Snake Phonotactics

In my version of Parseltongue, here are the phonotactics:

(The tap is the alveolar flap and the click is dental.  ugh.)  You can start anywhere.  There is no boundary between words.  Epenthetic 'a's will probably abound.  I need to wrap my head around 's' being the resting sound, like 'uh' in English.

Lexical Intentionality in Fluid-S Alignment

So, I'm imagining a language which uses Nominative (N), Accusative (A), Ergative (E), and Absolutive (B) cases.  The verbs do not inflect for voice, but have a lexically expected case.  For active verbs, this is either N or E.  For stative/descriptive verbs, this is either A or B.   I imagine a good N-verb might be "to eat", an A-verb "to be red", an E-verb "I punch", and a B-verb "to be reddened".  Here goes:

	Case Expected
Case Given	N	A	E	B
N	Normal Intentionality	Average Causality	Unintentionality	Unintentional Causality
A	Passive Voice	Normal Descriptive	Unintentional Passivity	Pseudo-Passive Object
E	Screaming Intentionality	Screaming Causality	Strong Intentionality	Intentional Causality
B	Intentional Passivity	Pseudo-Passive Voice	Anti-passive Voice	Normal Stative

OK, that kinda worked. Let's try it with the verbs I mentioned, imagining an Ergative-Absolutive alignment when needed:

	Case Expected
Case Given	N	A	E	B
N	I ate	I made (it) red	I punched (him) on accident	I was reddened on accident
A	I was eaten	I am red	I was punched (by him) on accident	I got reddened
E	I ate on purpose	I made (it) red on purpose	I punched (him)	I reddened (it)
B	I was eaten in purpose	I got (it) red	I was punched (by him)*	I was reddened

I have no idea if I'm murdering Fluid-S or not. I better ask some people.

English Tense-Aspect vs. Hebrew Aspect

English Tense-Aspect:

Name	Example	Past	Future	Imperf.	Perf.
Simple past	I walked.	+
Past Progressive	I was walking.	+		+
Pluperfect	I had walked.	+			+
Past perfect progressive	I had been walking.	+		+	+
Simple present	I walk.
Present progressive	I am walking.			+
Present perfect	I have walked.				+
Present perfect progressive	I have been walking.			+	+
Future	I will walk.		+
Future progressive	I will be walking.		+	+
Future perfect	I will have walked.		+		+
Future perfect progressive	I will have been walking		+	+	+

English Aspects:

• Perfective - focuses on the end
• Imperfective - focuses on the middle
• Both - from the beginning to the end

Hebrew Imperfect Aspect:

• Conative - before the beginning
• Inceptive - at and just after the beginning
• Progressive - in the middle
• Egressive - just before the end
• Resultative - before and after the end
• Gnomic - none

Hebrew Perfective Aspect:

• Ingressive - at the beginning
• Constantive - from the beginning to the end
• Constantive! - from the beginning to near the end
• Perfect - at the end
• Gnomic - none

Definition of Hebrew aspects

The imperfective aspect is a close-up o a small section of the event where the progressive action is made visible.  The perfective aspect is a view, as if from some distance, of a great part, or of the whole of the event, where the details of the progressive action are not made visible.  The imperfective aspect may include either the beginning or the end, the perfective aspect includes either the beginning and not the end, or both beginning and end.

-The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew.  An Attempt to Distinguish between Semantic and Pragmatic Factors. - Rolf Furuli, University of Oslo

Lenition and Fortition

Again, collecting the napkins and typing them up so I can throw them away:

Lenition
Remember, consonants in Perelandran are divided into the "lemon ring" (/ɫ/, /m/, /n/, /r/, and /ŋ/), "the azuře views" (/ð/, /ž/, /ɣ/, /v/, and /z/), the stops (/b/, /d/, /g/, /ʔ/, and the affricative /dž/), and the "breathing" (/j/, /w/, /ʁ/, and ◌ aka nada).

Lenition happens when you add to the end of a verb (nearly everything is a verb in Perelandran).  It's as if the words are all trying to "shorten up" in a rush to get to the end.  Lenition happens differently in the onset than it does in the coda.
Initial

• The stops all reduce to the glottal stop, except for the glottal stop itself which disappears:
• b → '
• d → '
• g → '
• j → '
• ' → ◌
• In the "lemon ring", nasal become stops and sonorants become glides:
• m → b
• n → d
• ŋ →  g (this can happen at the beginning of a word, only across syllable boundaries)
• l → y
• r → w
• "The azuře views" also become stops (well, one affricative)
• v → b
• z → d  (I'm considering adding d̪ ... not phonemicly)
• ž → dž
• ð → d
• ɣ → g

Final

• The stops cannot occur in the coda
• The fricatives/"the azuře views" universally become the glottal stop
• ð → '
• z → '
• ž → '
• v → '
• ɣ → '
• The "lemon ring" consonants all turn into fricatives:
• m → v
• n → ž
• l  → ð
• r → z
• ŋ → ɣ

Fortition

Well, about now is when I googled lenition and fortition and discovered I conceived of these backwards from everyone else.  :-(  I picture fricatives and nasal as being able to be held for a long time, versus there is no way to make a stop last longer.  For now, I'll stick with my original schema.

Again, there is a difference between onsets and coda.

Initial

• The stops become fricatives or a trill
• b → v
• d → ð
• g → ɣ
• j → ž
• ' → R
• The fricatives become sonorants
• v → m
• ð → l
• z → r
• ž → n
• ɣ → n (well, at the beginning of words.  Internally, it becomes ŋ.)
• The "lemon ring" are already at the top of their game.  If there is a consonant between them and their vowel, then they become syllabic.  Otherwise, they get growled into being their own syllable.  (It was either that or follow them with a glottal stop, which does sound nice.)
• m → Rəm:
• n → Rən:
• ŋ → Rəŋ: (this wouldn't be happening at the start of a word
• ɫ → Rəɫ:
• r → Rər:

Final

• Stops can't occur in the coda
• The fricatives are as listed above, but with out the concern over ŋ.
• For the "lemon ring", I realized I typed colons instead of ː's.  It's clear to me that Perelandran will require gemination, that is, the doubling of consonants.  I remember thinking to myself a few days ago, "Why isn't it important in English if I syllabize the participle of "run" as 'ruh-ning' vs. 'run-ning' vs. 'run-ing'?"  This will be hard for me to remember to say right, but I think I can get it.

Examples

If I have the tri-vowelic root "a-u-ai" and some imaginary verb conjugation is "m+žð+ŋ+l", then it would be realized as "maž.ðu.ˈŋaiɫ".  Some suffix (let say, "ðri") comes along, and it would become bajdugaiððri.  Or, just suppose, the prefix byo'o snuck up on us.  The root would need to beef up and the whole thing would become byo'oRəmmanɫuŋŋaiɫ.

Revising Phonology

Having listening to Conlangery #29: Sound Systems and Romanizations and #48: Designing a Sound System, I think I will revise my phonology to be more symmetrical:

	Labials		Coronals			Velar	Uvular	Glottal
	Bilabial	Lab.dent.	Dental	Alveolar	Post-Alv.
Nasal	m/מ			n/נ		ŋ/כ
Stop	b/ב		d/ד			g/ג		ʔ/ע
Affric.					dž/צ
Fricative		v/פ	ð/ת	z/ז	ž/ש	ɣ/ח
Trill				r/ר			R/ה
Lat. Approx.				ɫ/ל

j/י

w/ו

Yellow is for the "lemon ring" - למנרכ.  The velar nasal will be more limited than I previously thought.  I think it can still open a syllable, but not if any other consonants are around.  I think it can be syllabic still.

Blue is for "the azuře views" – תשחפז.  The big change is here.  The lone retroflex /ɻ/ has been replaced with /ɣ/.  I think this may get Romanized as γ (wait, that's Hellenizing) or ř.  The Hebrew ח  will help with remembering to rasp.

Grey is for the "breathings".  Like Greek -- ὀ vs. ὁ -- Perelandrans think of "smooth breathing" (i.e. nothing – א), "front breathing" (/w/ – ו), "middle breathing" (/j/ – י), and rough-low breathing (/R/ – ה).  These are spelled א and י and ו and ה respectively.
The stop (signs) are in red - בדצגע.  These are considered "weak", and are typically lenited fricatives.

Vowels don't need major revising.  I think the long vowels will all be rising and the diphthongs all falling.  I need to read a lot more, but I'm considering the much-lauded-on-Conlangery two-tone idea.  Previously, I had considered nasal vowels and I'm thinking about putting it in now.  I need to practicing saying them for a while longer.

Tense-Aspect-Mood

Real quick, I've decided on a tense scheme:

1. Near Past - This is the default tense.  English speakers should note that "near" is relative, so cenozoic vs. hadean, 100 years ago vs. a million, last month vs. last decade.
2. Non-past - This could be called "present plus near future".
3. Anterior Past - Again, this is a relative.  In the retelling of legends, the beginning is in this tense, but in a longer telling, it doesn't get sustained.  "Long ago there was a boy named Neal ... Neal was walking around one day."
4. Posterior Future - a.k.a. far future

Aspects:

1. Perfective - On action viewed without parts
2. Imperfective - There is no generic imperfective.  There are four subdivisions
1. Stative - This is un-changing but ongoing
2. Continuative/Episodic/Continuative - I think 'CONT' is all I'll write on this in the future, but the idea is an action viewed as having parts, durative, and on-going, it can be unchanging or changing.  If in the presence of the other three imperfective aspects, it would mean "still verbing" but that's over-translating.
3. Progressive - Ongoing, evolving and "increasing" (see next)
4. Regressive - Ongoing, devolving and "decreasing".  The PROG and REG are opposites of each other.  The notion of "increasing" vs. "decreasing" deserves some explanation.
   
   If someone said Hitler was a "good murderer" we would typically balk at the use of the word "good" in the same sentence as "Hitler" and make them restate it as "he was good at murdering".  Greek was far more sensible and had two words for good!  In the same way, a verb in the PROG aspect is "good", that is, becoming more of what it is.  A verb in the REG is becoming less and less of what it is/ought to be.  So, "I was walking-PROG to the store" could mean I was walking "faster and faster" or "better and better" or "ever closer to my goal".  "I was walking-REG to the store" could mean I was walking "slower and slower" or "in the wrong direction" or "I got worse and worse at walking  (due to injury?)".

The gnomic would be perfective in the far-past for etiologic truth and perfection far-future for teleologic truth.  Also other aspects (momentane, habitual, terminative, inceptive, inchoative, etc.) will be handled through adverbs or verb serialization.

Mood:

I am too close to Attic Greek on this.  I need more sources/reading:

1. Realis
1. Topical - This is normally a case marking in most languages, but because all "subjects" are process expressed through verb in Perelandran, it is a mood.  A sentence initial word, phrase or phrasal grouping may end in the topic mood, thereby indicating the controlling genitive, dative, indirect object or just all-around topic of the following sentences.  Perelandrans consider this mood more realis than the indicative.
2. Indicative - the statements of facts are in this mood
2. Irrealis
1. Subjunctive - this mood signifies the lower amount of unreality.  It may be translated "may", or "should" or "let us" or "possibly".  In the apodosis of conditional verbs it indicates contrary-to-fact suppositions.
2. Optative - this mood signifies the most amount of unreality.  It may be translated "might" or "ought" or "would (that)".  In the protasis of conditional sentences, it indicates not actually true sentences that are unlikely to occur.
3. Imperative - the aspect is crucial in determining whether a congoing command is being exressed or not.
3. None of the above - None-finite.

Objectlessnessish

An astute linguist by the handle of Taipo comments on my post Hiding Nouns in Verbs, that merely switching from encoding pronouns (e.g. you, me, them) to encoding deictics (e.g. this, that, those) isn't really doing away with nouns.  He says a better concept is "vectors", as if the verb is an arrow on map, and you turn it to point to and from whatever you want.  He comments about doing that is his conlang, t.a.f.k.a. Tepa.
I agree with him that a lot of what I'm doing is just hiding the nouns grammatically.  However, I want to do more, to model a way of thinking.  What is noun-less-ness?  Look at an English dictionary.  It's all nouns.  Even verbs are turned into nouns.  e.g. 'run' becomes 'to run' and is defined as 'the act of propelling one's legs quickly'.  Further proof of English's noun-centric-ness can be seen in that all our adjectives are nouns and immediately recognizable as substantive nouns when alone.  e.g. 'the good, the bad and the ugly' immediately becomes three men, not three actions.
Korean has prepared my brain to think slightly differently.  There are stative verbs in Korean.  "To be pretty" is not the copula and 'pretty-the-adjective'.  It is all one verb: 예쁘다.  If you want to say 'the pretty person' you use the verb: 예쁜 사람 - the-being-pretty person.  Korean is a verb-centric language.
When English-speakers try to conceptualize the world, we see it as solid, unchanging things that are annoyingly interrupted by action.  We ask stupid questions like, "What is the essence of running" and expect a noun in reply.  Perelandrans wouldn't be like that.  They live on the ocean all their lives and everything the use is organic.  Their own bodies would be the only thing not constantly in flux.  There is no sun in the sky or moon at night, only fuzzy, continual cloud cover.  The essence of things isn't an idea or a state, it's a process.  Hence my goal is not to eliminate nouns per se, but "solid, unchanging objects" and replace everything with processes.

In a lot of sentences, nouns outnumber verbs.  "I hit the ball" and "Suzy ate cake" each have a 2:1 ratio.  More complex sentences only get worse: "Aunt Sally's ball was given to Uncle Bill by Steve the butcher on a Wednesday night to ease his frustration over Cardinal's baseball." 13:2.  Korean and Japanese often do better by drop the subject as a matter of course.  But I really want to keep the attention on processes.  If there are multiple actors and patients in a sentence, then there must be role marking (typically case or word order) and the language emphasizes nouns, whether present or absent from any given sentence.  The solution -- as I see it -- to limit each phrase to one noun or none.

The key topic becomes voice or valency.  Because of the birthday, the mother made the child use her breath to blow out the candle.  Each of these five nouns could have it's own sentence:

1. Birthdays causes blowing
2. The mother made there be blowing
3. The child was made to blow
4. The breath blew
5. The candle was blown out.

These five "voices" of the verb "to blow/to blow out" with their five nouns would have to be five phrases in Perelandran.  Each "noun" would have to be a process.  Notice that this means "nouns" would change their "name" if they did something different.  In a conversation "the speaking one" becomes "the hearing one".  If you are getting wet, you are not the same process as when you are drying off and when you leave you become another process.  Perelandran would clue the listener in that the "vector orientation" had or hadn't changed with a switch-reference marker.

For my own reference, the "voice roles" called and numbered as follows:

• 5) The Reason, Stimulus, or Etiology ("because of x, verb....")
• 4) Agent, Cause, Force.  ("x made someone make there be verbing")
• 3) Actor, Enable ("x makes there be verbing")
• 2) Means, Instrument ("x actually does the verbing")
• 1) Patient, Direct Object, Experiencer, Recipient ("x is verbed")
• 0) Dummy subjects in English "It is raining" is there same as "There is raining" ("There is verbing")
• -1) Result, Teleology, Effect ("Verbing caused x")

Additionally, processes can have the topical marker.  So, put it all together, if the above situation were being described to a Perelandran, you would have to say

Earth-TOPIC Birthday-Blow5 Parent-Blow4 Child-Blow3 Mouth-Blow2 Candle-Blow1 SWITCH Happy-Blow-1.

"On Earth, because of 'birthdays', parents make kids use their mouths to blow out candles, and then we are happy."