Wednesday, October 2, 2024

Spaces revisited

Last year's exploration of word break conventions brought up some tantalizing questions about Koa's typology. As I've been sitting with those questions, some have remained unresolved -- I still have nothing interesting to say positively about Koa's typological categorization, for instance -- but a couple things have clarified.

First, despite its surprisingly intricate ordering rules, I don't think there's any motivation to think of Koa as agglutinative, or of sequences of particles and predicates at the same syntactic node as necessarily being single "words." Given (A) that pauses between particles modifying a given head are allowed, and (B) that many or even most such particles also exist as "words" independent of that syntax, characterizing them as affixes would require some awkward and unparsimonious assertions.

Taking ni "I/me/my," for example, we can find this in verb-initial position (ninae "I see"), verb-final position (tanáeni "she sees me"), noun-initial position (nimama "my mother"), noun-final position (táloni "my house"), with adjunct particles (la or la ni "to me"), and independently when focalized/fronted (ni sa éteta "It was I who did it"). I'm not sure how productive it would be to classify the chunk of phonetic material [ni] as constituting different words or affixes in these six syntactic positions; it seems better to say that the particle ni may appear in all these positions, with particular effects.

Secondly, I think I took the joining of particles with their heads past the point of both need and aesthetics. Many resulting words are needlessly long; but perhaps more importantly, I just don't like certain combinations. Articles, for example, have never stopped looking dumb to me when mooshed onto their nouns.

Here, then, are the rearticulated and somewhat moderated principles of word break conventions as I'm currently thinking of them.

1. Specifiers (ka, a, ko, ke, hu, po, ti, to) are written separately from their heads. 

2. Preposed particles whose scope is an unarticled predicate, and postposed particles under all circumstances, are written together with that predicate regardless of how complex it is. This may require the use of additional accentuation where pronouns and directionals are suffixed to the root.

lakoto = "homewards"
ninasitemuláheta = "I couldn't make him leave"
nisánota la ko mutulu ka kúmumani  = "I said it to make my teacher angry"

3. Independent complexes of particles which do not include pronouns are written together (nahua "nothing," puiá "that's what they say!").

4. Predicate clusters -- compounds and incorporated objects -- are written together, but plain adjectival phrases are not joined to their head nouns

ko koutusi = "bookbuying"
ka lopuviko = "the weekend," but
ka pasano vime = "the last statement"

5. Conventions for particle complexes including pronouns (la + ni "to me," nahu + nu "none of us") are still under consideration.

6. In all other cases, particles are written independently.

The text referenced in the earlier post on word-break conventions would now look like this:

Talai la ka ásulota la ko vúakupu e ko mivami, sii, tamene la ko kóuva e tule lai la ni. Nisivima poli lo ko pato ve hua i cumisucu, ala helopu poka i pea pono e ka lílani sai i sikali. E ka tana i kali i koe ka sena. Hala kehe nulunike la ko mova ka kecu, ka nuluete la ko mupea ka háotenu nekene koa.

I have to say I like that a whole lot. It feels like a really nice balance between the traditional look and feel of Koa and the legibility advantages of grouping particles with their predicates.

We do still need to make a decision on point 5 above: between laní/la ni, nahunú/nahu nu and the like. For the moment I'm leaning towards separating the pronouns as I did in the excerpt, but I'll play with them in actual usage and see if that sticks.

Friday, September 13, 2024

Modal derivation

The past year seems to have been devoted to Slavic philology -- Macedonian in particular, and obsessively -- rather than Koa, but in honor of Koa Day I wanted to write a quick post on a topic that's been waiting in the queue for at least a few years. The bones of these particular extremely common derivational structures have been in active use since around 2011, so let's formalize them.

Among Koa's modal particles are these three:

te "able to"
ki "must, need to"
lu "want to"

These most often show up alongside verbal predicates, e.g.

ai se-te-náe-ni?
QU 2SG-ABIL-see-1SG
"can you see me?"

When used with adjectival predicates, though, they derive an interesting range of meaning which lacks systematic representation in English:

miko te-koma
friend ABIL-understand
"an understanding friend, a friend who's able to understand"

te-lehu
ABIL-fly
"able to fly, airworthy"

ki-nuku
DEB-sleep
"sleepy"

lu-láeva
DES-play.music
"an aspiring player"

In combination with the passive particle pa, the abilitative really comes into its own, pretty closely translating the English -able/-ible suffix:

te-pa-nae
ABIL-PASS-see
"visible = able to be seen"

na-te-pa-nae
NEG-ABIL-PASS-see
"invisible = not able to be seen"

te-pa-koma
ABIL-PASS-understand
"intelligible"

na-te-pa-ilo
NEG-ABIL-PASS-know
"ineffable"

With ki-, we can create forms like

ki-pa-ete
DEB-PASS-do
"agenda = (things which) must be done"

na-vi-uni u sihi ki-pa-suo
NEG-IMP-forget DEF.PL vegetable DEB-PASS-eat
"don't forget the vegetables that need to be eaten"

ki-pa-tuho sa le Kátako
DEB-PASS-destroy FOC NAME Carthage
"Carthago delenda est"

It occurred to me in whatever year it was that I first wrote up the notes for this post that in tepa- and kipa- we've captured the semantics of Esperanto -ebl- and -end-, respectively. What about E-o -ind-, though: "worthy of being Xed"?

I'm still not sure about this, but for the moment I'm trying out a bit of a semantic extension of the particle lu in this context, with the idea that it's a pretty short jump from an object "wanting" to have something done to it, to that object deserving having that something done to it. For example:

kava lu-pa-ipo
coffee DES-PASS-drink
"coffee worth drinking, coffee that wants to be drunk"

lu-pa-niko
DES-PASS-marvel
"amazing = wanting to be marveled at"

A bit whimsical at best, or facile at worst, but I feel like it might be worth it to get at a semantic which otherwise would require a bunch of analytical circumlocution -- especially when the literal value of that sequence of particles wouldn't otherwise be particularly useful in any contexts where the head lacks consciousness. On the other hand, there are sentences like this that turn out to be worryingly ambiguous:

ni-lu-pa-loha
1SG-DES-PASS-love
"I'm worthy of love" OR "I want to be loved"

As with so many concepts in Koa, I'll have to sit with this one and potentially see how it works out in actual usage. It also matters that the desiderative/volitive/conative lu and the verb halu "want" are actually not synonymous, which should probably be explored in another future post! Thus

ni-halu ko loha
1SG-want ABS love
"I want to love"

ni-lu-loha
1SG-DES-love
"I'm in the mood for love, I feel like loving, I intend to love"

For now, happy 25th, Koa! Clearly lots more still to come.

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Mónate paináute he Pai le Koa 24si

Héite lami lakaméhepo nuisai le Koa hetia, kapaináute lúaku-néisi kacimi!

Hekei kavoa kesi ticímiki kémeni i palili oasi pameti mono lacimi ela eso. Tamieko kasavu oma, kapatune kaímita oma. Hetikehe kavoa vime ninasicutekuvi kepi kacimi kocusunu, kocupamuta... konicutehienu ve le púhuma eso i hala aaika iuluhu.

Paináute iolo, nii, Koa ni paloha. Kavóase sii i vimuniko taa i vela, e ninateota komiilo kaseculilo.

-Iúliki, Váhumaa, 2023-09-13


Lílite la le Níkili / English Translation:

Warm greetings to the worldwide Koa community on this, the 24th birthday of the language!

During the last year this little language of mine has transformed from a mere considered idea into a real living language. It took on its own style, its own sense of self. At this time last year I couldn't have imagined how much the language would grow and change... that I would be able to call myself a real speaker after such a short time.

Happy birthday, then, my beloved Koa. May your next year be even more astonishing, and I can't wait to discover what you will become.

-Julie, Portland, 9/13/23



Sunday, July 16, 2023

Embedded questions

This is a much overdue followup to the seminal piece on embedded questions and theta clauses from a couple years ago. These expansions and adjustments quickly developed in the weeks after.

As a reminder, the standard way to say things like "I don't know what you want" or "I wonder where my clock came from" is apparently via nominalization of the sub-clause, thus

ni-na-ilo ka-se-halu
1SG-NEG-know DEF-2SG-want
"I don't know what you want," lit. "I don't know the thing you want"

toko keo ka-sáti-ni (ko-tule)
wonder origin DEF-clock-1SG (NOM-come)
"I wonder where my clock came from," "I wonder about the origin of my clock('s coming)"

Figuring out these structures was a huge relief from my previous anxiety that I might be thoughtlessly calquing IE strategies, but once I had them in hand I realized right away that that fear wasn't really cross-linguistically motivated. A more familiar variety of finite embedded clauses is well represented in languages from many other families, and as such I really don't see a reason to ban them from Koa:

ni-na-ilo [ kea sa se-halu ]
1SG-NEG-know what FOC 2SG-want
"I don't know what you want," "I don't know what it is you want"

toko [ o-kea sa ka-sáti-ni i tule ]
wonder ABL-what FOC DEF-clock-1SG FIN come
"I wonder where my clock comes from," "I wonder where it is that my clock comes from"

As glossed above, these kinds of forms might see slightly different usage pragmatically, feeling a little wordier, possibly softer, possibly less formal.

Entirely new to this discussion are embedded yes/no questions. Here too a finite structure is possible, using ai "whether, or":

ni-na-ilo ai ta-cu-tasi
1SG-NEG-know whether 3SG-IRR-repeat
"I don't know whether it will happen again"

...and again this option exists against another possibility with a nominalized clause headed by one of the infamous ke-compounds: kema "current, ongoing," kesi "past," kecu "future, what would/will be," kete "possibility," kelu "desire," keki "necessity." Thus

ni-na-ilo kecu ko-ta-tasi
1SG-NEG-know future NOM-3SG-repeat
"I don't know whether it will happen again," lit. "I don't know the future of its happening again"

Similarly, with the other types:

kema kotatasi "whether it is/was happening again"
kesi kotatasi "whether it had happened again"
kete kotatasi "whether it could happen again"
kelu kotatasi "whether there was a desire for it to happen again"
keki kotatasi "whether it has to happen again

Any of these could be rephrased with ai and the particle in question within the clause rather than outside it: kete kotatasi = ai tatetasi "whether it could happen again, whether there's a possibility of it happening again." Here I have the sense -- which as usual will have to be confirmed in time by usage -- that the ai-type clauses may be more comfortable and vernacular, the ke-clauses more literary.

Obiter: in the original theta clause post, I was omitting the nominalizer ko in the embedded clauses with ke-compounds (i.e. just kete tatasi rather than kete kotatasi). I'm unclear on why I did this, and at this point I think it was either just a mistake...or I was getting a little ahead of myself with an experimental idea that ko might be optional in clauses lacking a nominal subject. In this event, we could also have e.g. niilo selóhani "I know you love me" alongside niilo koselóhani "I know that you love me." I'm not sure yet what the implications of this would be for parseability, so an official verdict is pending more rigorous exploration.

Friday, July 14, 2023

Bride of the nominalized clause

What should happen to a Koa clause with a nominal subject when the clause is nominalized? This has become a bit of an albatross. The last eleven years have seen numerous well-thought-out, well-intentioned, sincere attempts to answer this question; moments of satisfied relief have followed, but a seed of anxiety has always remained that we haven't got it quite right. As, apparently, now.

My last bid for a final answer, in which the nominalizer ko actually replaces the finiteness marker i, is odd to my Indo-European sensibilities but quite elegant. The problem -- if indeed it is a problem -- is that the literal translation of such clauses according to the usual Koa syntactic rules ends up looking anomalous at best and like word salad at worst. For example, a phrase from the previous post:

na-vi-ana po-mítitinu ko-cita
NEG-IMP-give GEN-bedbug NOM-bite
"don't let the bedbugs bite"

Here the nominalized clause is pomítitinu kocita "for bedbugs to bite," "bedbugs' biting." If I parse that phrase according to ordinary principles, though, it seems to mean something like "bedbugs of biting," parallel to e.g. poétete kocini "acts of kindness." So..."don't allow bedbugs of biting!"

Maybe that's fine, because outside of Loglan and friends the mechanism of language itself was never "supposed" to be logical: merely parseable. Which I think this entirely is, and as I mentioned in the post in which I introduced this, it's not so dissimilar from what Latin does.

I guess the point where I started to fret again was when I realized that another structure -- which I have also proposed for this purpose in the past, though perhaps for not entirely the right reasons -- might address this in an even more parseable form. The core concept here is that any verb phrase can follow a head noun as a modifier, just like any other adjective: thus

mítitinu veta
bedbug giant
"giant bedbugs"

mítitinu ma-cita
bedbug CONT-bite
"biting bedbugs, bedbugs that are biting"

This being so, it would appear that we could create a nominalized clause simply by -- on the surface -- deleteing the finite i entirely, and marking the whole thing with ko at the beginning:

po-mítitinu i cita
GEN-bedbugs FIN bite
"bedbugs bite"

po-mítitinu cita
GEN-bedbugs bite
"biting bedbugs"

ko po-mítitinu cita
NOM GEN-bedbug bite
"bedbugs' biting," "that bedbugs bite," "for bedbugs to bite"

This would give us an alternate, less poetic, more easily parseable injunction,

na-vi-ana ko po-mítitinu cita
NEG-IMP-give NOM GEN-bedbug bite
"don't let the bedbugs bite"

...which happens to be identical to the most recent proposed syntax other than the position of ko! Thus again

na-vi-ana po-mítitinu ko-cita
NEG-IMP-give GEN-bedbug NOM-bite
"don't let the bedbugs bite," "don't allow the bedbugs biting"

Maybe there's no decision to be made and the two structures could coexist, just like in ditransitive VP's like

ana ka-nosu pe-vii
give DEF-elephant OBL-mango
"give the elephant a mango"

ana po-vii la-ka-nosu
give GEN-mango DAT-DEF-elephant
"give a mango to the elephant"

I'm honestly not sure. I don't see a strong reason to disallow either structure, but the muse is also not sending me a resounding chime of rightness in either case. One thing is certain, which is that I am very, very tired of going around in circles about this year after year, and on that basis I'm inclined to leave both options in circulation and allow usage rather than theory to cast light on the question. I would be relieved for this whole area to stop feeling like a crisis after 11 years of ceaseless gear-grinding.

Of course, this discussion has completely omitted to mention the fact that another structure also exists for this same meaning, a finite one with ve:

na-vi-ana ve po-mítitinu i cita
NEG-IMP-give as/like GEN-bedbug FIN bite"
"don't let the bedbugs bite"

I'd previously confidently affirmed that these ve-structures are identical in meaning to the the nominalized ones with ko, but Nahuatl has been making some gentle suggestions recently that this might not quite be so. That's potentially a really big revelation that's still taking shape; hopefully more on this soon, once I'm confident I understand it myself.

Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Worthy of brief mention, summer 2023 edition

In the spirit of a belated spring cleaning, I hereby present the following list of topics with which my Koa process document is beginning slightly to overflow. These seem like they probably ought to be mentioned, but have been patiently waiting because they may not merit an entire post all to themselves.

1) Words for "something" and "nothing" have been all over the place through the years. Most recently we were fretting about aha "something in particular" vs apparently hua "something in general, something unknown," but at some point late last year I realized that (A) this is needlessly complicated, and (B) aha/aka for "something/someone" didn't really make any sense because a- is not a formative anywhere else in the language. This leaves us with a much simpler hua/huka for "something/someone."

"Nothing" and "no one" have traditionally been nahua/nahuka, literally "not anything/anyone," and those forms still exist as options. Completely unique within the grammar of Koa, though, there is now another standard allomorph for "no one," naka, and two others for "nothing:" naha and naa. Naha is the preferred form where naa might create ambiguity with na "not," in practice essentially whenever it constitutes the whole NP by itself: naha i (na)cuapu "nothing will help." Naa shows up elsewhere, in particular when preceded by adjunct particles: nenaa "nowhere," henaa "never."

2) As the careful reader may have noticed from the foregoing exposition, we're still nowhere near a decision about how to construct clauses with negative pronouns. Should "I don't want anything" be nihalu naha "I want nothing," ninahalu hua "I don't want anything," or ninahalu naha "I don't want nothing?" Or are these all acceptable? I suppose I'm saying this out loud as incentive to finally get my head on straight about it sometime this year.

3) Subject pronouns are only required in complement clauses when they differ from that of the matrix clause. Thus nihalu komene "I want to go," not *nihalu konimene -- cf. nihalu kotamene "I want her to go." Similarly,

ni-si-lule ko-io-na-cu-náe-se
1SG-ANT-think NOM-STAT-NEG-IRR-see-2SG
"I thought I wasn't going to see you anymore"

...compared to

ni-si-lule ko-ta-io-na-cu-náe-se
1SG-ANT-think NOM-3SG-STAT-NEG-IRR-see-2SG
"I thought she wasn't going to see you anymore"

4) I've alluded to the fact but never said outright that "before" and "after" are verbs, not prepositions: koe "precede in time" and hala "follow in time." Thus

ka-élate ni-nánaka i koe ka-kémeni
DEF-life 1SG-grandfather FIN precede DEF-mine
"my grandfather's life preceded mine" or "my grandfather's life was before mine."

5) It appears that Koa may have an emergent future/nonfuture distinction, in contrast to the more familiar past/nonpast orientation of e.g. Old English or Finnish: bare verbs can be interpreted to have either present or past meaning, but the future -- I think -- must be marked with the irrealis cu. Thus nináese "I see you" (usually) or "I saw you," but nicunáese "I will see you"; nisúsota "I kissed her" (usually) or "I kiss her," but nicusúsota "I will kiss her." I think this is pretty cool! Now that I think about it this is also what accidentally happened in Seadi, which raises interesting questions about the structure of my brain...

6) I've struggled with presentative structures in Koa. For a very long time I used the focalizer sa to try to do this work, before finally realizing a few years ago that I was confusing different kinds of fronting. I really wanted to be able to achieve something like the Polish szła dzieweczka do laseczka, lit. "went a girl into the forest," when the whole scene is introduced and no topic has been defined yet. It was such a problem that I couldn't even translate the first sentence of Are You My Mother?, "A mother bird sat on her egg."

Boarding the plane home from Dallas once, though, I suddenly thought of a very idiomatic Welsh structure for this kind of situation -- dyma fi'n sefyll ar yr awyren, lit. "here I am sitting on the plane" -- and it occurred to me that Koa could do something parallel. Rather than just

ni-eki ne-léhukone ne-tie lai o le Tálasi
1SG-sit LOC-airplane LOC-way return ABL NAME Dallas
"I'm sitting on the plane on the way back from Dallas"

...which is semantically correct but pragmatically totally neutral, I can use the presentative particle vo "ecco, voilà, вот, jen" to do this:

vo ni-eki ne-léhukone...
PRES 1SG-sit LOC-airplane
"here I am sitting on the plane..." or "so I'm sitting here on the plane..."

I'll still need to work out the specifics of usage, but I think this might become an important pragmatic device for Koa style.

7) I've been reconsidering "7." For more than 15 years it's been sapi from Basque zazpi, but with the quantity particle pi we frequently end up with the unhappy sequence sapi pi... "7 of..." This is especially grating given my particular fondness for the number 7. Hitu from Samoan has long been an understudy, and for the moment I'm trying it out to see if it'll stick. I'm not sure I can bear reassigning sapi, though.

8) The particle io "change of state, already" can follow a predicate as an intensifier: tule io! "come ON!", ika io "all right already!" This is a little reminiscent of the Japanese particle yo, which is some sort of whimsical good luck: 美味しいよ oishii yo "this is delicious!" (The Koa particle ho is actually often closer in meaning to Japanese yo, but I'll take my wins where they come.) Similarly, ca "steady state, still" can have a kind of conciliatory force: ika ca "there there, it's okay," tule ca "come along then."

9) In the original version of Aika Konuku I had translated "so tired" as toa pi kiuni. By the time I was writing about it on the blog I'd realized this was wrong, but for the wrong reason! I thought it meant "that specific referential amount of tired," but pi governs a nominal...which means that this phrase would actually translate as "so many tired people." Oops. This is a cautionary tale to remind us that qualifiers like vaha "slightly, a little" ano "sort of," nai "somewhat," aiva "quite" and poli "very" must always follow their predicates, never precede with pi as I'd previously thought possible: kuma vaha "a little hot," not vaha pikuma "few hot people!"

10) I've translated "at least" as mocekie, literally "as the merest thing," and "et cetera" as e tei motoa, etm. for short, lit. "and onward like that." I think I'm pretty happy with "etc.," but for "at least" I've gone for a calque and fear that I haven't really taken the time to understand the semantics like I would wish. I have an intuition that it should maybe have its own morpheme, because there's this whole concessive thing going on that's way beyond the literal meaning of the underlying words in any IE language. The structure would be something like

X ko-ta-ia-holo ko-tule
X NOM-3SG-AFF-decide NOM-come
"at least he did decide to come"

or

ta-ia-holo ko-tule i X
3SG-AFF-decide NOM-come FIN X
"he did decide to come at least"

Actually I quite like that. Okay, an independent morpheme it is.

11) À propos de bottes, this sentence, clearly a critical necessity for fluency in any language:

na-vi-ana po-míti-tinu ko-cita
NEG-IMP-give GEN-bed-parasite NOM-bite
"don't let the bedbugs bite"

12) I just wanted to say out loud that this post brings me level with 2010 for the highest number of posts in a calendar year...and it's only June. I am so happy and excited that Koa has found its way to such an explosion of growth after so many years of slow simmering; as a life's work, I feel pretty proud of it.

Monday, June 26, 2023

Purpose clauses à la lettone

At some point in the past several years the allative la plus nominalization sort of unexaminedly became the standard way to form purpose clauses:

ni-lai lakoto la-ko-núkuki
1SG-return home ALL-NOM-nap
"I went back home to take a nap"

...or with a different subject in the subordinate clause,

ni-lai lakoto la-ko-ta-núkuki
1SG-return home ALL-NOM-3SG-nap
"I went back home for him to take a nap"

ni-lai lakoto la le Keoni ko-núkuki
1SG-return home ALL NAME John NOM-nap
"I went back home for John to take a nap"

I suppose this is plausible as an intuitive strategy, but I'm always suspicious of unexamined IE calques. This has been on my list to research properly for a long time. I still need to, but in the mean time I was recently reading a Latvian grammar and happened across a different structure that I thought was pretty cool. It uses essentially an imperative formation (Esperanto might call it volitive), and the purpose clause remains finite:

lai drusku atpūs-tos, mēs aizbrauk-s-im uz Jūrmalu
IMP a.little rest-SUB.REFL, we travel-FUT-1PL to Jurmala
"in order to rest a little, we shall go to Jurmala"

I wonder if the parallel Koa structure might work too, as an alternative to nominalization. Something like

ni-lai lakoto i vi-núkuki
1SG-return home FIN IMP-nap

Maybe? It's certainly nice to have options, and this new way feels a little more fluid and poetic somehow. One thing about this, though, is that it looks like a serial verb, but then the second verb seems to have different TAM marking than the first...which I think isn't typical for things called serial verbs? I'm also not sure whether we could have a different subject in the purpose clause:

?ni-lai lakoto i ta-vi-núkuki
1SG-return home FIN 3SG-IMP-nap
"I went back home for him to take a nap"

??ni-lai lakoto le Néliki i vi-núkuki
1SG-return home NAME Nellie FIN IMP-nap
"I went back home for Nellie to take a nap"

Actually I do seem to remember serial verbs sometimes having different argument structures from one verb to another, but TAM? It doesn't help a ton that my examples tend to come from pretty isolating languages without much tense marking. I need to review Describing Morphosyntax and probably Finnish, Turkish and Nahuatl while I'm at it...doesn't Finnish use some kind of translative suffix? Anyway, I'm clearly not prepared yet to offer an intelligent assessment here, but it's certainly interesting.