Archive for the ‘grammar’ Category

Real Language Examples: Discongruence in Swedish

Wednesday, March 18th, 2020
One reason I am taking many examples from Swedish is the fact that most readers know English. (How's that for an understatement.) The grammar of Swedish is in many ways very similar to English. Sure, the morphology differs in many ways - but  the number of things morphologically expressed does not differ by any great amount. In simple terms: it takes very little work to explain a basic part of Swedish grammar to someone who knows English and is interested in linguistics.

Finnish or Russian will take more effort.

So, now that's out of the world, let's go to the topic of the day: congruence and discongruence. Turns out Swedish can be said to have a few different discongruences:
  1. Gender discongruence in verb phrases with copulas. This communicates some information about how the noun and adjective relate but is strongly restricted as to when it can be used. 
  2. Gender discongruence with the masculine -e, which sometimes can be used with reference to gender-neutral nouns that are known to refer to a woman, in certain circumstances.
  3. Definiteness discongruence, alternatively not really a discongruence but something that looks like it.
  4. Two adjectives that have a weird orthographic quirk that causes a seeming failure to mark congruence, but in most speakers' intuition and reading do mark congruence.
  5. Adjectives that conflate some or all forms
  6. Adjectiveswith morphological gaps.
In addition, we will look at the curiosity of "liten" and "små", a suppletive adjective whose cognates in English should be fairly obvious.

We shall begin by surveing the Swedish congruence system with regards to adjectives and determiners.

The Swedish gender system
Swedish has a gender system that can be described as follows:
[neuter]    vs.    [masculine, feminine and common]
The masculine, feminine and common mostly take the same congruence markers, with -e being a somewhat restricted masculine marker (-a can almost always replace it, though).

A similar gender system has emerged in some other Scandinavian languages and in Dutch. Many Swedish and Norwegian dialects retain the three-gender system of old Norse (and proto-Germanic, and Indo-European ...). What happened in Swedish, Danish, some Norwegian and Dutch is that inanimate nouns were ousted from the masculine and feminine genders, but were not welcomed into the neuter gender. A new "common" gender was formed. In the North Germanic languages, the common gender therefore shows some similarities with the masculine and feminine genders. However, it also shows some similarities with the neuter gender (e.g. sharing the genitive pronoun 'dess', and having de- as the root for the pronouns, det being neuter, den common, c.f. masculine and feminine han and hon).

The Swedish noun phrase congruence system
In the noun phrase, articles and pronominal determiners always inflect for the gender of the noun:
en bil, ett hus, en man, ett tak. (A car, a house, a man, a roof).

With indefinite nouns, adjectives take similar suffixes:
en röd bil, en grön bil, en gammal bil (a red|green|old car)
ett vitt hus, ett grönt hus, ett gammalt hus (a white|green|old house)
en röd man, en grön man, en gammal man (a red|green|old man)
ett rött tak, ett grönt tak, ett gammalt tak (... roof).

Most pronominal determiners also take the same markers
någon röd bil (some red car)
något vitt hus (some white house)
ingen röd bil (no red car)
inget rött hus (no red house)
en annan röd bil (another red car)
ett annat rött hus (another red house)
vilket rött hus (which red house)

The plural has the suffix -a, and usually no article:
röda bilar
röda hus
röda män
röda tak
Pronouns take similar -a forms: några (some, any), inga (no), andra (others), vilka (which). The -a forms for pronouns are only used in the plural.

The -a-marker has a secondary role, though: adjectives in definite noun phrases. The North Germanic languages have definite article suffixes: bil-en - the car, hus-et - the house, hus-en - the houses, björnar-na - the bears. With some exceptions, one cannot just put an adjective before a definite noun - it requires a definite article to the left as well:
den nya, röda bilen (the new, red car)
det stora, vita huset (the big, white house)
de stora, vita husen

In German, noun phrases have an even more complex system than Swedish, with strong, weak and mixed adjectives behaving slightly different depending on whether the noun is preceded by one set, another set or no set of determiners. Case is also taken into account when selecting which suffix to use. Next up, we'll see the part of the grammar where Swedish is more complex than German.

The Swedish verb phrase congruence system
In German, adjectives with verbs like 'to be' and 'to become' are very easy: they just go in their most basic form.
Das Haus ist alt.
Der Mann ist alt.
Die Frau ist alt.
Die Männer sind alt.
Here, Swedish has a complication: the gender or number affects the adjective:
Huset är gammalt. (The house is old.)
Mannen är gammal. (The man is old.)
En kvinna är gammal. (A woman is old.)
Kvinnan är gammal. (The woman is old.)
Somliga män är gamla. (Some men are old.)
Männen är gamla. (The men are old.)
This holds regardless of the definiteness of the subject.

1. Congruence breaking with copulas
Common gender mass nouns, nouns denoting a material or abstract nouns in an indefinite, 'generic' type of reference often take neuter adjectives as complements of the copula, although this is not mandatory.  Examples:
Koppar är dyrt just nu.
Copper is expensive(neut) right now.
Ärter är gott.
Peas are tasty.

N.B. These examples are all taken from Svenska Akademiens Grammatik.
Koppar is a singular, common gender noun, so by the usual congruence rules, you'd get 'dyr'. Ärter is plural, so you would expect 'goda'. The aforementioned Svenska Akademiens Grammatik states that the likelihood of using neuter adjectives is lower the more of a 'description of function OR subjective evaluation' the statement is, and higher the more of a physical property it describes. 'Ärter är goda' does deviate from this, but again, this seems to be somewhat probabilistic statement.

Another use is when a noun can be replaced by a VP with 'have', 'give', 'get' or similar with the noun as the or object:
Kostym är snyggt.
Suit is good-looking
implicitly '(having a) suit (on) is good-looking.'
2. Congruence breaking within the NP
Previosuly, I described the distribution of three adjective forms: the unmarked, the -t and the -a form. There is a complication with the -a form: sometimes it can be replaced by the -e form, but this is almost entirely optional. The -e form normally can be used with masculine singulars. Ignoring that particular freedom is entirely possible for a competent speaker, and so there's no need to learn it. You could say 'den kompetenta läkaren' (the competent doctor) and get away with it. However, ... 'den kompetente läkaren' might signal a somewhat more conservative or educated register.

Crazy exception: a definite singular noun phrase with no noun, and a human referent. This corresponds to constructions such as 'the old one'. Regardless of gender, this must come out as 'den gamle'. There's an exception even there: when the noun is omitted by ellipsis in parallel constructions, -a is permissible - even for masculines. So, 'out of the sons, only the youngest one knew the answer', you can say 'av sönerna visste endast den yngsta/yngste svaret".

In addition, professional titles that are not explicitly feminine, and also human nouns ending in -are ('dansare', 'sångare', 'läkare' - dancer, singer, doctor), the -e form is sort of preferred when the gender is not specified. So even though -a i the gender neutral option, -e is preferred in gender-neutral contexts. ...

However! Crazy exception #2
Even when a gender-neutral title such as 'minister' or 'dancer' refers to a female, and is known by the speaker to do so, if the adjective "classifies" or "modifies the function", rather than "characterizes" the noun, -e is preferred. The examples are, again, from Svenska Akademiens Grammatik.

den nye/nya finske/finska utrikesminister-n Anna Lindblom
the new-masc finnish-masc foreign minister-(def) Anna Lindblom

den *trevlige/trevliga minister-n Anna Lindblom
the *kind-masc/kind-fem minister-(def) Anna Lindblom
den politiske/politiska fånge-n Violeta Jimenez
the political-masc/political-fem prisoner-(def) Violeta Jimenez
den svårt *sjuke/sjuka fånge-n Violeta Jimenez
the severely *sick-masc/sick-fem prisoner-(def) Violeta Jimenez
3. Definiteness discongruence
The adjective 'egen' (cognate to 'own') in educated speech is inflected according to the gender of the noun, and thus ignores definiteness. Normally, it does either occur with indefinite nouns or possessed nouns. With non-possessed definite nouns, it might actually prefer to use the definite -a form.

Remember, possessive pronouns trigger definite forms on the adjective (but not on the noun). (I lied a bit. Possessive pronouns trigger definite forms on the noun if they are right-dislocated: mitt hus (my house), but huset mitt (house-the my).

So, despite possessive pronouns usually forcing adjectives to take definite forms, these behave as follows, taking the indefinite, gender-marked forms instead:
mitt eget hus - my own house
din egen bil - your own car
våra egna vägar - our own roads/ways

You would very seldom come across
det egna huset
and the following form is downright wrong:
*det eget huset
But
ett eget hus / en egen bil
do occur, in contexts like 'I dream of a house of my own' - the 'my' would be superfluous in that context in Swedish. The adjective there is of course inflected as expected, as indefinite forms usually take the gender inflection on their adjectives.

However, the definiteness congruence is reinstated with right-dislocated possessive pronouns:
det egna huset mitt
Right-dislocated possessive pronouns are not exactly avoided in educated speech, but signal either dialectal background or a very conservative idiolect.

4. Orthographically quirky words
Since I do not hold the written language to be "the real language", I was a bit unsure whether this is real enough an example of discongruence to be included, but I decided to go for it anyway.

Two colours, orange and beige are unique among adjectives for having /ʃ/ (or if you're Swedish /ɕ/) written by <ge> in a word-final position. There are nouns (plantage, garage, dekolletage). It is generally held that writing beiʃa, beiʃe, beiʃt, oranʃa, oranʃe or oranʃt as <beigea, beigee, beigt or beiget, orangea, orangee, oranget or orangt> is unsatisfactory - it simply does not look very good.

In the spoken language this is not an issue, and the inflected forms are used, and are supposed to be used in correct Swedish. If one uses these adjectives in a position where they should have the -a/-e/-t forms, one is advised to write the uninflected form. When coming across them in writing, one is expected to read them in the correctly inflected form.

Personally, I decided - while writing this post - to solve this conundrum by writing the ʃ sound as -sj- in the inflected forms, but -ge- in the common gender uninflected form. (Thus orange, oransja, oransje, oransjt, beige, beisja, beisje, beisjt).

Writers are also suggested to use paraphrases like "orangefärgad/-färgat/-färgade" (= orange-coloured), or replace it with words like 'brandgul', 'apelsingul' or 'gulröd' (fire-yellow, orange*-yellow *=the fruit, yellow-red) whenever inflected.

5. Words that are morphologically indistinct (for all or some forms)
A few words lack distinct forms, including all present participles.
Ett rullande hjul (A rolling wheel)
En flygande pannkaka (A flying pancake)
Den sjungande barberaren (The singing barber)
Det brinnande huset (The burning house)
A pair of examples of their own type are the words "lätt" and "rätt" - easy, light (in weight) and "right": the neuter and common gender forms are identical, but the plural and definite form is 'lätta', "rätta".

'Different' - 'annorlunda' - is identical in all forms, and is thereby autological as far as morphological behavior goes. A few other adjectives fall in this class - 'enda' (only), 'noga' ('careful, scrupulous, meticulous'), 'barfota' (barefoot). A few other examples exist. One could potentially describe the adjectives that end in -a as having 'definiteness discongruence', but that feels like fudging it a bit too much.

6. Words with morphological gaps
A couple dozen adjectives ending in -t, -d or -dd, such as 'rädd' ('afraid') lack neuter forms - or neuter forms are at least strongly avoided by speakers. Plural forms are however permissible. Not all adjectives that end in -t, -d or -dd have this property though. The restriction only occurs with adjectives that semantically are restricted to animate nouns. However, some neuter nouns are animate.

These are distinct from category 4, on account of category 4 having all forms - tho' they are identical. These can only be used in slots where their available forms fit, whereas category 4 adjectives go in all slots, but morphologically conflate some slots.

7. Små vs Liten
This isn't really an example of discongruence, but tells us something about the congruence system in Swedish - essentially that the conflation of plural and definite is not complete, but only occurs on the surface.
This is also here to illustrate a non-semantic historic shift.

Liten has the following forms:
common: liten
neuter: litet
definite: lilla
definite masculine: lille
Notice a gap? Well, I've been somewhat remiss, in that I've not been consistent in providing the -a form with the label "plural and definite" consistently - this is exceptionally not available as an indefinite plural form!
The plural is små!

A full paradigm would actually be like this:
indefinite:
common: liten
neuter: litet (marginally also smått)
plural: små
definite:
common, neuter (, plural): lilla
solely plural: små
Thus, the plural congruence slot can take a form that common and neuter definite nouns cannot, thus illustrating that the conflation of the plural and the definite is somewhat superficial - there is at least this one lexeme that maintains a distinction between them.

Små- is also used as an element in compounds, regardless of number: småbarn (infants, lit. small-child), småsak ('a trifle', lit. small-thing), småsten ('small-stone'). To make the whole mess even greater, the comparative and superlative are formed from the root min- (mindre, minst), but there is also a parallel form 'smärre' that has some special connotations. (The superlative "smärst" is effectively extinct.) 

So, from the point of view of historical linguistics, English and Swedish share cognates 'little'/'liten' and 'small'/'små', but whereas English keeps both as perfectly nice synonyms with some minor differences in connotation and usage, Swedish has turned them into one single suppletive lexeme, where the suppletion is triggered by congruence-related concerns.

I am, however, under the impression that 'little' lacks entirely established comparatives and superlatives (littler, littlest being seen as either jocular or childish forms), and so the issue with smaller, smallest kind of serving as the comparative and superlative of both seems to say that English too has some level of conflation between the two words.

Detail #391: A Small Idea on Imperatives and Similar Moods

Wednesday, March 11th, 2020
Thinking about the Dairwueh 'preprepositional' slot, that in some prepositions in that language can be used for certain things, I came up with an idea that I almost decided to incorporate in Dairwueh, but then realized it does have enough split ergativity already thank you very much

Ok, so. Consider a situation wherein a type of imperative - not perhaps the one you'd use when rude or in a hurry, so not the "get out of of the way of that speeding dogsled!"-kind of imperative, but rather a more relaxed or formal imperative.

This could basically reuse some preposition, which would mark the subject and object (thus opening for optatives and subjunctives and the like!) 

However, prepositions kind of prefer being prepositions. So, in the case of there being no object, the subject becomes the object of the preposition.

Here is the intransitive construction, rendered with 'for' as the imperative marker:
Sleep, for you! ('Sleep!')
Run, for him! ('Would that he run!')
Now, the transitive case is where it gets interesting:
Compose you.nom for a song! ('Write a song!')
Learn he for a job ('Would that he learned a job!')
Now, variants of the language could of course deal differently with it, placing, for instance, the intransitive subject to the left anyway, or adding a dummy pronoun to the object side, or even making this an OPS thing (Object, preposition, subject), or a PSO thing (preposition, subject, object).

This could of course generalize in other ways, and other prepositions might start taking two arguments. In fact, just generally, I am sort of fascinated with the idea of adpositions with multiple arguments recently.

The Creation of Meaning

Sunday, March 1st, 2020

Olivia Nelson is a 17-year-old high school senior living in Pennsylvania. Her interest in language started at a young age as she began noticing the imprecision of English. As she learned more about the study of language, her education became more specific. She has recently focused in on etymology, language construction, and linguistics, while formally studying Chinese and American Sign Language. Today, she excels at providing unrequested lectures about linguistics to her classmates during their lunch period.

Abstract

In this presentation, The Creation of Meaning, Olivia Nelson reviews the process for creating a language, as well as the foundation of constructed languages. Her research, primarily using The Art of Language Invention by David J. Peterson and other scholarly texts, outlines the basics of creating a language to a lay audience. Within the presentation she explores what brings meaning to language, arguing that a dictionary is an outline for what a word means, and the true definition of the word lies in a culture’s repeated use in a consistent context.

Version History

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Detail #390: If and Whether: Making a Tripartitie Division Instead

Monday, February 10th, 2020
In English, the word "if" prototypically marks conditionals. However, it can also mark indirect questions as well as lack of knowledge about polar statements:
Do you know if he will arrive within the hour?
I don't know if he can make it.
This might be my non-nativeness that influences me, but it seems a positive statement about knowledge gets weird with 'if', and 'whether' would be preferrable:
?I do know if he can make it, but I won't tell you.
I do know whether he can make it, but I won't tell you.
Now, much as subordinating conjunctions like these offer up a rich vista of potential rules, what I really wanted to introduce here was a thing that certainly some language has done, and I bet it's not even all that unusual - but most readers are probably not aware of it.

Consider making a decision... whether to do something.
Decide if you want to sell it/whether you want to sell it.
This could quite naturally have its own conjunction - and naturally, these three could have some overlaps in certain syntactic and semantic contexts. 
Things that easily could affect their distribution are: verbal mood (especially conditional and imperative), negative, and potentially the verb of the matrix clause.

Further, one could of course have some subtle morphological variation on them depending on whether there's negatives involved, or whether the matrix clause has an imperative, etc.

Detail #389: A Differential Object Marking System with a Minor Twist

Sunday, February 9th, 2020
Let us posit a language with a malefactive and a benefactive case. The benefactive is used for indirect objects that receive benefits from the action, whereas the malefactive marks objects - both direct and indirect - that are detrimentally affected by the act.

Other direct objects are marked by the accusative.

As a side note: the numbering's been off for a while, due to some overlap at one part of hte indexing. I will correct them once I find the time.

Dothraki Relative Clause Structure

Saturday, February 1st, 2020

Caroline Elizabeth Melton has a BS in biology from the University of Memphis and an MA in linguistics from Stony Brook University. Currently a PhD student in biology and bioinformatics at the University of Memphis, she looks for any excuse to compare language change to biological evolution, to the exhaust of her professors.

Abstract

In this analysis, I aim to objectively assess the claim that Dothraki is a naturalistic language by comparing its case system and relative clause structures to known morphological and syntactic universals common to natural language.

Version History

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Real Language Examples II: Germanic Reflexives and some Issues in Swedish

Monday, January 20th, 2020
So, welcome back to this, the least didactically structured Swedish course ever, where we start out looking at the deep end of complex structures and never ever progress to anything basic like introducing yourself or saying that the house over there is red with white corners. And for convenience, some of this will be carried out using English vocabulary anyway so no need to worry.

No, I admit there will be a lot of Swedish here right now - when I've exhausted that particular ore deposit of interesting nuggets I'll go on to Finnish or some other language that happens to catch my fancy.

Let's get on with it. The preamble sets out the basic grammar that is of interest, and has indentation for clarity:
Swedish, unlike English, in first and second person usually doesn't use its cognate to 'self' in reflexives:
"I see me in the mirror" rather than "I see myself in the mirror" is the normal. "Själv" can be used to emphasize this, however. When used reflexively, själv (no points for guessing what that's cognate to) is not suffixed to the possessive forms, but is in apposition with the accusative forms.

So, with reflexives, the correspondences between subjects and objects is:
I: jag - mig (själv)
yousg: du - dig (själv)

he: han - sig (själv)
she: hon - sig (själv)
itc: den - sig (själv)
itn: det - sig (själv(t))

we: vi - oss (själva)
youpl: ni - er (själva)
they: de - sig (själva)
itc is common gender, is itn is neuter.
Analogously to swe: mig, eng: me, I will use se in some English sample sentences as a reflexive third person pronoun. See the parallel: mig:me::sig:se.




Han, hon, den, det (he, she, itc, itn) have accusative forms that are distinct from the reflexive forms:
han - honom
(but the accusative is 'han' in most dialects and several urban regiolects as well. Historically, 'han' was both the nominative and accusative, but the dative 'honom' replaced the accusative in the dialects the standard language is based on before datives vanished.)

hon - henne
den - den
det - det
Some verbs that can be used intransitively in English require reflexive marking in Swedish:
I wash up → I wash me

Some verbs change meaning when having a reflexive indirect object:
han tänker på X → he thinks of X
han tänker sig Y  ≃ he thinks se Y → he imagines Y

han ger något → he gives something
han ger sig  ≃  he gives se → he gives in, he concedes

det ter sig   ≃ it appears se → it appears (to be ....)

han ser → he sees
han ser sig om  ≃ he sees se about → he looks around
In these, the first and second persons would take the regular first and second person object forms instead, e.g. jag tänker mig, du ger dig, du ter dig, jag ser mig om, ...

Now, let's start working towards the tricky bits!

Coordination with 'and' generally leads to plural object pronouns, and you thus get
du och jag ser oss om ≃ you and I see us about ≃ we look around (us)
du och han ter er reformvänliga
≃ you<sg> and he appear you<pl, obj> reform-friendly ≃you<sg> and he seem to be reform-minded
hon och han ger sig
≃ he and she give se ≃ he and she give in
There's a person hierarchy: 1>2>3. If a 1st person pronoun is involved, the reflexive element is 1st person, and likewise, 2nd person beats 3rd.

However, what if there's a disjunction instead?
I or he has to give ...  se? us? me?
Different speakers seem to be of different opinion here, and some even avoid this kind of construction altogether. One can of course also take the things I discussed in the previous post (on than/än), and find even more complicated issues with these over comparisons:
?jag ger mig mer sällan än han
I give me (≃in) more seldom than he ?(gives se)
"Varken du eller han gav sig" - "Neither you or he gave se" - "Neither you or he gave in" seems to work for slightly more speakers.

In a language like Russian or Polish, where the reflexive pronoun is invariant for all persons, issues like these would not appear. But in those particular languages, the reflexive verbs generally use a reflexive suffix instead.
So, again, my hope with these posts is to highlights some parts of natural language where things get convoluted due to the very way the things are structured. I hope to inspire conlangers to come up with similar, well, "incomplete" and "awkward" parts for their grammars.

Me Ray Jadi Save

Monday, January 20th, 2020

The time has come to bring back the Dothraki haiku challenge.

The Dothraki haiku challenge was a yearly competition amongst those who studied Dothraki a bit. Haikus seemed within the grasp of even elementary students, so it seemed like a fun thing to do. I’d post a new competition every year on my birthday, and then decide on winners (one for Dothraki, and later one for High Valyrian) just for fun (no real awards; only virtual).

I can’t remember off hand how many competitions we ran, but it was at least four, I think. They didn’t stop for any important reason. The fact of the matter was, what would have been the next Dothraki competition in 2017 fell on my birthday, January 20th—the same day the 45th President of the United States was inaugurated. It so happens every 4 or 8 years that my birthday falls on inauguration day, and while some are better than others, that one had me feeling like I really didn’t want to celebrate my birthday at all. So I skipped that one, and as things busied up, I never got back to it.

Now I’m getting back to it.

So, if there’s anyone out there who’s still capable of writing a haiku in Dothraki or High Valyrian, this is your chance! Compose on your own, and when you’re ready, post it in the comments. (For those somewhat new to the languages, please make use of the Dothraki wiki, which has detailed grammatical information on both Dothraki and High Valyrian.)

We’ll do challenge words again this year (you don’t need to use the challenge word in your haiku, but if you do, I’ll give yours a little boost when I rate all the poems). The challenge word for Dothraki will be sash, and the challenge word for High Valyrian will be arlie, both of which are adjectives which mean “new”. For the full set of rules regarding the haiku, see below.

(Oh, by the way, I generally don’t choose a winner until submissions stop coming in.)

Guidelines

For the purposes of this contest, a haiku is 17 syllables long, with the syllable counts for each line being 5, 7, and 5, in that order. If you need to fudge, go for it, but I will weight exact syllable counts more highly.

Also (and this is important), since this is Dothraki, we are definitely going by syllable count, not mora count. Regarding syllable-counting, in Dothraki, a syllable is defined as a vowel plus one or more consonants on either side. A syllable cannot contain more than one vowel, which means that a word like kishaan is trisyllabic, not disyllabic.

If it helps, you may or may not contract the various prepositions that contract. So, for example, mr’anha (two syllables) is the usual way of saying “inside me”. For your haiku, if you wish, you can separate the two out, i.e. mra anha (three syllables). You can also drop purely epenthetic e vowels (so the past tense of “crush”, kaffe, can be rendered as kaff’). Feel free to play with word order and drop pronouns, as needed, bearing in mind that such language is figurative, and the reader will still need to be able to figure out who’s doing what to whom.

For Valyrian: Long vowels count as two mora, and a vowel with a coda counts as two mora, but a syllable will not have more than two mora. So a long vowel plus a coda consonant will still be two mora, for the purposes of the poem. If you can’t do the poem using mora, do it with syllables, but I’ll weight those done with mora more highly. This will make it more like a real Japanese haiku. If you need a particular word in a particular number/case combination or a verb in a particular conjugation, please let me know and I’ll give it to you.

Addendum: Falling diphthongs count as two mora (i.e. ae and ao); rising diphthongs count as one (e.g. ia, ua, ue, etc.). Also, word order is certainly freer in poetry than it is in everyday speech, but the rules about adjectives still apply (i.e. you use the short forms if the adjective appears directly before the noun it modifies; otherwise they’d take their full forms). And, finally, word-final consonants are extrametrical. Thus if a word ends in -kor, that counts as one mora, not two.

Shieraki gori ha yerea! Fonas chek!

Me Ray Jadi Save

Monday, January 20th, 2020

The time has come to bring back the Dothraki haiku challenge.

The Dothraki haiku challenge was a yearly competition amongst those who studied Dothraki a bit. Haikus seemed within the grasp of even elementary students, so it seemed like a fun thing to do. I’d post a new competition every year on my birthday, and then decide on winners (one for Dothraki, and later one for High Valyrian) just for fun (no real awards; only virtual).

I can’t remember off hand how many competitions we ran, but it was at least four, I think. They didn’t stop for any important reason. The fact of the matter was, what would have been the next Dothraki competition in 2017 fell on my birthday, January 20th—the same day the 45th President of the United States was inaugurated. It so happens every 4 or 8 years that my birthday falls on inauguration day, and while some are better than others, that one had me feeling like I really didn’t want to celebrate my birthday at all. So I skipped that one, and as things busied up, I never got back to it.

Now I’m getting back to it.

So, if there’s anyone out there who’s still capable of writing a haiku in Dothraki or High Valyrian, this is your chance! Compose on your own, and when you’re ready, post it in the comments. (For those somewhat new to the languages, please make use of the Dothraki wiki, which has detailed grammatical information on both Dothraki and High Valyrian.)

We’ll do challenge words again this year (you don’t need to use the challenge word in your haiku, but if you do, I’ll give yours a little boost when I rate all the poems). The challenge word for Dothraki will be sash, and the challenge word for High Valyrian will be arlie, both of which are adjectives which mean “new”. For the full set of rules regarding the haiku, see below.

(Oh, by the way, I generally don’t choose a winner until submissions stop coming in.)

Guidelines

For the purposes of this contest, a haiku is 17 syllables long, with the syllable counts for each line being 5, 7, and 5, in that order. If you need to fudge, go for it, but I will weight exact syllable counts more highly.

Also (and this is important), since this is Dothraki, we are definitely going by syllable count, not mora count. Regarding syllable-counting, in Dothraki, a syllable is defined as a vowel plus one or more consonants on either side. A syllable cannot contain more than one vowel, which means that a word like kishaan is trisyllabic, not disyllabic.

If it helps, you may or may not contract the various prepositions that contract. So, for example, mr’anha (two syllables) is the usual way of saying “inside me”. For your haiku, if you wish, you can separate the two out, i.e. mra anha (three syllables). You can also drop purely epenthetic e vowels (so the past tense of “crush”, kaffe, can be rendered as kaff’). Feel free to play with word order and drop pronouns, as needed, bearing in mind that such language is figurative, and the reader will still need to be able to figure out who’s doing what to whom.

For Valyrian: Long vowels count as two mora, and a vowel with a coda counts as two mora, but a syllable will not have more than two mora. So a long vowel plus a coda consonant will still be two mora, for the purposes of the poem. If you can’t do the poem using mora, do it with syllables, but I’ll weight those done with mora more highly. This will make it more like a real Japanese haiku. If you need a particular word in a particular number/case combination or a verb in a particular conjugation, please let me know and I’ll give it to you.

Addendum: Falling diphthongs count as two mora (i.e. ae and ao); rising diphthongs count as one (e.g. ia, ua, ue, etc.). Also, word order is certainly freer in poetry than it is in everyday speech, but the rules about adjectives still apply (i.e. you use the short forms if the adjective appears directly before the noun it modifies; otherwise they’d take their full forms). And, finally, word-final consonants are extrametrical. Thus if a word ends in -kor, that counts as one mora, not two.

Shieraki gori ha yerea! Fonas chek!

Real Language Examples I: Comparison

Wednesday, January 8th, 2020
I have over the years read a lot of descriptions about linguistic structures. Seldom do conlangers ever even approach the level of intricacies that natural languages do, and there are of course natural reasons for this – a population of a million, or even just a few dozen will be exposed to more different real situations than a single conlanger will, and thus need to communicate more things.

Over decades or centuries, this may lead to established patterns that slowly shift around.


Anyways, looking at a few of these at some level of detail - and also discuss mistaken "models" for how they work - may be of interest. I figure I'd start out with two very similar words - Swedish än and English than.

This is not meant as me taking sides (although I think the side I am on with regards to prescriptivism will be clear), it is me showing just how convoluted grammar can be.

1. Etymology
Both of these words, funnily enough, are closely related to temporal adverbs - than originates as a spelling variant of then, än can still be used to signify still, although some speakers may prefer ännu for that.

2. Are they prepositions?
Some speakers (especially in the case of Swedish) object to the idea that they are prepositions, citing a supposed predicate that should be possible to insert. Thus 'A is bigger than B' really is 'A is bigger than B is (big)'. No speakers, as far as I know, deny that this construction can be used, though, and one can also compare things with different adjectives: 'A is longer than B is tall'. Similar objections sometimes are voiced in English, and thus you may have heard 'it should be "taller than I"'. And of course, case should follow concord in that case: "it made me taller than him", in case it made both of us grow taller. In this model, they are exclusively conjunctions.*

However ...

3. Are they subjunctions?
In both English and Swedish, they behave syntactically in ways that don't really fit subjunctions, but does line up with prepositions - and the pro-conjunction gang generally do not object to these behaviors, and sometimes even demand them. This requires some introduction.

3.1 English 'whom', but also preposition stranding
Some prescriptivist English authorities who otherwise prefer the subjunction model, demand 'than whom'. This despite it breaking their subjunction model. Also, the syntax of 'than whom' is decidedly unsubjunctionlike! Consider if "I am bigger than you" is really short for "I am bigger than you are", then "Than whom are you older" should be long for "Than whom is are you older". This seems to be a badly formed sentence even with the nominative who: "Than who is are you older" is just as bad English as the parallel construction is bad Swedish.

It gets even weirder to pretend the subjunctive model has any relevance when you hit it with stranding: "who are you older than (*is/?he is)?". And relative clauses would have a relative pronoun referring to a noun outside of the scope of a subclause!

The man than who(m) I am taller -> the man than who is (tall) whom I am taller  ... but "who(m)" refers to "man", which is not even in the same scope - "who" should now be inside the scope of "than". This is like having something like 'the man said that who came here yesterday he is sick' where 'who' in 'who came here yesterday' refers to 'the man'.

There are also other transformations that usually can hit prepositions, but can't hit subclauses that than can take. (This also holds for Swedish.) Swedish even more agressively strands prepositions than English does, and 'than' definitely can be hit by preposition stranding for most speakers of Swedish. No subjunction stranding exists. Also, subclauses have more restrictions on them during clefting than do prepositions, and 'än' seems to be able to fill both of those roles for most speakers.

3.2 Swedish reflexive possessive pronouns

A relevant piece of evidence in the case of Swedish is its reflexive possessive pronouns. Unlike western Germanic languages, the north Germanic languages kept a distinct reflexive possessive pronoun. This is used (mostly) when a third person subject is the possessor of some other noun in the clause. I will use the invented pronoun sy and syne for these in examples:
Manneni kör sini bil
The mani is driving syi car
Manneni kör hansj bil
The mani is driving hisj car

Jag fann mitt paket och hani fann sitti
I found my package and hei found synei
So, this gets relevant due to a few reasons. All Swedish-speakers have these in their vocabulary, but in southern Sweden, due to the Danish influence/substrate/superstrate(!?) many speakers will use the regular third person pronouns anyway. Immigrants also tend to do so, or in the case of Slavic immigrants use them in all persons. So, correct use of these has become a shibboleth. Native speakers of northern varieties usually have no problems.

However, edge cases exist, and comparison is one of them. So, two observations: än, by one of the models introduces a subclause. For nearly all  speakers, sin cannot ever be the attribute of a subject.

However, speakers who long back to the day when everyone spoke proper Swedish and knew when to use the reflexives right tend to get infuriated whenever anyone says 'than his X' rather than 'than sy X'. Even when 'sy X' is the subject. And you ask them whether they can accept 'than sy X is' and they say no, and wonder why you even ask something silly like that**, and they often fail to grasp that they're being inconsistent.

So... the same person often will demand that when comparing subjects, subject forms be used, but when comparing with reflexive possessors involved, the only way of getting a permissible subject in there is strictly forbidden.

3.3 What is the expected verb phrase?

The idea that than/än always serve to introduce subclauses further runs into problems with things like this little 'story': Alice is short, but Bob is tall. Alice concocts a potion that makes her taller than Bob. Is Alice now supposed to say
"this potion made me taller than him"
or
"this potion made me taller than he"?
In the subclause model presented by Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, the actual subclause model copies the entire main clause into the subclause, substituting only whichever constituent(s?) is provided after 'än'. Thus, we are left with two optional interpretations:
'this potion made me taller than it made him'
or
'this potion made me taller than he made me'
In fact, Svenska Akademiens Grammatik only permits for using the nominative on the comparand after 'än' if the compared noun in the main clause is the subject. However, teachers who never learned how this is supposed to work think the implicit verb is 'är' or 'gör' (is or does), and so think "proper grammar" prescribes 'he' and thus 'taller than he (is)', which by the rules in SAG clearly is not the case.

3.4 Swedish reflexive Verbs

Some verbs in Swedish are innately reflexive, or require reflexive marking when English would not: "I am washing up" would come out as 'I wash myself'. NB: in Swedish, reflexives do not require the suffix själv (cognate of self), but can take it. Reflexive pronouns are not formed using genitives, but accusatives, so essentially "me(self)", not myself.

So, which one are we to pick:
I wash me more often than he?
I wash me more often than him?
Both should, according to SAG, lead to weird meanings:
I wash me more often than he (washes me)
I wash me more often than (I wash) him

When asking a group of grammar nazis***, ** only a few out of about thirty responses even spotted the problem. Most called for 'he', rather than 'him', due to 'I wash me more often than he does'. This doesn't even, imho, really justify or specify anything. Than he does what? Wash me?

The standard reference work for Swedish grammar states about elliptical clauses with 'än' that they need to copy the entire main clause except the one constituent that follows 'än', be that the verb, subject, object, some adverbial or some prepositional argument. Thus ... Svenska Akademiens Grammatik demands the interpretation I gave above. With regards to reflexives, it does not state (in that chapter) whether copying the main clause also adjusts reflexives, but other chapters that deal with coordination and with reflexives imply that one cannot assume reflexives to remain reflexives over coordination except in the case of the explicitly reflexive 'sig' on both arguments, i.e. when there's only third persons involved.

In the group I asked, no one came up with any other solution than using the full verb phrase, or solutions that their own rules preclude. A few "liberals" that - much like me - accept än as a preposition also accepted 'than me' as the trivial solution, and that is a solution I can accept.

Now, I did provide my own conservative solution, that was accepted by most:
än han sig
than he himself

 I realize this also does violate some of the nitty-gritty of the Svenska Akademiens Grammatik's description of how subjunction-like elliptical än works. However, I am not entirely sure this is a subjunction!

I imagine this could be considered a rare example of a preposition that takes both a subject and an object, rather than a subjunction with ellipsis!

The fact that no one else came up with this idea seems to suggest to me that the subjunction-with-ellipse model is not genuinely present in people's mental grammar, and if it were, they'd faster have realized the problem with the reflexive verbs.

3.5 Impossible Verbs
In some constructions, there are no reasonable subclause to posit after than/än:
"Fewer than two people know this"
"No one other than you knew of it"
The main clause's verb phrase is 'know this'. What is the supposed subclause 'than' would introduce? 'Know this'?!?
*fewer than three people know this know this.
*No one other than you knew of it knew of it
*no one else than I/me was there
'Do'? 'Are?'
*fewer than three people are know this.
*no one other than you are knew of it
*no one else than I was (there) was there
I am aware some English speakers might prefer 'but' for some of these, but even there the question about potential subclause remains, as some speakers would prefer 'but I/he' over "but me/him". In Swedish, 'än' is probably predominant here, as 'utom' (but) requires some rephrasing, and even then doesn't really permit any actual subclause in these cases.
Superficially, 'do' might look okay, but if we switch to a different verb phrase, e.g. 'are running', we immediately find out what the issue is. The 'other than'-example is also immediately exposed due to a tense mismatch:
*fewer [than three people do] know this
*fewer than three people do are running
*no one other than you did knew of it
*no one else [than I did] was there

Swedish provides similar examples with 'more than' (fler/mer än), fewer than (färre än/mindre än), 'other than' (annan/annat/andra än)

Weirdly, even though I find no way of turning these nouns into subjects of VPs, I prefer the nominative here when using pronouns, as do most conservative speakers of Swedish.

4 Conclusion

I am not a big fan of prescriptivism****. However, in this case they've created some interesting issues!
  • They have provided inconsistent rulesets that are impossible for speakers to navigate. The only way to win is not to play.
  • They exist at tension with the usage in large parts of the speaker community.
  • Some prescriptivist-bent members of the speaker community have not properly understood the rules crafted by the authorities in the prescriptivist camp, and thus use home-crafted, different versions that may be superficially similar. These think they adhere to the strict rules, but fail to do so and create even more confusion.
  • 'Than'/'än' themselves by nature exist in a weird tension between the two word classes among almost all members of the speaker community.
  • The tension between different speakers' different mental models, the inconsistent ruleset and the strong beliefs about how it should be creates a fascinating grammatical situation, where also beliefs about the justifications for different case forms or different constructions are not consistently interpreted.
I would be very happy to see even a single conlang contain a single type of construction or a single word with a similar depth of complexity to it.



* Swedish grammar traditionally cuts conjunctions in two: conjunctions and subjunctions, where subjunctions subordinate one of the sides, i.e. almost always particles that introduce subclauses.


** I've done my research on this in a Swedish "grammar police group" on facebook.

*** The Swedish term is less offensive.

**** Although I generally am mostly in favour of a descriptive approach to language, but also of maintaining a literary standard (that does not force itself into people's daily conversations or light writing and light reading too hard), this might seem as though I am criticizing the conservative prescriptive language authorities very strongly - often, their advice is inconsistent, makes unjustified assumptions, and at least in bygone days even was phrased in a very unjustifiably elitist way (if someone is as inconsistent as prescriptivists often are, they do not deserve the right to lambast others for inconsistencies or failures to spot patterns or whatever).