Monday, January 20, 2020

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

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.

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Real Language Examples I: Comparison

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
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).

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Detail #388: A Twist in Coordination and Gaps

Before getting to the main content of today, I'll give some updates about things I am working on:

Currently, I am working on three main conlanging-related projects, two of these being conlangs, the third being a tool for conlangers. The two conlangs, however, rely on the tool being workable, and it is as of yet in a bit of a planning stage. Until it is done, this blog will probably not be updated very often. Expect maybe half a year for the unveiling of the tool, depending on work, other hobbies and other inconveniences. Let's set a deadline at Hannukkah 5781. Another conlang-related tool is in the early early planning stages, but will probably not see the lights of day until 2021.

In addition, I am coding a microtonal pitch perception webapp; it is still in its early alpha test days (and due to getting a new, more challenging job and a dog last january, I have not had much time to update it over the last year or so, the alpha test period really got out of hand!)

Also, I've been doing a fair share of duolingo in recent months, and if you don't already use it, I would definitely recommend it!

But ... on to linguistics!

It is not unusual for languages to permit leaving a gap when coordinating things in some kind of subordinate construction:
I eat and _ sleep.
They both saw _ and heard you.
He spent some time in Germany and _ Austria.
You are a good singer, both with _ and without amplification.
 Now... we can imagine restrictions on this, and I am thinking of a few interesting ones.

1) Gender and Number Restrictions
One could imagine a restriction whereby any two nouns after a preposition need to be of the same gender and number - otherwise, the preposition needs to be repeated before the next noun(s).
This could even cut into subsets of the genders - one could require the same animacy as well. Also, some genders might be "closer" related to others, so e.g. masculine and neuter in German could maybe work?

2) Case 
This gets a bit trickier, and mostly applies in languages with a case system like that of conservative IE languages. The cases of both nouns have to have the same distribution in the paradigm. Here, I mean a rather odd sense of what a case is: a case is an ending. In Russian, the feminine dative has the same suffix as the feminine prepositional, and thus, they'd be the same case here - and maybe we could accept masculine prepositionals to coordinate with feminine prepositionals, because they take the same suffix as well. But masculine datives and feminine datives would be an odd mix, due to the masculine datives being distinct.

In the case of Russian, this would allow animate masculine nominatives and feminines to co-ordinate (because, although these are different suffixes, the suffixes have the same *distribution*), and it would let masculine and feminine instrumentals to co-ordinate, because their suffixes also have the same distribution.

Case, however, lets us also think about coordination of verbs and prepositions: only those that take the same type of case on their object can allow gaps over coordination.

Monday, November 25, 2019

Detail #386: A Gender-Based Quirk

Imagine a language with a gender system along the lines of German. Now, however, imagine that the society has gone through a quick but fairly successful modernization, where a formerly very strict division into 'female occupations' and 'male occupations' has over a generation or two become rather 'ideally equal' for some combination of those words. 

Ok, look, I am trying very hard not to take any stance in that debate. This is all set-up for a convoluted grammatical situation.

However, the titles associated with occupations persisted in the gender they previously had been associated with. So ... 

Sergeant is still masculine when it is a woman sergeant.
Secretary is still feminine when it is a male secretary.

Some limited examples of this can be found in Europe to this day, with some titles in French, for instance, only having masculine forms, and in some varieties of Swedish, sjuksköterska, "nurse", only having a grammatically feminine form.

However, the twist I am going for is one where pronominal binding still is lexically gender-based even when the gender of the particular person is known. When referring to Tim the secretary or Jenny the sergeant, the gender of the pronoun would follow the gender associated with the occupation.

However, when speaking of Tim or Jenny as persons having private lives and so on, they would get their expected pronouns.

This creates a situation where persons working in occupations associated with the other gender can get their professional person and their private person separated by pronouns, but people working in gender-typical occupations do not have this quirk available to them.


Sunday, November 10, 2019

Detail #385: A Type of Letter Shape

I seldom have ideas about writing in this group, and I generally am not a very graphically oriented person. But I figured a language could have a few different types of letters:

positionwise absolute letters

The form of an positionwise absolute letter is predictable from its position in a word. Available positions might be script-specific: some language might distinguish initial from other, some may have initial, medial and final, some may have sentence-initial vs. others, etc. Some may have word-initial, second, and other, etc.

left- and right-outline adhering letters
Left-adhering letters shape their right side so at to adhere to the outline of the letter to their right. Thus, the curve or line simply doubles the neighbouring letter's left or right side. Say the J in "John" had a slight bulge to leave some space for the "o". (Of course, this idea can be turned 90 degrees for scripts that are vertical instead of horizontal.)

Edge cases might entirely be missing for these letters, or they behave in special ways at word boundaries - or there may be some placeholder letters for that situation.

dual-outline adhering letters
These only have some small medial detail and otherwise match the shapes of the left and right of the surrounding letters.

other?
Letters that cross into other letters could of course be feasible, and their shape could be controlled by the properties of the other letter.

Monday, November 4, 2019

Detail #384: Making Adjectives more Dynamic

One word class that sometimes does not get all the love it deserves is adjectives. Sometimes, they are just made a special type of verbs (or barely even special, at that), and sometimes they are conflated with nouns.

I have previously suggested a language that splits them in two new classes but I imagine there may be other things to do with them.

Let's make something like cases but exclusively for adjectives, that operate separately from the cases of nouns.

Here's a few such cases:
1. Qualitative
The basic use of an adjective: tells us something about the noun. Can appear both as subject and complement:
I am hungry
the red house
2. Translative
Much like how this case is used in Finnish on both adjectives and nouns, it expresses a quality the noun acquires. Unlike in Finnish, however, this can mark an NP that is undergoing a transition due to the verb:
hungry-TRNSL wolf ran
the wolf ran (and therefore got hungry)
"the wolf ran itself hungry"
3. Terminative-translative
Like the translative, but restricts the verb's time span or aspect:
tired-TT man worked
the man worked until he got tired
4. Essive
Qualitative, but restricts timespans:
you can come to the new open-ess store
you can come to the new store when it's open

old-ess you can sleep
you can sleep when you're old
It can also inform about cause:
I hated the new loud-ess guitarist
 5.  Post-essive:
Marks 'after being', or direct cause:
small-PE you will have to pay taxes
I saw the shiny-PE clothing

Monday, October 21, 2019

Detail #383: Gender, First Person Pronouns and Reported Speech

Let's consider a language where even the first person singular pronoun is marked for gender. Now, this can provide an interesting situation with regards to reported speech.

Obviously, a person can report speech from a person of the same gender, or of the other gender. With the other gender, one could keep using the first person pronoun - but alter the gender marking - and still be entirely clear who one is speaking about.

With the same gender, however, one might be expected to replace first person pronouns with third person pronouns of the same gender.

Thus "She told me(masc) she doesn't like roses" comes out as "She told me(masc) I(fem) don't like roses", but "He told me he doesn't like her" comes out as "He told me he doesn't like her". 

Of course, one could permit for the ambiguous system where first person is used in both. One could of course also consider a system where first person in embedded contexts can be "restored" by reduplication:
a) he told me I-I don't know what I-I am talking about vs.
b) he told me I don't know what I am talking about
Where in a), it's me not knowing what I am talking about and in b) it's he who doesn't know.