixonweikalunein"?

> ...However,
> compound words tend, once established, to carry on quite
> independently of their original core words.

True enough.  Only children (and new adult learners!) tend to
think of the old elder sister "kakak tua" when using the
compound name "burung kakak tua" for "cockatoo".


> > Again, from my experience with several Austronesian languages,
> > the thoroughgoing head-initial structure is simple enough in
> > practice.
> > Any mixture of the two approaches will cause confusion for
> > learners.
>
> It would also be possible to claim that inverting the headword
> order in compounds is a _good_ thing because it further
> distinguishes compounds from phrases: "paipi xele" = 'yellow bird'
> versus "xelen-paipi" = 'canary'. This would require a slightly
> greater degree of linguistic sophistication for coiners of
> compound words.

And probably fights the natural tendency to coin compound
words according to the usual modification sequence of the
language.  Evidence: that we have, in English, "blackbird" and not
*"birdblack"; in Malay, "burung kakak tua" and not *"tua kakak
burung".  Can you point to any natlang that does this seemingly
most unnatural thing?

> ... I can readily imagine an English in which the
> practice in compound words was to reverse the normal phrase
> order. "Look at that black bird! What species is it?" "Why, I
> believe it's a birdblack!" I don't suppose it would take geniuses
> to become accustomed to such a scheme and be easily able to
> coin words like "birdyellow" and "birdblue" and "washerdish".
> But it might not seem normal to learners.

LOL.  Very amusing!  I think there's a charming fairy tale to
be told here ...

>
> ---SNIP---
> >
> > > >
> > > > Playing with numbers again, though in a different sense. This
> > > > is the strongest argument, in my opinion. While there are
> > > > languages that have or allow noun-number, numbers are very
> > > > likely to precede.
> > > >
> > > > Another point that hardly anyone deals with is classifiers:
> > > > words that chaperone the number so it doesn't get too
> > > > friendly with the noun, as in "four *head* of cattle." These
> > > > measure words are very common in a number of unrelated
> > > > Asian languages.
> > >
> > > A Konya-predecessor did use a particle for this purpose. I
> > > didn't mind it. But I don't think Konya has need of it.
> >
> > Hmmm ... one of the reasons for these "numeral classifiers"
> > or "numeral coefficients" is that enables the speaker to
> > identify, not only the kind of object referenced, but more
> > importantly the kind of relationship that object has to the
> > speaker.  So (again in Malay) "se-ekor lembu" (one tail of
> > cattle) and "se-orang petani" (one person farmer), can both
> > be referred to subsequently using the same word "itu", but
> > meaning either "it" or "he" in English.  It's simply disrespectful
> > to call a person "petani" without first mentioning the more
> > important fact that he's a person (that head-inital thing
> > again!)  I guess I'm asking for a little caution in building into
> > the language a disregard of what may be important cultural
> > distinctions for some speakers.  For even when the whole
> > world is talking Konya, I don't think we will see all cultural
> > differences disappear.
>
> Horrors! Disappearance of cultural differences would be the
> worst possible outcome.

So glad we agree on this.

> ... My hope is to help preserve cultural
> differences (or rather, permit cultures to preserve themselves
> if they choose) by providing an alternative to a juggernaut
> national language that becomes the de facto international
> language, dragging along its culture like a hungry mastiff on a
> thin leash.

An image of poetic force.

>
> But I'm not keen on creating a set of classifiers either, just as
> I'm not keen on introducing gender. But I hope that there is
> enough room for growth in Konya that should a classifier be the
> preference within some cultures, one could be come up with,
> probably along the lines of '3 man farmer'.

Yep.  Most classifiers in Malay can be used independently as
ordinary nouns, so this seems like a good pattern to follow.

>
> ---SNIP---
>
> > In that case, I'd go unequivocally head-initial, without
> > exceptions.  All those Austronesian languages are proof that
> > it can be done.
>
> The one bugaboo is the compounding. The headword usually has
> the right ending so it needs to go at the end, or we need to use
> more syllables more often. Any other alternatives?

See above for another way, with variants.

Regards,
Yahya


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 9/10/05

Larry,

> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, you wrote:
>
> Yahya, thanks for all your excellent analysis and contributions in your
> other posts!

Thanks for your kind words.

>
> You can certainly have ownership of any or all of the categories that
you've
> listed below (of those that aren't already taken).

Let's start with a couple, eh?  Don't want to be greedy, or to impede
progress by biting off more than I can chew ...

> ... But wait a bit until I
> put up the next revision, please? It might have an impact on the choices
> that you would make. You will have noticed by now that not all the files
are
> at the same version level, and I hope also to correct that soon.

But of course!

>
> I have long looked at Malay and Indonesian as very good examples of
> "auxnatlangs". In fact, if either were endorsed, by this mythical language
> choosing agency that I've imaginged, as the preferred international
> language, I would be the first to applaud. Therefore I do value your
> examples taken from Malay -- I think that they are quite germaine.

Well, Malay has served very well as a lingua franca throughout SE Asia
and surrounding areas, which is proof of the ease with which many
different peoples can learn it.  The only reason I'd hesitate to use
Malay - any dialect - directly as an IAL is the same reason for not
using another natlang - the advantage it would give native speakers
over non-native speakers.  Tho in this particular case, choosing what
is a fairly low-prestige language in world terms might go part of the
way to redressing existing political imbalances ...

In reality, the decision taken by Malaysia and Indonesia to make
Malay (well, closely related dialects, those of Johor and Riau) their
national languages was a deliberate attempt to handicap those with
other L1s who were felt to already possess unfair economic
advantages - specifically, Chinese and to some extent Europeans.
Tho I sympathise with the Malays, who had been systematically
dispossessed of their economic birthright by more than a century of
British interference, giving Malay a special status in the end has also
served to repeat the offense against smaller linguistic communities
within Malaysia.  In Indonesia, the results are even more unequal ...

But politics, they say, is the art of compromise, and to be able to
forge two (or three) modern states out of all the cultures in the
region is no mean achievement.  It couldn't have been done using
former colonial languages, and choosing any Chinese language would
merely have hastened the trend, already strongly evident, towards
concentrating economic power outside the hands of the majority of
the population.  On a "level playing field", such as Singapore tried to
establish with its four-language policy, the first owners of the land
clearly lost out, and in a very short time.

I can only think that an IAL, to provide a suitable _political_
solution to easing the difficulties of international communication,
must also compromise a little, and if it should favour any groups
at all, should lean towards favouring those presently least-favoured
and away from favouring those best-favoured.  Tho taking this
thought to its extreme would be ridiculous - OK, let's choose Damin/
Hottentot/Hattic because it has no known surviving speakers!  But
any "Third World" language which has already proven itself a
success as a lingua franca - eg Malay and Swahili - should merit
serious consideration as a base for an IAL.  (I want to learn a bit
more about Swahili - it seems to have had a growth that largely
paralleled that of Malay.)

> I've only skimmed through your comments so far, but will go over them in
> more depth in the next day or so. Monday is a holiday -- Thanksgiving --
> here in Canada so I hope to get yet a bit more work done on Konya.

Hope you have a good holiday!  Whether productive or not ... :-)
>
> Thanks again --
> --larry

Pleasure,
Yahya


----- Original Message -----
From: "yahya_melb"
Sent: Saturday, 08 October, 2005 8:11 AM
Subject: [konyalanguage] Lexicon

> Hi,
>
> Can I put my hand up for a category or two?
>
> Those I'd most like to have a go at include numbers
> 10 and 11
> 18, 19, and 21
> 26, 25, 24 and 28
> 35 and 36.
>
> (Seems to me that some of these categories are in reverse order, for
> a logical development from roots.)
>
> I'm into making music, art and poetry, so sight, sound and feeling
> are all of interest to me - plus I'd like a chance to add some
> euphonious words to Konya, then see how good poetry in it can be.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 9/10/05

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...>
wrote:
> > > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
---SNIP---
> Now let's turn to Konya.  The difference here is that we can't just
> say either "paipi xelen" or "xelen paipi"; you need a noun-
marker "[-
> w]i" at the end of the compound.  I note also that the head-initial
> form *"paipin-xelen-wi" is longer than your chosen "xelen-paipi".
>
> What would you say to either *"paipin-xeleni" or *"paipin-xeli"
> instead?  (Depending on whether the root for "yellow" is "xelen"
> or "xele".)

We've run into this little bind because we're trying to be clear
about derivations. "xele" is a core modifier,
meaning 'yellow'. "xeli" is some other word entirely, by design. To
convert "xele" into an abstract noun, we suffix it
with "nwi": "xelenwi" = 'yellowness'. So having the head "paipi" in
initial position pretty much forces an additional syllable in order
to get the noun marker at the end of "xele".

Version 036 of Konya did just change the ending vowels, but the
drawback there was that there was no way to know which form of the
word was the true core concept, and which were derived. This put more
pressure on us to choose the core lexical class of a word wisely.
Also, having defined a word, say "xele", we had perforce used
up "xelo", "xelu", and "xeli"; even though some of these words would
never be used, we couldn't use them for anything else.

So here's the chain of logic that led us here:

1) Lexical class marking is a good thing.
2) CV syllable structure is a good thing.
3) So let's use the final vowel as a lexical class marker.
4) Which means that the final core word in a compound needs to carry
the lexical class marker.
5) Which in turn means that the final core word usually needs to be
the headword, because it will most often carry the right lexical
class marker already.
6) But this slightly conflicts with the phrase order, which puts
headwords first.

Now, it would be possible to construct 'canary' as "paipin-xele"
('bird-yellow') if the lexical class rule for compounds were that the
final vowel of the _first_ core word indicates the class. So "paipin-
xele" would be a noun because of the "i" on "paipi". This would
require a slightly greater degree of linguistic sophistication for
hearers of compound words. However, compound words tend, once
established, to carry on quite independently of their original core
words.

> Again, from my experience with several Austronesian languages, the
> thoroughgoing head-initial structure is simple enough in practice.
> Any mixture of the two approaches will cause confusion for learners.

It would also be possible to claim that inverting the headword order
in compounds is a _good_ thing because it further distinguishes
compounds from phrases: "paipi xele" = 'yellow bird' versus "xelen-
paipi" = 'canary'. This would require a slightly greater degree of
linguistic sophistication for coiners of compound words. I can
readily imagine an English in which the practice in compound words
was to reverse the normal phrase order. "Look at that black bird!
What species is it?" "Why, I believe it's a birdblack!" I don't
suppose it would take geniuses to become accustomed to such a scheme
and be easily able to coin words like "birdyellow" and "birdblue"
and "washerdish". But it might not seem normal to learners.

---SNIP---
>
> > >
> > > Playing with numbers again, though in a different sense. This
is
> the
> > > strongest argument, in my opinion. While there are languages
> that
> > > have or allow noun-number, numbers are very likely to precede.
> > >
> > > Another point that hardly anyone deals with is classifiers:
> words
> > > that chaperone the number so it doesn't get too friendly with
> the
> > > noun, as in "four *head* of cattle." These measure words are
> very
> > > common in a number of unrelated Asian languages.
> >
> > A Konya-predecessor did use a particle for this purpose. I didn't
> mind it. But I don't think
> > Konya has need of it.
>
> Hmmm ... one of the reasons for these "numeral classifiers"
> or "numeral coefficients" is that enables the speaker to identify,
> not only the kind of object referenced, but more importantly the
> kind of relationship that object has to the speaker.  So (again in
> Malay) "se-ekor lembu" (one tail of cattle) and "se-orang petani"
> (one person farmer), can both be referred to subsequently using the
> same word "itu", but meaning either "it" or "he" in English.  It's
> simply disrespectful to call a person "petani" without first
> mentioning the more important fact that he's a person (that head-
> inital thing again!)  I guess I'm asking for a little caution in
> building into the language a disregard of what may be important
> cultural distinctions for some speakers.  For even when the whole
> world is talking Konya, I don't think we will see all cultural
> differences disappear.

Horrors! Disappearance of cultural differences would be the worst
possible outcome. My hope is to help preserve cultural differences
(or rather, permit cultures to preserve themselves if they choose) by
providing an alternative to a juggernaut national language that
becomes the de facto international language, dragging along its
culture like a hungry mastiff on a thin leash.

But I'm not keen on creating a set of classifiers either, just as I'm
not keen on introducing gender. But I hope that there is enough room
for growth in Konya that should a classifier be the preference within
some cultures, one could be come up with, probably along the lines
of '3 man farmer'.

---SNIP---

> In that case, I'd go unequivocally head-initial, without
> exceptions.  All those Austronesian languages are proof that it can
> be done.

The one bugaboo is the compounding. The headword usually has the
right ending so it needs to go at the end, or we need to use more
syllables more often. Any other alternatives?

---SNIP---

---larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
wrote:
> >
---SNIP---
> >... any suggestions for
> > cutting down on the syllable count?
> >
> Hi Larry,
>
> Can you think of any natlang that uses words of more than two
syllables
> for here and there, this and that?  I can't.
>
> Ignoring nouns, most natlangs seem to have short words for pronouns
> (both relative and personal) and for the commonest verbs and
> adjectives, especially the auxiliary verbs.  When building
vocabulary,
> I'd suggest that any conlang you want to get many people to speak
> should do likewise.  Do you have a few unused disyllables to spare
for
> here and there, this and that?
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>
With the recent advent in Konya of functionals of the form CSV, a
whole new crop of monosyllables has become available. As I work on
version 038, I'm finding it that it would be handy to define some
functionals of this form simply as "synonyms of convenience" for
words that are properly of a lexical class. For example, "swi" as a
synonym for the interjection "sinye" = 'yes'; or "kyo" = 'me' and
just flat-out discarding "minwi", as though it were archaic :-).

By assigning a handful of these synonyms, I'd be setting a precedent
such that other words that turn out to be extremely common might be
assigned (by other people) as the language matures. And I'm thinking
that this would be okay.

--larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
---SNIP---
> I suggest you don't NEED any ditransitives at all.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

Yep, it's settled. No ditransitives for Konya.

Yahya, thanks for all your excellent analysis and contributions in your
other posts!

You can certainly have ownership of any or all of the categories that you've
listed below (of those that aren't already taken). But wait a bit until I
put up the next revision, please? It might have an impact on the choices
that you would make. You will have noticed by now that not all the files are
at the same version level, and I hope also to correct that soon.

I have long looked at Malay and Indonesian as very good examples of
"auxnatlangs". In fact, if either were endorsed, by this mythical language
choosing agency that I've imaginged, as the preferred international
language, I would be the first to applaud. Therefore I do value your
examples taken from Malay -- I think that they are quite germaine.

I've only skimmed through your comments so far, but will go over them in
more depth in the next day or so. Monday is a holiday -- Thanksgiving --
here in Canada so I hope to get yet a bit more work done on Konya.

Thanks again --
--larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "yahya_melb" <yahya@...>
To: <konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 08 October, 2005 8:11 AM
Subject: [konyalanguage] Lexicon


> Hi,
>
> Can I put my hand up for a category or two?
>
> Those I'd most like to have a go at include numbers
> 10 and 11
> 18, 19, and 21
> 26, 25, 24 and 28
> 35 and 36.
>
> (Seems to me that some of these categories are in reverse order, for
> a logical development from roots.)
>
> I'm into making music, art and poetry, so sight, sound and feeling
> are all of interest to me - plus I'd like a chance to add some
> euphonious words to Konya, then see how good poetry in it can be.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi,

Can I put my hand up for a category or two?

Those I'd most like to have a go at include numbers
10 and 11
18, 19, and 21
26, 25, 24 and 28
35 and 36.

(Seems to me that some of these categories are in reverse order, for
a logical development from roots.)

I'm into making music, art and poetry, so sight, sound and feeling
are all of interest to me - plus I'd like a chance to add some
euphonious words to Konya, then see how good poetry in it can be.

Regards,
Yahya

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@m...>
wrote:
>
...
> Seconded!  Frequency of use will put pressure on common words to
> shorten in some way, and "kon-pan-tixun-wi" for 'student' is not
> only ugly, but it has the flavour of an unnecessarily formal
> circumlocution.  So for all your three reasons above, I'd
recommend
> having a separate root word for "learn".  Casting about in the
> languages I know best, I can't find a good source word in the
> Romance or Austronesian languages without foreign phonemes;
Semitic
> uses mostly triliteral roots; so I'd stick with Germanic and use,
> say, "lanu" for "learn".

An alternative is to form a two-term compound, such as we find in
Malay:
tahu        - know
dapat       - get, obtain
beri        - give
dapat tahu  - get to know, learn
beri tahu   - tell

But following this pattern (what IS the word for "get?)", we'd end
up with a word probably even longer than "kon-pan-tixun-wi" ... :-(

At the risk of boring you, I'd like to show you the most productive
patterns in Malay for forming derivatives, which gives us the
commoner term for "learn", namely "belajar".  It starts with a
root /ajar/ (learning), then adds various affixes, such as -
1.  /beR-/ which takes the form /bel-/ before a vowel, to create a
verb "possessing" the root:
  /belajar/ (learn);
2.  /peR-/ which takes the form /pel-/ before a vowel, to create a
noun subject of the verb in /beR-/:
  /pelajar/ (learner, student);
3.  /meN-/ which takes the form /mem-/ before /p/, /meny-/
replacing /s/ and /meng-/ before a vowel (some other sound changes
also occur), to create a verb "donating" the root:
  /mengajar/ (teach);
4.  /mempeR-/+/-i/, to create a verb giving the status of the
derived noun in 2.:
  /mempelajari/ (study);
5.  /meN-/+/-kan/ to create a causative or transitive verb:
  /mengajarkan/ (instruct);
6.  /peR-/+/-an/, to create an abstract noun from the root:
  /pelajaran/ (learning).

The point I'd most like you to notice about these derivations is the
compactness of the results.  For example, going from /ajar/
to /pelajar/ involves adding one syllable of three phonemes.
Contrast this with Konya's scheme of taking "pan-tixu" into "kon-pan-
tixun-wi", which involves adding two syllables of five phonemes.

Derivational practice in other Austronesian languages - Kadazan,
Iban, and so on - follows similar lines. (Tho Cham tends to form
compounds more along the lines of the /beri tahu/ model I quoted
earlier.)  So I think we might (if we really want to) be able to
find a slightly more compact way of deriving words from roots in
Konya than at present.

Regards,
Yahya

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, Jim Henry
<jimhenry1973@g...>
> wrote:
> > On 10/2/05, HandyDad <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> >
> ---SNIP---
> > Just because "put" and "steal" don't have ditransitive forms
> > in English, doesn't mean they could not have such in
> > a conlang.  Indeed, depending on the criteria for defining
> > ditransitivity, their equivalents may have ditransitive forms
> > in a number of natlangs.  But perhaps it makes
> > sense to just use prepositions for all secondary
> > verb arguments, even if they such secondary
> > arguments are mandatory.
>
> Quite so. Just as in natlangs, I doubt I'll be able to avoid some
> ditransitives carrying more information about their secondary
object
> roles ('to give') and some less ('to put'). I don't want the
burden
> of having to get it all perfect. And even if I did, it wouldn't
stay
> that way for long. I hope.
>
> ---larry
>

Look on it another way.  Even tho many natlangs have ditransitive
verbs, most of them can express the same meaning by using the verb
as a [mono-]transitive, then adding a prepositional phrase to relate
the indirect object in a more specific way.  "I gave my love a red,
red rose" may be poetry, but it's slightly ambiguous; while "I gave
a red rose to my love" is unequivocal prose.  Restoring
the "missing" preposition simplifies analysis.

You've deliberately avoided the multiple case nightmare of IE;
bravo!  If you acknowledge ditransitives as a special case (sorry
about the pun), you'd really need to divide them into a number of
classes, depending on the appropriate "missing" preposition - in
essence, on the case.  So we'd be right back in a mess of cases.
Whereas it's far simpler to invent a dozen or so prepositions to
deal with the various rôles of all the referents in the sentence.  I
suggest you don't NEED any ditransitives at all.

Regards,
Yahya

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
>
> I've updated the Babel text. I incorporated the general first person
> plural pronoun "min-min-wi" and changed the third person pronoun
> to "kusi". I also changed "xun-yo" = 'from' to "xain-yo" because
> otherwise it rhymed with "tun-yo" = 'to'. Otherwise, I let it stand
in
> concord with the current version of the sentences and explanation.
>
> Something troublesome arose in the Babel text: the adverb 'there'
> (meaning 'at that place') becomes "xain-yo lun-tisen-wi", which seems
> excessively verbose. Should I be bothered? If so, any suggestions for
> cutting down on the syllable count?
>
Hi Larry,

Can you think of any natlang that uses words of more than two syllables
for here and there, this and that?  I can't.

Ignoring nouns, most natlangs seem to have short words for pronouns
(both relative and personal) and for the commonest verbs and
adjectives, especially the auxiliary verbs.  When building vocabulary,
I'd suggest that any conlang you want to get many people to speak
should do likewise.  Do you have a few unused disyllables to spare for
here and there, this and that?

Regards,
Yahya

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
wrote:
> > The new version of Konya moves away from bound morphemes. Even
> > common suffixes like "wi" and "yu" (noun and verb conversion
> markers) are
> > compounded rather than bound. I did this to double the limited
> supply of short
> > functionals, frankly. For example, standalone "yo" is the spoken
> comma and
> > subordinate clause marker, while compounded "yo" is the
preposition
> > conversion marker.
> >
> > But I haven't gone all the way.  "mawe" and "kawe" (ordinality
and
> cardinality
> > suffixes), for example, are bound.
> >
> > Should I go all the way for consistency's sake? Or should I back
> off to a
> > different balance between bound and non-bound functionals?
>
> I experimented with a completely unbound language a time or so.
It's
> interesting, but I'm not sure it's practical.

Hi Steve!

Where's the impracticality?

Regards,
Yahya


> ... On the other hand, a
> compounded form should be close in meaning and function to the non-
> compounded form.
>
> Also, remember that real languages aren't 100% consistent. A
language
> that is (or seems to be) will seem fake.
>
> Steve
>

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
> > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
wrote:
> > > I generally feel that head-initial is a bit more logical than
head-
> > final. However,
> > > I'm considering moving Konya towards head-final (except for
> > subordinate
> > > clauses). Here's why:
> > >
> > > 1) Morphotactically, compound words need to be head-final. I
think
> > it would
> > > be better if phrases mirrored that.
> >
> > It's possible to have head-initial compounds; it just seems
weird.
>
> The reason I say that is that the headword of a compound is likely
to carry the right kind
> of grammar marker for the compound as a whole. So "xelen-paipi"
> 'yellow-bird' >
> 'canary' is a better compound than "paipin-xelen-wi" > 'bird-
yellow-{noun.marker}' >
> 'canary'. It doesn't 'need' to be head-final, it's just more
desirable.

Let's parse a sentence of Malay: "Burung kakak tua itu kuning."
Word by word, it means "((Bird (older-sibling old)) that) yellow."
What it really means is "That cockatoo is yellow."  "Cockatoo" is
derivationally, the "(old older-sibling) bird".  See how the Malay
proceeds in exactly the reverse order to English?  It comes from the
basic head-initial idea: state the most important thing first, then
the next most, etc.  But you knew this, didn't you? :-)  From years
of speaking Malay, I know I find its word order more logical and
satisfying than that of Englsih (which is my L1).  And the
exceptional adjectives in Romance languages that must precede the
noun simply defy logic.

Now let's turn to Konya.  The difference here is that we can't just
say either "paipi xelen" or "xelen paipi"; you need a noun-marker "[-
w]i" at the end of the compound.  I note also that the head-initial
form *"paipin-xelen-wi" is longer than your chosen "xelen-paipi".

What would you say to either *"paipin-xeleni" or *"paipin-xeli"
instead?  (Depending on whether the root for "yellow" is "xelen"
or "xele".)


> > > 2) Head-initial languages like the Romance languages tend to
have
> > an
> > > important minority of adjectives that need to precede their
nouns.
> > In that
> > > sense they are slightly head-final.
> >
> > But then you have languages such as Vietnamese and Indonesian
that
> > are pretty consistently head-initial, even to postposing
determiners.
> >
> > > 3) English and the Chinese languages, among many others, are
head-
> > final
> > > WRT nouns and adjectives. That's a big fraction of the world
that
> > is used to
> > > that word order. (English isn't too fussy about adverb/verb
order;
> > are the
> > > Chineses?)
> >
> > Now we're playing with numbers. (Not that it's bad.) Okay, then,
I
> > would claim that all Indo-European languages are at least
secretly
> > head final. (Pause for screams...) I know that people drawing up
> > grammars would say that even English is (at deep level) head-
initial,
> > but at a real-world level, even Spanish, for example, isn't as
> > solidly head-initial as you might think. (The more distinctive
item,
> > noun or adjective, tends to come last.)
>
> I've read about how certain other features tend to go with head-
initial or head-final
> (postpositions versus prepositions, etc.) but I'm not interested
in adhering to such
> descriptive rules unless they have advantages. I'm okay with
modifiers preceding nouns
> and verbs, yet still using prepositions rather than postpositions,
and still having relative
> clauses follow nouns rather than precede them.

Again, from my experience with several Austronesian languages, the
thoroughgoing head-initial structure is simple enough in practice.
Any mixture of the two approaches will cause confusion for learners.


> > > 4) Numbers would then precede their nouns, which AFAIK is like
most
> > > languages regardless of their head-final/initial class.

Also AFAIK.


> >
> > Playing with numbers again, though in a different sense. This is
the
> > strongest argument, in my opinion. While there are languages
that
> > have or allow noun-number, numbers are very likely to precede.
> >
> > Another point that hardly anyone deals with is classifiers:
words
> > that chaperone the number so it doesn't get too friendly with
the
> > noun, as in "four *head* of cattle." These measure words are
very
> > common in a number of unrelated Asian languages.
>
> A Konya-predecessor did use a particle for this purpose. I didn't
mind it. But I don't think
> Konya has need of it.

Hmmm ... one of the reasons for these "numeral classifiers"
or "numeral coefficients" is that enables the speaker to identify,
not only the kind of object referenced, but more importantly the
kind of relationship that object has to the speaker.  So (again in
Malay) "se-ekor lembu" (one tail of cattle) and "se-orang petani"
(one person farmer), can both be referred to subsequently using the
same word "itu", but meaning either "it" or "he" in English.  It's
simply disrespectful to call a person "petani" without first
mentioning the more important fact that he's a person (that head-
inital thing again!)  I guess I'm asking for a little caution in
building into the language a disregard of what may be important
cultural distinctions for some speakers.  For even when the whole
world is talking Konya, I don't think we will see all cultural
differences disappear.


> >
> > > 5) Having auxiliary verbs precede the main verb, as Konya does
now,
> > would
> > > then seem sensible; currently it seems contrary.
> >
> > Again, they can follow, especially if they are interpreted as
adverbs.
>
> I tried it, and it messed up my head. Logically it was fine. But
it was weird to this poor
> English-speaking wretch.

Reform, like charity, begins at home? :-)


> > > None of these reasons is overwhelming. Taken together, do they
make
> > a case
> > > for changing the word order?
> >
> > It all depends how weird (relative to English and other familiar
> > languages) you want to get. Personally, I've no major problem
either
> > way. Most of my projects are (in a vague/weak sense) Euroclones,
so I
> > take the head-final route.
>
> I don't want to get weird. I want to do the best I can to create a
reasonably comprehensive
> grammar that will be graspable by as many people as possible.

In that case, I'd go unequivocally head-initial, without
exceptions.  All those Austronesian languages are proof that it can
be done.


> ... It's a little embarassing to
> admit, but I worry that if I stray too far from what I personally
am comfortable with, I'm
> going to muck things up. Modifiers following nouns doesn't bug me,
but numbers
> following nouns does, a little, and auxiliary verbs following main
verbs does, a lot (which
> is why that's an area of inconsistency in Konya currently). So I
find myself falling back to
> English structures in some cases.
>
> ---larry
>

Best
Yahya

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
> > --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
wrote:
> > > Here are few of my burning questions or issues:
> > >
> > > 1) "kon-pan-tixun-wi" for 'student' is way ugly. Do we really
need
> > to
> > > build 'learn' from 'teach' or vice versa? Is the 'opposite'
> > > marker "pa" appropriate for this use? How many verb pairs like
this
> > > are there, anyway?
> >
> > Rick Morneau has a lot to say about "opposites," and while some
of it
> > is hair-splitting, the opposite of teaching would be sucking
> > knowledge out of someone's brain. (Imagine a kid watching TV
over
> > summer vacation.) The relationship between teaching and learning
is
> > more reciprocal.
> >
> > One of Ido's few real improvements over Eo is in having separate
> > forms for some mal- words (though even Eo doesn't have ?
malinstrui
> > for lerni), though there is also more pressure to use such extra
> > forms. A course between Eo and Ido would be wise.
>
> Okay. I'd like to allow separate forms to develop naturally but
where a "pan-" form is (a) a
> monstrosity, (b) very frequently used, or (c) not truly
representing a 'binary' opposite, I'll
> reserve the right to present a separate form right off the bat.
>
Seconded!  Frequency of use will put pressure on common words to
shorten in some way, and "kon-pan-tixun-wi" for 'student' is not
only ugly, but it has the flavour of an unnecessarily formal
circumlocution.  So for all your three reasons above, I'd recommend
having a separate root word for "learn".  Casting about in the
languages I know best, I can't find a good source word in the
Romance or Austronesian languages without foreign phonemes; Semitic
uses mostly triliteral roots; so I'd stick with Germanic and use,
say, "lanu" for "learn".


> > > 2) I decided that Konya couldn't have predicate adjectives.
So 'the
> > > cat was green' is "koti kalune wa pose" [lit. 'cat green is
past'].
> > > My sense was that "pose" needs to modify the copula
while "kalune"
> > > needs to modify "koti". But the copula is establishing an
> > equivalency
> > > anyway, so is this distinction important? Would this be so
> > > wrong: "koti wa pose kalune"?
> >
> > I've been busy for a couple months now, and I've lost track of
what
> > happened derivationally. If "kalune" remains an adjective or
> > substantivizes as "the green [thing]," there should be no
problem. If
> > it means "greenness/the color green," then there is a problem.
> > (There's also the syntactical issue of whether it can be seen as
> > modifying "pose" or "wa pose"; I'm not sure of the syntax
anymore,
> > either.)
>
> "kalune" remains definitively an adjective, even in the
predicate. "kalunen-wi" (or
> "kalunenwi" -- see neartime post) is 'greenness'. And, as a
modifier, it has to modify a
> noun or verb, _or_ the copula, unless it is hyphenated to another
modifier. So I guess I
> don't see a problem with "koti wa pose kalune" anymore.
>
> --larry
>

Stripping this back by removing the time marker, should we have the
sentence "koti kalune wa" or the sentence "koti kalune"?  Or
even "koti wa kalune" (following your comment about SVO order on the
Samples page)?  I'm not clear that the "wa" is essential here ...

Yahya

On 10/3/05, HandyDad <lsulky@...> wrote:

>.........I don't want the burden
> of having to get it all perfect. And even if I did, it wouldn't stay
> that way for long. I hope.

No; if it stayed perfect, that would mean no one was
using it.

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@g...>
wrote:
> On 10/2/05, HandyDad <lsulky@r...> wrote:
>
---SNIP---
> Just because "put" and "steal" don't have ditransitive forms
> in English, doesn't mean they could not have such in
> a conlang.  Indeed, depending on the criteria for defining
> ditransitivity, their equivalents may have ditransitive forms
> in a number of natlangs.  But perhaps it makes
> sense to just use prepositions for all secondary
> verb arguments, even if they such secondary
> arguments are mandatory.

Quite so. Just as in natlangs, I doubt I'll be able to avoid some
ditransitives carrying more information about their secondary object
roles ('to give') and some less ('to put'). I don't want the burden
of having to get it all perfect. And even if I did, it wouldn't stay
that way for long. I hope.

---larry

On 10/2/05, HandyDad <lsulky@...> wrote:

> 'PUT':
>
> 'I put.' Incomplete. First question: What did I put? 'I put an
> apple.' Incomplete. Second question: Where did I put it? 'I put an
> apple by the woman.' Complete. Ditransitive form: none. We cannot
> use 'put' ditransitively (without a preposition on the indirect
> object). Yet 'put' absolutely demands two objects. Ditransitive? I
> don't know.
>
> 'STEAL':
>
> 'I stole.' Incomplete. First question: What did I steal? 'I stole an
> apple.' Complete, but let's carry on. Second (optional) question:
> From whom did you steal it? 'I stole an apple from the woman'. Quite
> complete. Ditransitive form: 'I stole the woman an apple.' Hold it!
> When we move the indirect object to precede the direct object, and
> remove its preposition, its role changes from target to beneficiary!
> Ditransitive? I don't know. The second object doesn't have to be

Just because "put" and "steal" don't have ditransitive forms
in English, doesn't mean they could not have such in
a conlang.  Indeed, depending on the criteria for defining
ditransitivity, their equivalents may have ditransitive forms
in a number of natlangs.  But perhaps it makes
sense to just use prepositions for all secondary
verb arguments, even if they such secondary
arguments are mandatory.

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/review/log.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> ---SNIP---

I've decided to ditch the overt ditransitive idea. I'll use a
functional as a one-syllable generic preposition, but verbs will take
typical prepositions to help complete their meaning, even if they are
ditransitive. I'll just have to be sure that I'm clear on the meanings
of the prepositions. 'I give an apple to the woman' will use a
preposition for 'to' that is appropriate for the recipients of
transactions...or allow the generic preposition.

Actually, I might need two generic prepositions...one a stand-in for
another preposition that the speaker chooses not to use, the other
where a preposition is needed but the exact meaning isn't clear. Or
maybe they can be the same word....I'll think on/of/at/about it.

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
---SNIP---
>
> But I'm noticing that several of the most common verbs in English
and in other
> languages are ditransitive. And in each case, the semantic role
played by the second (or
> indirect) object is just as constrained -- or built-in to the verb,
I guess I should say -- as
> the first (or direct) object. For example, in 'I gave the cat to
the woman', the semantic role
> of 'the woman' is clear. The phrase doesn't really need 'to' to
clarify the verb-object
> relationship, since it's built into the verb. This is why we see
alternative phrasing like 'I
> gave the woman the cat'.

Here's a conceptual bump in the road, probably caused by my not
understanding how a verb qualifies for ditransitive status, or what
the forms of objects on a ditransitive verb properly are, or both.

'GIVE':

'I gave.' Incomplete. First question: What did I give? 'I gave an
apple.' Incomplete without context. Second question: To whom did I
give it? 'I gave an apple to the woman.' Complete. Ditransitive
(prepositionless) form: 'I gave the woman an apple.' Ditransitive?
Yes, since it takes two objects to complete the meaning, and the two
objects can be arrayed without prepositions; the verb 'give' itself
carries the role meanings of these objects.

'PUT':

'I put.' Incomplete. First question: What did I put? 'I put an
apple.' Incomplete. Second question: Where did I put it? 'I put an
apple by the woman.' Complete. Ditransitive form: none. We cannot
use 'put' ditransitively (without a preposition on the indirect
object). Yet 'put' absolutely demands two objects. Ditransitive? I
don't know.

'STEAL':

'I stole.' Incomplete. First question: What did I steal? 'I stole an
apple.' Complete, but let's carry on. Second (optional) question:
From whom did you steal it? 'I stole an apple from the woman'. Quite
complete. Ditransitive form: 'I stole the woman an apple.' Hold it!
When we move the indirect object to precede the direct object, and
remove its preposition, its role changes from target to beneficiary!
Ditransitive? I don't know. The second object doesn't have to be
there, and when it is, it doesn't play the expected role. Does this
mean that the second question should have been: 'For whom did you
steal it?' Is the beneficiary, in fact, the second-most semantically
apparent role of 'steal', rather than the target as I assumed above?
Is this all influenced by the fact that the beneficiary of 'steal'
usually is the actor?

Thanks for any thoughts.
--larry

testtesttest

In a much earlier incarnation of Konya I had allowed the form CSV for
functionals. Later,
that form didn't work so well with the developing morphology and I had dropped
it.

Now, with the new morphology, that form works again. Formally, the form for
functionals
could become: (Ca)*C?SV. (I would need to exclude "n" from the consonant-before-
semivowel position to avoid conflict with the compounding hyphen.) So in
addition to "yo"
and "kayo", for example, we could also have "kyo" and "nakyo".

This significantly increases the number of single-syllable functionals
available, which in
turn makes it possible to handle some word classes as functionals that I
currently handle
otherwise. I wouldn't mind making personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, and
interjections into functionals, for example.

One of the reasons I had dropped this form -- about a year ago, I think -- was
that I
wanted mostly wide-open, pure syllables. (There was also a logic-based reason,
but I
don't remember what it was.) But I've been moving a little away from that in the
phonological developments of the past few months, and I don't think syllables
like "kyo" or
"mwa" are too great a burden.

Comments?

--larry

Up to now I've avoided special treatment for ditransitives, figuring that the
second object
pretty much needed a preposition to establish the relationship between the verb
and the
second object, and figuring that they were a small minority of verbs.

But I'm noticing that several of the most common verbs in English and in other
languages are ditransitive. And in each case, the semantic role played by the
second (or
indirect) object is just as constrained -- or built-in to the verb, I guess I
should say -- as
the first (or direct) object. For example, in 'I gave the cat to the woman', the
semantic role
of 'the woman' is clear. The phrase doesn't really need 'to' to clarify the
verb-object
relationship, since it's built into the verb. This is why we see alternative
phrasing like 'I
gave the woman the cat'.

I'm thinking about having a second-object marker in Konya that would stand in
for what
would otherwise be a preposition -- often an idiomatic preposition at that. It
would be the
same marker for 'to steal' as it would be for 'to give'. I'm thinking of using
"ye" (which is
currently in use for 'and'):

"minwi tonu koti ye mon-suki"
'I give cat to woman'

"minwi satilu koti ye mon-suki"
'I steal cat from woman'

(I just made up a word for 'steal' for this example.)

I think this will save the odd syllable, but more importantly will sidestep the
sometimes
thorny issue of what preposition to use to mark a second (not an oblique)
object.
Comments?

--larry

I've updated the Babel text. I incorporated the general first person
plural pronoun "min-min-wi" and changed the third person pronoun
to "kusi". I also changed "xun-yo" = 'from' to "xain-yo" because
otherwise it rhymed with "tun-yo" = 'to'. Otherwise, I let it stand in
concord with the current version of the sentences and explanation.

Something troublesome arose in the Babel text: the adverb 'there'
(meaning 'at that place') becomes "xain-yo lun-tisen-wi", which seems
excessively verbose. Should I be bothered? If so, any suggestions for
cutting down on the syllable count?

--larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> > The new version of Konya moves away from bound morphemes. Even
> > common suffixes like "wi" and "yu" (noun and verb conversion
> markers) are
> > compounded rather than bound. I did this to double the limited
> supply of short
> > functionals, frankly. For example, standalone "yo" is the spoken
> comma and
> > subordinate clause marker, while compounded "yo" is the preposition
> > conversion marker.
> >
> > But I haven't gone all the way.  "mawe" and "kawe" (ordinality and
> cardinality
> > suffixes), for example, are bound.
> >
> > Should I go all the way for consistency's sake? Or should I back
> off to a
> > different balance between bound and non-bound functionals?
>
> I experimented with a completely unbound language a time or so. It's
> interesting, but I'm not sure it's practical. On the other hand, a
> compounded form should be close in meaning and function to the non-
> compounded form.

I did try to have the conversion suffixes and their free counterparts be
semantically related
in some way, but honestly, it's pure artifice. I just need those extra
functionals. Maybe this
can count as some of Konya's desirable esthetic inconsistency. :-) But I should
come clean
in the explanations: 'There are a few productive compounded suffixes that bear
little or no
semantic relation to their free counterparts -- "~nyo" and "yo", for example.
They are
entirely independent of one another."

>
> Also, remember that real languages aren't 100% consistent. A language
> that is (or seems to be) will seem fake.
>

I'd like to start out as consistently as I can. Konya might then develop
independently of me
and acquire those inconsistencies naturally.

---larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> > I generally feel that head-initial is a bit more logical than head-
> final. However,
> > I'm considering moving Konya towards head-final (except for
> subordinate
> > clauses). Here's why:
> >
> > 1) Morphotactically, compound words need to be head-final. I think
> it would
> > be better if phrases mirrored that.
>
> It's possible to have head-initial compounds; it just seems weird.

The reason I say that is that the headword of a compound is likely to carry the
right kind
of grammar marker for the compound as a whole. So "xelen-paipi" > 'yellow-bird'
>
'canary' is a better compound than "paipin-xelen-wi" >
'bird-yellow-{noun.marker}' >
'canary'. It doesn't 'need' to be head-final, it's just more desirable.

>
> > 2) Head-initial languages like the Romance languages tend to have
> an
> > important minority of adjectives that need to precede their nouns.
> In that
> > sense they are slightly head-final.
>
> But then you have languages such as Vietnamese and Indonesian that
> are pretty consistently head-initial, even to postposing determiners.
>
> > 3) English and the Chinese languages, among many others, are head-
> final
> > WRT nouns and adjectives. That's a big fraction of the world that
> is used to
> > that word order. (English isn't too fussy about adverb/verb order;
> are the
> > Chineses?)
>
> Now we're playing with numbers. (Not that it's bad.) Okay, then, I
> would claim that all Indo-European languages are at least secretly
> head final. (Pause for screams...) I know that people drawing up
> grammars would say that even English is (at deep level) head-initial,
> but at a real-world level, even Spanish, for example, isn't as
> solidly head-initial as you might think. (The more distinctive item,
> noun or adjective, tends to come last.)

I've read about how certain other features tend to go with head-initial or
head-final
(postpositions versus prepositions, etc.) but I'm not interested in adhering to
such
descriptive rules unless they have advantages. I'm okay with modifiers preceding
nouns
and verbs, yet still using prepositions rather than postpositions, and still
having relative
clauses follow nouns rather than precede them.

>
> > 4) Numbers would then precede their nouns, which AFAIK is like most
> > languages regardless of their head-final/initial class.
>
> Playing with numbers again, though in a different sense. This is the
> strongest argument, in my opinion. While there are languages that
> have or allow noun-number, numbers are very likely to precede.
>
> Another point that hardly anyone deals with is classifiers: words
> that chaperone the number so it doesn't get too friendly with the
> noun, as in "four *head* of cattle." These measure words are very
> common in a number of unrelated Asian languages.

A Konya-predecessor did use a particle for this purpose. I didn't mind it. But I
don't think
Konya has need of it.

>
> > 5) Having auxiliary verbs precede the main verb, as Konya does now,
> would
> > then seem sensible; currently it seems contrary.
>
> Again, they can follow, especially if they are interpreted as adverbs.

I tried it, and it messed up my head. Logically it was fine. But it was weird to
this poor
English-speaking wretch.

>
> > None of these reasons is overwhelming. Taken together, do they make
> a case
> > for changing the word order?
>
> It all depends how weird (relative to English and other familiar
> languages) you want to get. Personally, I've no major problem either
> way. Most of my projects are (in a vague/weak sense) Euroclones, so I
> take the head-final route.

I don't want to get weird. I want to do the best I can to create a reasonably
comprehensive
grammar that will be graspable by as many people as possible. It's a little
embarassing to
admit, but I worry that if I stray too far from what I personally am comfortable
with, I'm
going to muck things up. Modifiers following nouns doesn't bug me, but numbers
following nouns does, a little, and auxiliary verbs following main verbs does, a
lot (which
is why that's an area of inconsistency in Konya currently). So I find myself
falling back to
English structures in some cases.

---larry