Log in

No account? Create an account
Title of the Page
Random Walking Fluffster's Brain
Languary: Days Eight & Nine 
8th-Feb-2016 12:53 am
Pithani the Librarian Mouse

Continuing my backlog of unposted days (which is rapidly running low)... As was pointed out in my prior post, Language + February also condenses to Languary, so word formation says I'm not late finishing Languary. (technically correct, the best kind of correct)


The previous day introduced "to" the habitual aspect marker. OL has (but is probably not limited to) the following grammatical aspects:

* [Perfective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect)
* Abbreviated "PFV" when shown in glosses
* An event as a whole
* Does not carry a tense value, the event may have occurred in the far past, have just been completed at the moment of speech, or be yet to occur in the future.
* OL's default aspect, when there is no aspect particle it's considered a Perfective verb
* [Perfect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_%28grammar%29)
* Abbreviated "PERF" in glosses
* A whole event, differing from perfective in focusing on the result.
* The Wikipedia example is, "I have made dinner" in which the action of making dinner is complete but the focus is on the result of the action.
* Past tense is loosely implied *but can refer to future completed actions*.
* [Imperfective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfective_aspect)
* Abbreviated "IPFV" in glosses
* An ongoing action, one that is not complete
* [Habitual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitual_aspect)
* Represented by the "to" particle
* Abbreviated "HAB" in glosses
* Something the actor regularly does, a habit of the actor


OL Verbs are not directly marked for tense. However, an aspect marker can be paired up with a tense marker. Tenses include:

* Present
* Recent/immediate past (from beginning of day to shortly before present)(I read about this one shortly before writing this and said, "I want this tense!")
* Older than immediate past
* Future

##Random Grammer

###Steal- er, Borrowing from David Peterson (AKA, On the 9th I spent bunches of time reading Wikipedia and David Peterson's book)

In Peterson's, The Art of Language Invention, there is a section dealing with the order of things. That is, the order of Verb/Subject/Object, Nouns and Adjectives, Nouns and Genitives, Adpositions and Nouns, and Nouns/Relative Clauses. If you're familiar with the Traveller RPG the order of these things can be listed like a Traveller Universal World Profile (where a single line tells you the world name, location, basic planetary physical profile, population, government form, etc). Peterson lists two ideal orders depending on whether a language is Head Initial or Head Final, and back on day for OL was declared to be Head First. I'll be a little bland here and just go with the suggested idea orders (unless of course I decide to change something later on).

So OL will be: V-O, N-A, N-G, P-N, N-R, or...

* Verbs (V) before Objects (O)
* Nouns (N) preceed the Adjectives (A) that modify them
* The possessor (Genitive) follows the think possessed (N)
* Adpositions (P) precede Noun Phrases (N)
* Nouns (N) precede Relative Clauses \(R)

Linguistic Vocabulary time!

* **[Genitive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case)**: Genitive at the most simple deals with possessing. In, "The Car's battery," the car is the genitive part. The battery belongs to the car. This relationship as you can see in the example is marked with the -'s that's tacked onto the noun that does the possessing. The Wikipedia page for Genitive Case lists other things that languages might use genitive case/marking for such as one things being composed of another thing, participation in an action, the origin of something, etc.
* **[Adpositions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preposition_and_postposition)**: The broader definition for what we think of when we say prepositions in talking about English grammer. In the following samples the items marked in italics are adpositions (the linked Wikipedia page tells more):
* "The book is *under* the table."
* "The dust storm is heading *towards* the city."
* "Yogurt *with* live cultures."
* "Tempt me *with* language books."
* **[Relative Clauses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause)**: At the most simple a clause modifying a noun or noun phrase. (Oh hey, once again there is a link to more)
* **[Pro-drop language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language)**: Nope, you're right this didn't show up above, but it's something I came across. Pro-drop languages are those in which you can drop the pronoun if it can be inferred. English is an example of a **Non**-pro-drop language. Even if I spend a whole paragraph talking about nothing but *my* things it will still look non-grammatical if I don't say, "*My* book," when I bring up a book. What languages are pro-drop? According to the Wikipedia page linked to above: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Slavic languages, and American Sign Language. Meanwhile the romance languages may be partially pro-drop. I haven't decided where OL is yet on the subject of droppiness.

I'm also pondering a nice complex article system as opposed to English's sparse: The, a, an. This might or might not render those previous example sentences in the Day Seven post ungrammatical. Such is progress. :)

Note: Peterson's book is a good read, with many examples and sprinkled with humor. Recommended, whether purchased or borrowed from the library.

(This is a crossposting | comment count unavailable replies at the original post on dreamwidth | Comment at dreamwidth | You can comment on DW posts even if you don't have an account there Using OpenID!)
This page was loaded Jun 20th 2018, 3:21 am GMT.