Update (Feb 2001): visit the Spocanian Archive at http://www.spok.demon.nl/
{the message below was relayed to the Conlang list in June of 1994}
Amsterdam, 2 June 1994
To the respondents of message 5.429 re: Unknown Language.
==========================================================
A month ago, I sent a summary and some additional info to
LINGUIST, concerning the Unknown language X or Spocanian.
Due to their considerable lengths, my messages were *not*
posted to the entire list, and it took several weeks before
the moderators informed me about this decision, and they
suggested to put the messages on the listserv, making them
retrievable by those who want them.
In order to avoid extra delay, I have decided to send these
"retrievable messages" directly to you.
Regards,
Rolandt Tweehuysen
Amsterdam
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---== AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE ==---
I posted a [semi-]query several weeks back asking for some morphosyntactic
and semantic information concerning a number of data from the "unknown"
language X. The main issues in this query are quoted below:
>In language X, I encountered the following opposition:
>
>a. Do byte sener sour. b. Do byte sener sourr.
> he beats his sister he beats his sister to death
>a. Eup piylase ef kornin. b. Eup piylase ef korninn.
> she tears the paper she tears the paper in pieces
>a. Kirro larde ef toriyst. b. Kirro larde ef toriysst.
> we eat [of] the cake we eat up the [entire] cake
>
>All objects in the a-sentences differ in the same way from all objects
>in the b-sentences. I wonder which rule(s) could be responsible
>for the orthographical (or: morphological) and semantic differences
>between the a-objects and b-objects.
>
>In the same language X, the following clauses have to be translated
>in the following way (o~ = o-apostrophe; a^ = a-circumflex):
>
>Gress stinde eft letra. 'I am writing a letter.'
>Gress eft letra stinde. 'I have written a letter'.
>Stinde gress eft letra. 'I will write a letter'.
>Do arkette. 'He is crying.'
>Do arketta. 'He was crying.'
>Arkette do. 'He will cry.'
>
>Tek kette ef mimpit o~n Lerdu. 'Tek gives the book to Lerdu.'
>Ef mimpit kettelije pai Tek o~n Lerdu.
>the book is given by Tek to Lerdu
>Lerdu kettelita^ pai Tek enn ef mimpit.
>Lerdu is given by Tek OBJ the book (OBJ = object marker)
>Za^lbinaselita^ do pai gress enn ef letra.
>send 3p.sg by 1p.sg OBJ the letter
>"He will be sent by me the letter"
>
*****
>for expressing tense and voice.
>
>In language X, the following constructions are possible
>(y" = y-diaeresis/umlaut):
>
>Gress koldre-tija^ ef tjoka^s. 'I throw away the bread.'
>Ef tjoka^s melde tval. 'The bread is mouldy.'
>Gress ma koldre-tija^ ef tjoka^s, ef meltilo~me tval.
>'I throw away the bread, because it is mouldy.'
>
>Eup lorertavy eft kleter oto. 'She wants to buy a new car.'
>Eup lelperre ny"f smurf. 'She has no money.'
>Eup ker lorertavy eft kleter oto, eup lelperrilo~me ny"f smurf.
>'She wants to buy a new car, though she has no money.'
>
>Do ytende beri prate helkara Frakas.
>'He intends to leave for France.'
>Gress nert tiffe hojelka. 'I do not know when.'
>Do tur ytende beri prate helkara Frakas, gress nert tiffilo~me hojelka.
>'He intends to leave for France, but I do not know when.'
>
>What kind of morphosyntactic processes are responsible for the formation
>of subordinate clauses, and how is the semantic relationship between matrix
clause and subordinate clause established?
>Is it possible to identify language X (name? family? area?).
<<<
It was neither my intention to ridicule linguistics (why should I? It is
my own profession and pastime) nor to make a fool of linguists, in the
hope that they would waste their valuable time and put their reputation
at stake in an attempt to identify the nature of language X. I was of an
opinion that IF a reader of my message would feel inclined to answer my
questions, (s)he at least would have some doubts concerning the existence
of X. And indeed, most respondents apprehended that there was something
"wrong" with X, judging by remarks like "I don't think these data come
from a natural language", "This is wonderful! Especially if language X
really exists [..]", "'Money' is 'smurf'? Smurf??? Pull the other one!",
"So what is the real answer?", "But what is the point of the game? I hope
you'll post the solution on the List soon", "I would be grateful if you
can vouch for the data (genuine not invented) [..]", "Yours skeptically,
[..]", "[..] the end of your message implicates that you know what it
[=X] is".
My intention was for you to take part in the game, and in doing so I
preferred unprejudiced answers, without the reader being sure that X is
an invention. Therefore I chose to withold the fact that there is *no*
community in the world where language X actually is, or ever has been,
spoken. And so I naturally could not reveal X's real name: Spocanian (no
relation with the town Spokane in the state of Washington. The name
"Spocanian" will be explained in my next message). Unlike its
predecessors (and probably also its descendants) which either are
constructed as a worldwide lingua franca in order to facilitate
communication in a language which is nobody's mother tongue (Esperanto
has shown that this does not work), or are invented as an inherent part
of some novel or film (Vorlin, Klingon, Tolkien's languages), Spocanian
was constructed for the sake of the language itself. This does not mean
that this language is an isolated phenomenon. Since it is my principle
that the language should look as natural as possible (this was in fact
tested by my query), I cannot deny the existence of a culture, religion,
climate, geography, history and so on, all things affecting the lexicon
and probably also the syntax of any natural language. That is why
Spocanian is spoken in Spocania, by Spocanians. The whole concept has
attracted a lot of attention in the Dutch, Belgian and Scandinavian
media, though there the emphasis has always been more on the history,
geography, culture and tourist attractions of Spocania than on its
language, due to the general opinion that language is boring, let alone
linguistics. The peak of the interest I encountered was formed by a
request from a Dutch publishing house to write an illustrated travel
guide about Spocania, presenting this country as a reality in doing so.
This book, _Uit in Spokanie - nooit weg_ (a pun that may be translated as
"Out in Spocania is In"), provoked many reactions, most of them positive,
but there are always readers who think they have discovered the most
unspoilt holiday destination on earth and are then disappointed that no
atlas can tell them where this is found. Spocania is, by the way, not a
paradise, for "real" countries are never Utopias.
Spocanian is the result of almost 35 years of playing around with grammar
rules and etymology, and is not intended as a follow-up of a language
like Esperanto. In fact, Spocanian is not able to be this, for its
morphology, syntax, pragmatics, pronunciation and lexicon are too complex
and have an undesirable quantity of irregularities, as seems to be
inherent in most natural languages. At this moment, its grammar consists
of approx. 1500 pages, and its dictionary contains over 25,000 entries,
with a lot of idiom, proverbs and untranslatable words (often referring
to Spocanian culture). It took approx. 25 years to complete the Spocanian
grammarbook, and if a linguist accepts the fact that everything in this
grammar has been invented intuitively, creatively and practically without
any linguistic background, one also has to accept that all these data can
be analysed within a specific linguistic framework, in order to determine
to what extent this language is "possible". This is what I do from time
to time, and what several readers of my previous query have been doing.
Note (to give a concrete example) that I "invented" the *resultative
aspect* (explained below) 10-15 years ago, at a time when I had not
studied linguistics yet. Don't ask me WHY I adopted something like a
resultative aspect, and WHY this is primarily expressed by changing the
stress in the object noun. For me it was only natural to say _do piylase
ef kornIn_ (stress on the final i) in order to express 'he tears the
paper in pieces' when _do piylase ef kOrnin_ (stress on o) has the
unmarked (atelic) meaning 'he tears/is tearing the paper'.
To me it has always been self-evident that a past tense should be
expressed by placing the object before the verb, as in: _do Elsa zerfe_
'he saw/has seen Elsa' (cf. _do zerfe Elsa_ 'he sees Elsa'), or to have
something like *ideo-antonyms*, used in questions like _aftel do melde
bo^lf?_ 'how tall is he?', literally meaning "is he tall|short?" (_aftel_
is an interrogative particle). The answer has to be something like "6
ft", but never _do melde hupster_ 'he is tall or _do melde belt_ 'he is
short'. Compare the questions _aftel do melde hupster?_ 'is he tall?'
(answer: YES or NO) or _do melde kol hupster?_ 'how tall is he?'
(implying that he has a considerable length). All those rules are at
least 15-20 years old, they have been established in a grammarbook, and
now it is time to analyse them. My only problem is: art and literature
are commonly accepted as products of creativity and intuition. They are
regarded as autonomous, and are thus suitable as an object of study. A
language like Spocanian, however, is *not* commonly accepted as such, and
the question whether it can be an object of study is [still]
controversial. Those who have analysed my Spocanian data have contributed
to my attempts to get Spocanian accepted as a serious creative product.
Many of my colleagues in the Department of General Linguistics at the
University of Amsterdam do take a serious interest in Spocania[n],
balanced by both humour and criticism. This attitude has encouraged me to
send out my query, although I am aware that not everyone will appreciate
my approach of the Spocanian concept. Still, I did not receive any
unfavourable reactions in this respect, apart from a well-known linguist
in Holland (aware that language X was Spocanian), who thought that "I had
gone too far" by posting my E-mail query. I received 8 answers in total,
and will give a summary of the information I got. In a next message, I
will explain more about Spocanian as well as the area where it is spoken.
But let me first thank the following people for their responses:
Carl Alphonce alphonce@cs.ubc.ca
Picus Sizhi Ding picus.ding@anu.edu.au
Jacques Guy j.guy@trl.oz.au
Hartmut Haberland hartmut@ruc.dk
Kate Kearns k.kearns@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Erika Mitchell ejmitchell@lcc.stonehill.edu
John Nerbonne nerbonne@let.rug.nl
Hella Olbertz hella@alf.let.uva.nl
and all my colleagues who preferred a personal communication rather than
sending an E-mail.
---==||==---
---== DIACRITICAL CONVENTION ==---
English is exceptional in that it is the only European language (and one
of the very few languages in the world) that does not use any diacritical
signs. Because of this, the entire world has to put up with "handicapped"
computers, unable to produce letters with diacritical signs in a natural
and simple way. It seems that English-speaking computer designers have
never been aware of the fact that there are hundreds of other languages
that have to be written on computer keyboards too. Spocanian is one of
them, and I suggest the following solution to arrive at the necessary
diacritical letters (WP= WordPerfect Character table; PM = HewlettPackard
Character set PC-850; PE = PC-852 Latin2):
a^ = a Circumflex (ASCII 131; WP 1,29; PM 131)
d^ = d Caron (Hachek) (WP 1,105)
e~ = e Apostrophe Above
e" = e Diaeresis (Umlaut) (ASCII 137; WP 1,45; PM 137)
n~ = n Acute (WP 1,155; PE 228)
o^ = o Circumflex (ASCII 147; WP 1,61; PM 147)
o~ = o Apostrophe Above
s^ = s Caron (Hachek) (WP 1,177; PE 231)
u^ = u Circumflex (ASCII 150; WP 1,69; PM 150)
y" = y Diaeresis (Umlaut) (ASCII 152; WP 1,75; PM 152)
Note that I use ~ for both apostrophe and acute, instead of '. This is done
because ' is already used in Spocanian orthography: it stands for a glottal
stop, and is written between two vowels (without ', a bilabial w, like in
English, would be pronounced in between two vowels, though this is not
written. Cf.: mia^n [miwan] and mi'a^n [mi'an]).
---== GENERAL ==---
Most respondents have questioned the existence of language X (Spocanian).
The reasons for this doubt, however, vary from one person to another.
Perhaps it was my unwillingness to reveal X's identity - though I hinted
that I knew more about it. Some of you were quite sure that X was not a
natural/real language. It is striking to see how people are inclined to
reject the "natural existence" of a language as soon as one encounters
syntactic solutions that are not found in any other language, whereas no
one is inclined to accept a language as "natural" upon recognizing
syntactic phenomena that bear a remarkable resemblance to those in other
languages. This is a general statement, the truth of which appears to
have been proved in numerous instances, also in relation to Spocanian.
Several respondents point out that only using word order to mark tense is
[entirely] unknown in any other language, and that Spocanian *therefore*
does not seem natural. However, there are many languages that use word
order to mark the opposition declarative--interrogative (as Dutch and
[sometimes] English do: _hij leest een boek_ 'he is reading a book' --
_leest hij een boek?_ 'is he reading a book?'), so why not use it to mark
tense? (this is not a rhetorical question but actually deserves
answering). Furthermore, the fact that Spocanian shows some peculiarities
which occur in other languages as well, such as the opposition between
"non-resultative" and "resultative" in: _do ta^npe ef a^s^elot_ 'he drops
the ash-tray' -- _do ta^npe ef a^s^elott_ 'he drops the ash-tray to
pieces', does not seem a reason to state that Spocanian must therefore
necessarily be a natural language! On the other hand, the fact that some
of the words used in the Spocanian examples seem related to morphemes in
other languages, has caused several respondents to arrive at the
conclusion that Spocanian is a creolized language, or "a creole tongue of
[Western] Germanic family, at some remote corner far off from Europe". I
am not an expert in creolistics, but I can state that Spocanian does not
have the characteristics of a creole language, such as verb serializing
and reduced grammar rules in comparison with a dominant partner's
language.
---== LEXICON / PHONOLOGY ==---
In order to answer the question about X's name and the family it belongs
to, it is easiest to look at the words used in the examples. Still, some
caution is required: it would be stupid, for instance, to state that
Dutch and Basque bear some relation to each other, just because the Dutch
reciprocal pronoun is _elkaar_ and the Basque one is _elkar_!
Several respondents have regarded _mimpit_ for "book" as a kind of key
word: such an unrelated word for such a common thing. Furthermore, the
word _pai_ "by" has drawn some special attention. According to one
person, it could be related to the Mandarin word bei4, according to
another, it was related to English "by", as a result of pidginization. In
fact, _pai_ is related to the Spocanian verb _paine_ 'to do'. Words like
_letra_ 'letter' and _oto_ 'car' were of course recognized as loan words,
which is correct, but I think one of the respondents goes too far in
seeing a French cultural influence, due to the fact that _oto_ is
reminiscent of Turkish _otobu"s_. The spelling of _oto_ is simply
phonetical, as it is in _otobu"s_. The word itself occurs in Dutch
(auto), German (Auto), Finnish (auto), Hungarian (auto'), and a lot of
other languages, and is thus not necessarily a result of any "French
cultural influence".
Interesting is the observation that "_France_ is turned into _Frakas_
like Scandinavian turns _drink_ into _drikka_". Though I have studied
Scandinavian languages myself and am aware of the fact that "nk" is in
several cases changed into "ck/kk" (Sw. dricka; Dan. drikke; Icel.
drekka), I never realized that the same phonological change had occured
in France > Frakas. Various phonological peculiarities in Spocanian have
been analysed already, and the opposition nk--k is one of them. However,
it is outside of the scope of this message to discuss them.
Last but not least, there was some astonishment/sceptism concerning the
Spocanian word _smurf_ 'money'. I do not know what your associations are,
but this word already existed *before* any other (commercial) use of
"smurf". The noun _smurf_ is etymologically related to Eng. smear,
Old-Norse smjor, Gothic smairthr, Swedish smo"r, etc., all meaning
'grease, butter'. Obviously, the speakers of Old-Spocanian used butter or
fat as a means of payment, and so an ordinary word in the semantic domain
of agriculture became a word in the domain of trade, not unlike the Eng.
word _fee_ which is related to Dutch _vee_ and Old-Norse _fe'_ 'cattle'.
So, if you are familiar with the word "smurf", then you should realize
that this could have been borrowed from Spocanian, or that there is
perhaps no relationship whatsoever. The other day, I read in a Dutch
newspaper that the French biscuits called _Spunk_ cannot be sold in
England, because of the semantic connotations of this name ("sperm"). In
England, this delicacy is sold under the name _Spink_, which "has no
meaning", according to a spokesman for the factory. However, the Swedish
word _spink_ is slang for 'sparrow' or 'finch'! _Spunk_ was a novel
invention, but it appeared to exist in English. Analoguously one may
state: _smurf_ (as you know it) was a novelty, but already happened to
exist in Spocanian. In order to avoid questions about the final f in
_smurf_, the following: in Old-Spocanian there were two f's: a dental one
(like in Eng.) and a bilabial one (like in Japanese?). Since the bilabial
f sounds like blowing, it is also called the "aspirated f" (I use the
symbol f~ for it). In a final position, the f~ is lost in
Modern-Spocanian: (old) _feldariyf~_ > (modern) _feldariy_ 'cupboard';
(old) _tys^uf~_ > (modern) _tys^u_ 'doe = = fem. rabbit', UNLESS f~ is
preceded by a normal (= labio-dental) f/v. In that case, an assimilation
rule changes old f~ into modern f, cf: (old) _miflif~_ > (modern)
_miflif_ 'window'; (old) _faja^f~_ > (modern) _faja^f_ 'sweet (of
smell)'; (old) _ferviyf~_ > (modern) _ferviyf_ 'kind of lily of the
valley'. That's why Spocanian has so many words with two f's in it, one
of them a final one. The instability of the final f (a form of apocope)
has lead to several instances of paragoge (adding an f), such as in
_yta^f_ 'knot (in tree)' (originally _yta^_); _aerrf_ 'stallion'
(Old-Spocanian _aerr_; cf. Eng. aur-ochs = ON urr = Lat. urus; Grk.
erse`n 'male'); and also _smurf_ (< _smur_). The systematic change f~ > f
and the dropping of f~ was first observed by the Spocanian grammarian
Lerdu Tyrta^ in 1904, and is now known as Tyrta^'s Law (as mentioned
above, I present Spocanian as a "real" language, implying that it must
have native speakers. Some of these native speakers have studied their
mother tongue and are called "Spocanists", Tyrta^ (1866-1941) being one
of them; Tyrta^'s Law does not only apply to f~ > f, but also to other
consonants - you should not hesitate to ask me for more details).
---== RESULTATIVE ASPECT ==---
Most respondents are concerned with the aspectual opposition, as illustrated
n a. vs. b.:
a. Do byte sener sour. b. Do byte sener sourr.
he beats his sister he beats his sister to death
a. Kirro larde ef toriyst. b. Kirro larde ef toriysst.
we eat [of] the cake we eat up the [entire] cake
a. Ef oto la^ufire ef vildul. b. Ef oto la^ufire ef vildull.
the car runs.into a tree the car runs.down the tree
The respondents have used the following terminology to describe this
opposition: perfective aspect, resultative construction, intensifying
meaning, accomplishment, affected themes. In fact, there were as many
terminological variants as there were reactions to my query; in my
Spocanian grammar, I use the notion *resultative*. It is striking that
most respondents use a terminology related to the VERB, and then they
wonder what kind of morphosyntactic/orthographic phenomenon the consonant
doubling in the object is. Actually, it is the other way round: in
Spocanian, two types of objects are recognized: "non-resultative" as well
as "resultative" ones. The resultative marker (consonant doubling)
expresses something like: "the action expressed by the verb has such an
effect on the object, that the entity to which the object refer *no
longer exists*". As a secondary result, the verb is seen as telic,
expressing an accomplishment or perfective. In my query, I chose a few
examples in which this resultative aspect was clearly noticeable. Some
less clear-cut examples are the following; note that the resultative is
not always formed by doubling a final consonant, sometimes a suffix
containing -e- is used:
Olyva prucce ef tof-nrelfs. Olyva prucce ef tof-nrelfses.
'Olyva is picking the daisies.' 'O. picks all the daisies from the lawn.'
Horit ef trenos la^sto^po lelmo garrent.
'Formerly the trains stopped at this station.'
Horit ef trenos la^sto^po lelmo garrente.
'Formerly the trains stopped here at a station.'
(the station building has been demolished, or has got another destination)
Do zjoffo beri rafane ef ka^mpaiy.
he claimed to tell the truth (and it appeared to be the truth)
Do zjoffo beri rafane ef ka^mpate.
he claimed to tell the truth (but he was lying: the truth was different)
Ef y"mann ef taris fsocha^me.
the hurricane the tower destroy
'The hurricane has destroyed the tower.'
Ef y"mann ef tariss fsocha^me.
the hurricane the tower-RES destroy
'The hurricane has entirely destroyed the tower.'
In the last example, the resultative is only an intensifying device, since
the semantics of the verb _fsocha^me_ already contain the notion of "dis-
appearing". Some of those verbs with an intrinsic "disappearing aspect"
always require a resultative object, e.g.: _afa^nole_ 'leave behind/off';
_astrite_ 'dash to pieces'; _treske_ 'extinguish (fire/light)'; _prusate_
'exile, banish'. Sometimes, the resultative has no semantic relationship with
the main verb, but with an adjectivally used participle:
Gress zerfe ef burelira kredek. Gress zerfe ef burelira kredekk.
I see the burning horse-stable I see the burning horse-stable-RES
'I see how the stable is burning.' 'I see how the st. is burning down.'
Eup tiffe ef y"cheror ry"ter. Eup tiffe ef y"cheror ry"terr.
she knows the had.accident rider she knows/knew the deadly.had.accident
rider
'She knows the perished rider.'
However, the resultative-marked constituent still has to be the object in the
clause. The following example is therefore ungrammatical (or less acceptable,
according to others/some Spocanians):
(1) *Ef y"cheror ry"terr za^ro fes kult zeces.
the deadly.had.accident rider lived in our village
(The interesting thing is that I cannot decide whether (1) is grammatical
or not. Why not? This seems due to the following development: first, I
"invented" resultative objects in which the resultative aspect was
triggered by the verb. Second, this aspect could be triggered by a
participle - which is a logical consequence since Spocanian does not
always make a clear distinction between finite verbs and participles.
Third, I started wondering whether nouns in which the resultative is
triggered by a participle could be objects. Within a period of 10 years,
a diachronical development took place in my brain, equivalent to a "real"
language development covering a hundred years or more. And now
sophisticated linguistic theories are required to explain whether (1)
could be grammatical or not.)
And finally, apart from abovementioned NOMINAL resultatives, Spocanian
has ADJECTIVAL resultatives as well. These express that the property of
the adjective is present in an all too high or very strong degree:
ef hupster kelbra -- ef hupsterr kelbra
the large table the too-large table
Ef kelbra melde hupsterr furt ef mittus.
the table is too-large for the room
Elsa melde rovret. -- Elsa melde rovrett.
Elsa is sweet Elsa is very-sweet
Do kafte eft hardlap mitos. -- Do kafte eft hardlapp mitos.
he pays a high rent he pays a too-high rent (the rent is
higher than acceptable/allowed)
There is much more to say about the resultative in Spocanian, but this
goes beyond the scope of this message (please contact me if you want to
know more). However, I would like to add that Spocanian is not unique in
this kind of construction, as one of my respondents has pointed out, who
gave me some examples from Sakao:
amjil are te' amjilp are te'
I beat a pig I killed a pig
amre' olkleg amre'p olkleg
I scratch my hand I cut my hand
This language, however, expresses a "resultative meaning" by suffixing -p
to the verb, not by suffixing the object. And in addition to this:
p-suffixed verbs seem to express some lexicalized meaning; the action is
carried to "its logical conclusion" (according to this respondent), and
"the logical conclusion depends on what the particular culture considers
a logical conclusion." I think this statement may hold true for Spocanian
as well, at least when a resultative has a lexicalized meaning. In my
dictionary, I found the following verbs (among others) at which a
resultative object triggers a lexicalized meaning (note: the verb's
meaning is changed, not the object's!):
NON-RESULTATIVE RESULTATIVE
krabe~e to influence/affect to anaesthetize/stupefy
prae to allude to to point to
svu^lge to gorge (eat greedily) to devour (eat up hungrily)
kalibatse to booze (drink a lot of alcohol) to booze oneself to death
By definition, these verbs are all transitive, implying that a resultative
object must necessarily be added in order to express the resultative meaning,
cf.:
Do kalibatse pert le~f. 'He is boozing a lot of beer.'
Do kalibatse pert le~ffe. 'He is boozing himself to death.' (by drinking
a lot of beer)
All these instances show, I think, "a conclusion such as the Spocanian
culture considers to be logical".
---== RESULTATIVE MARKING ==---
It has been exciting to see most respondents bending over backwards in
order to try and interprete the resultative marking in a correct or, at
least, appropriate way. Almost all analyses are based upon a typical
linguistic approach, in which the doubling of the final consonant is
regarded as a result of complex morphosyntactic or phonological rules,
whereas only one person posited a fairly simple, but also rather
arbitrary orthographical rule as perhaps being responsible for the double
consonant. In this respect, some respondents have wondered whether the
double consonant might trigger a different pronunciation. The answer is
YES, though it is not the double consonant itself which has a different
pronunciation, but rather the preceding vowel. Below, I will give some
more details, but first a summary of the solutions I received. One of the
readers saw the resultative morpheme as "underspecified in terms of
phonological features, and thus it appears to be identical to its
preceding consonant". This idea could be correct in those cases where
there is only one final consonant: mimpit > mimpitt; vildul > vildull,
etc. But how to account for words like toriyst > toriysst; quimets >
quimetts; he~ro^gst > he~ro^ggst; quilch > quillch ? The claim that "the
place of total assimilation is the first consonant after the final vowel"
seems plausible, but is not true. In this respect, it is worth mentioning
that several readers supposed this consonant doubling to take place at
the clause's final consonant. One of the questions was how to translate
the sentence "he beats his sister cruelly" into Spocanian, assuming that
the resultative must be somehow expressed. If the adverb is moved to the
end of the sentence (which is sometimes possible in Spocanian, though the
unmarked position is adjacent to the verb), the position of the consonant
doubling remains unaffected, since it always takes place in the object
and never in the last consonant of the sentence. Cf.:
a. Do byte sener sour chuqug. b. Do byte sener sourr chuqug.
he beats his sister cruelly he beats his s. cruelly to death
and not: c. *Do byte sener sour chuqugg.
(c. is possible indeed, but has a different meaning: the resultative of
an adjective/adverb expresses a "too high degree" or an "intensivity",
thus c. means something like "he beats his sister too/very cruelly"; see
above). And here is the solution concerning the resultative marking: in
Spocanian, all words can be phonologically divided into two classes: (A)
words with a *variable* stress and (B) words with a *fixed* stress.
Variable stress is always on the penultimate syllable (the word is a
paroxytonon), and if such a word is subject to morphological changes
resulting in a different number of syllables, the variable stress may be
shifted to some other syllable which has become penultimate in the new
situation. In the following examples, the stressed vowel (main stress) is
written as a CAPITAL:
arpInzol -- arpinzO^le 'plan' -- 'plans (Pl.)'
crIa -- criAba^l 'hand' -- 'handball (the ball)'
kElbra -- kelbrafA^sto 'table' -- 'table cloth'
adOre -- adorAtjen 'to worship' -- 'worshipper'
zEfe -- zefelIra 'to ring' -- 'ringing'
bA^r -- tOba^r 'butter' -- 'margarine" (litt. "false-butter")
Fixed stress is always on the same syllable (not necessarily the penultimate
one). Cf. the examples above with:
mIttor -- mItto^re 'staircase' -- 'staircases'
tIffug -- tIffugba^l 'foot' -- 'football (the ball)'
pAzzo -- pAzzofa^sto 'ground' -- 'ground sheet/cloth'
blAffe -- blAffatjen 'to command' -- 'commander'
lAjjefe -- lAjjefatjen 'administer' -- 'administrator'
zEffe -- zEffelira 'to tell' -- 'telling (a story)'
bjErr -- tobjErr 'beer' -- 'beer without alcohol' (litt. "false-beer")
Comparing the classes (A) and (B) reveals that a fixed stress is always
marked by a following double consonant. Furthermore, a vowel with fixed
stress sounds longer than a vowel with variable stress, or in other
words, a double consonant expresses that the preceding vowel is long. If
the fixed stress is on a penultimate syllable, the only difference with
an identical word with variable stress is the length, cf:
zefe [zefe] -- zeffe [ze:fe] ([e] as in Eng. 'bed')
la^s [las] -- la^ss [la:s] ([a] as in Eng. 'rather')
furta [fyrta] -- furrta [fy:rta] ([y] as in Fr. tu; Grm. Tu"r)
By definition, any non-final syllable consists of a vowel, followed by
one or more consonants. Thus, there is no problem in using consonant
doubling to express a long stressed preceding vowel. Now, the main
property for marking a resultative will be evident: in all my examples, I
have used words with variable stress, and have shown that the resultative
is expressed by changing the variable (penultimate) stress into a fixed
one on the final syllable:
sOur -- soUrr (note that this word is bisyllabic: [sOwur] -- [sowU:r],
with a bilabial w (Eng.!) between o and u)
kOrnin -- kornInn
tjokA^sas -- tjoka^sAss
tOriyst -- torIYsst (note that iy is one sound, as i in Eng. 'bit')
mImpit -- mimpItt
vIldul -- vildUll
One of the respondents has noticed this phonological/orthographic process
(though he was unable to predict the correct pronunciation triggered by
consonant doubling) and wonders what to do with words ending in a vowel,
since in these cases there is no final consonant to double. That such
words exist in Spocanian, is proved in the query by words like _letra_
'letter' and _oto 'car', and some of you certainly have recognized this.
Well, in these cases the fixed stress on the final vowel is expressed by
-e, but this is not a "real" suffix, only a marker for stress on the
preceding vowel. The -e itself is pronounced as a schwa (= @):
letra [lEtra] -- letrae [letrA:w@] (between two vowels pronounced
as a bilabial w, as in _sour_)
oto [Oto] -- otoe [otO:w@]
portzerfi [pordzErfi] -- portzerfie [pordzerfI:w@] 'television'
(litt. "remote-seeing")
In monosyllabic words and in words with a fixed stress, the resultative cannot
be expressed by shifting the stress to the final syllable. In that case, the
*suffix* -e is used, pronounced as the e in 'bed'. This suffix is not to be
confused with the abovementioned schwa:
bjerr [bjE:r] -- bjerre [bjE:re]
tupplip [tY:plip] -- tupplipe [tY:plipe]
molarriy [molA:ri] -- molarriye [molA:riwe] ([i] as i in Eng. 'bit')
Within the scope of this message, I cannot explain all details concerning
the differences between -e as a schwa and -e as a real suffix, nor the
phonological reasons why this schwa is added. I would like to conclude
this brief survey of resultative marking by mentioning that, apart from
-e, Spocanian has several other suffixes. One of them is -es, for marking
the resultative in the plural:
vIldul -- vIlduls -- vildUlses [vildUlses]
'tree' 'trees' 'trees-RES'
In fact, _vildulses_ is a phonological development from the "regular" form
_vildulls_ [vildU:ls]. In both cases, the stress is on the final vowel, as
expected.
---== TENSE ==---
Though Spocanian has a lot of grammar rules which give this language a
non-IE typology, these rules nevertheless appear to be "natural",
although there are some rules that are rather controversial. So I was not
really surprised that one of my respondents referred to one of them: the
position of the verb in order to mark tense, cf.:
Petriy stinde ef letra. 'Peter writes/is writing the letter.'
Petriy ef letra stinde. 'Peter wrote/has written the letter.'
Stinde Petriy ef letra. 'Peter will/intends to write the letter.'
The three patterns SVO (neutral tense), SOV (past tense) and VSO
(future tense) are only possible with transitive verbs (plus an expressed
object). Note that S and O never swap positions, as this would be
impossible since S and O are only marked as such by virtue of their
position (Spocanian has no case system or other subject or object
markers).
Besides these three patterns, Spocanian has suffixes for expressing
several variations in tense. One of them is -a, which is actually not a
"real" suffix, but a phonological result of the fact that the final
syllable of the verb is stressed. Cf. (stressed vowel is CAPITALIZED):
Eup prAte helkara Pariys. 'She leaves/is leaving for Paris.'
Eup pratA helkara Pariys. 'She has left for Paris.'
This shift in stress, expressing that "something has led to a result" is
also found in the resultative aspect, discussed above.
About fifteen years ago, I developed the rules for the resultative aspect
entirely independent of the already existing rules for the past tense; I
have not linked these two phenomena at all, and the coincidental
morphosyntactic/- semantic relationship which appeared to exist between
the resultative and the past tense was only pointed out to me by one of
my Amsterdam colleagues, several years ago. He claimed that the stress
shift in verbs like prAte > pratA, and in nouns like mIflif > miflIff,
could be of the same origin and could actually have the same meaning
("something/an action no longer exists"). This observation struck me and
I thought it was interesting enough to have a closer look at these
phenomena, "invented" without my being aware of their relationship. This
summer I will publish an article about the relation between the Spocanian
past tense and the resultative in "Spocanistics", a periodical which [as
yet] does not exist (only in Spocania = my computer files), but which
will be a platform for ideas and reflections concerning Spocanian that
have not yet found a place in the completed Spocanian Grammar. The main
idea is that the morphosyntactic/semantic relationship between the
resultative aspect (RA) and the past tense (PT) is obscured by the fact
that RA and PT operate in different domains: RA only in the object and PT
only in verbs. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what happens if
RA and PT operate in the *same* domain: is stress shift in that case to
be understood as an instance of RA, or as an instance of PT? However,
standard Spocanian does not provide constructions in which a constituent
is both a tense marked verb and an object, but I had already some ideas
about the Spocanian dialects that make an extensive use of
nominalizations, as opposed to the standard Spocanian 'that'-clauses,
cf.:
a. Eup reppe, den Ja^n lelperre nurp-y"katle. (standard Spoc.)
she says that John has headache
b. Eup reppe Ja^nex y"lelperros enn nurp-y"katle. (southern dialect)
she says John's having OBJ headache
'She says that John has a headache.'
OBJ = object marker _enn_ (optional in most matrix clauses, but obligatory
in most subordinate clauses and in nominalizations).
In a., _reppe_ 'to say' is followed by a complement in the form of a
that-clause, but in b., _reppe_ is a purely transitive verb, preceded by the
subject _eup_ and followed by the object:
c. Ja^nex.....nurp-y"katle
That c. is really an object (CAPITALIZED below), is shown in the past tense
(SOV pattern):
b'. Eup JA^NEX Y"LELPERROS ENN NURP-Y"KATLE reppe.
she John's having OBJ headache says
'She said/has said that John has a headache.'
and in the passive (DO > S):
b''. JA^NEX Y"LELPERROS ENN NURP-Y"KATLE reppelije pai eup.
John's having OBJ headache is-said by her
'That John has a headache, she says (is said by her).'
Now the remarkable thing is that in b., the nominalization _y"lelperros_
'the having' accepts stress shift, resulting in:
c. Eup reppe Ja^nex y"lelperrOss enn nurp-y"katle.
she says John's having OBJ headache
(in _y"lelperross_, the stress is on the final o)
What does c. mean? Theoretically, this construction is ambiguous: the
stress on the final o may indicate either (A) a past tense (as it does in
fArte > fartA), or (B) a resultative (as it does in telefOnos >
telefonOss). Thus, c. has the following meanings:
(i) She says that John HAD a headache (stress shift indicates a past tense)
(ii) She says that John has a raging headache (stress shift indicates
a resultative which has to be interpreted as intensifying)
In order to determine which of the meanings, (i) or (ii) or both, is/are
correct, I needed some informants, who I had to "create", analoguous to
"creating" the language itself. Some colleagues and friends were
confronted with relevant data, and after I had explained the principles
of the RA and PT, I let them follow their intuition, and my impression is
now that both meanings (i) and (ii) are indeed acceptable (I do not
pretend that this test has any scientific value, I only try to illustrate
how Spocanian is able to raise linguistic questions). The outcome of this
"research" was discussed during a lecture I held in January (Amsterdam),
illustrated by "authentic" tape recordings of "native dialect speakers".
For me, it was an experience to hear these dialects; I had described them
and I could instruct the "informants" how to pronounce the data, but the
outcome was unexpected.
---== SUBORDINATE CONSTRUCTIONS ==---
None of the respondents was able to get excited over the examples of
subordinate constructions. According to one of them, "they are not
particularly strange. No stranger indeed than what some Papuan languages
do [..]". Indeed, Spocanian uses a kind of adverb (my grammarbook says
"determinator" or "particle") in the matrix clause, expressing the
relationship between this clause and the subordinate one. Classical Greek
seems to have a similar solution (?). But where are all other reactions
concerning subordinate clauses? Why wasn't anything said about the
suffixes -ilo~me and -ilomije which occur in subordinate clauses? The
answer is probably: because all readers immediately understood that these
suffixes are purely subordinate markers! I would like to add that
-ilomije is a fusion of the subordinate marker -ilo~me and the passive
marker -lije. The change from o~ in -ilo~me to o in -ilomije is due to a
phonological rule saying that a stressed o is diphtongized and an
unstressed o is not: o~ sounds like oy in Eng. boy, whereas o sounds like
o in German Not or eau in Fr. beau (not diphtongized like in English).
One of the respondents wondered whether -ilomije was correct (and should
not be -ilo~mije): yes it is. One of the clauses involved in a
subordinate construction was:
Eup lorertavy eft kleter oto.
she buy-want a new car = 'She wants to buy a new car.'
Note that modality is often expressed by a suffix: in _lorertavy_ we have
the modal suffix -avy 'to want to, to wish'. Another example:
Gress nert arfine. -- Gress nert arfinecu^.
I not come I not come-can
'I do not come.' 'I am not able to come; I cannot come.'
The difference between *epistemic* and *deontic* is often reflected in a
choice between modal verbs and modal suffixes.
---== PASSIVE VOICE ==---
Spocanian has two passive markers: -lije (DO > S) and -lita^ (IO > S).
Nobody has asked me about the nature of these markers. It is generally
accepted that [most?] languages do not have such a thing as a "passive
morphology". The passive is, cross-linguistically, expressed by already
existing middle forms or by already existing auxiliary/copula
constructions. Spocanian, however, has neither marked middles nor
Aux+PastParticiple constructions, and -lije and -lita^ are exclusively
used for the passive. A lot of research has still to be done with respect
to the nature of Spocanian passives. Some research has already been done
and has been published in Working Papers in Functional Grammar (1989/33),
(University of Amsterdam, Dept. of General Linguistics). (It is tempting
to "create" some other, more basic function for these passive markers,
and to state that the passive is expressed by these suffixes which are
already used for something else, for instance a middle. But this is not
the way in which I wish to deal with Spocanian. As said, its grammar has
been completed, and this material, including some diachronical and
dialectical data should suffice to account for all phenomena in this
language. The only tool I can use for describing the Spocanian passive is
an elaborate theoretical framework, not the creation of new grammar rules
or data).
All questions I discussed above may be compared with the well-known
puzzles in which mathematical or logical problems are posed in a
hypothetical situation. My questions were framed in a "hypothetical"
language, and I cannot see why this should be controversial.
However, as for my last question (concerning the nature of language X)
there seems to be some controversy. I asked: "What is the name of
language X, to which family does it belong, and/or where is it spoken?" I
agree that this was not the most appropriate formulation. Better would
have been: "I know the identity of language X, but I wonder whether you
are able to say something about X's identity after studying the data?"
Fortunately, many readers (at least eight) have interpreted my question
in the right way. I hope that the linguist who told me that "I had gone
too far" with this question, was not representative of all of my readers.
---==||==---
All grammatical information above is to be regarded as an answer to the
questions, suggestions and analyses I got from 3 respondents in Australia
and New-Zealand, and from 5 in the rest of the world, who also have
received their personal replies (why are Australia and New-Zealand so
overrepresented, compared with the rest of the world?).
I am prepared to give more information about Spocanian, but I would like
to do this as a reaction to your comments. So please send your message to
the Linguist List or to
Rolandt Tweehuysen
University of Amsterdam, Dept of General Linguistics
E-mail : twee@alf.let.uva.nl
snail mail: Postbus 3774, 1001 AN Amsterdam, Netherlands
In the next message, you'll find more information about Spocania[n].
---==||==---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---== GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE KINGDOM OF SPOCANIA ==---
AND ITS MAIN LANGUAGE, SPOCANIAN
---== DESCRIPTION OF SPOCANIA ==---
This kingdom consists of 7 main islands (Berref, Liftka, Bry"r, Tigof,
Lomky, Teujan and Garos), located in the Atlantic Ocean, between Ireland
and the USA. To be precise: in the centre of the capital Hirdo a stone
has been erected near the banks of the River Trendon, in order to
indicate Spocania's exact geographical position: 20 degrees 40 minutes
longitude west, and 49 degrees 12 minutes latitude north. Starting out
from this stone, it is a 250 km trip to the east coast, 132 km to the
west coast, 90 km to the most northern point and 162 km to the most
southern cape.
The country is democratically governed by 12 ministers, a Lower House, an
Upper House and an Advisory Council, whose chairman is the King (Huron
Herco Loefe IV). The name of the Prime Minister is Lores Hees-Fiyndiy,
but such names will not be familiar, as there are no sex scandals, ??gate
affairs or separatistic movements.
Until the sixties of this century, Spocania was a feudal country with
powerful landowners and an underdeveloped industry. Due to a strict
isolationism (another word for both political and economical
independence), the importation of luxury goods and cultural and touristic
exchange was at a low level. In 1955, the government presented a dramatic
plan in order to develop the country in a number of ways: the feudal
system was to be democratized and new industries were to be set up. This
was not an "Industrial Revolution" in the sense of an undemocratic
people's mobilization, but rather an "Industrial Development", as the
government called its new policy.
Nowadays, Spocania has become a modern nation, where urbanization,
pollution, and unemployment are national problems, like in so many other
countries. Its religion, the Ergynne, is still alive throughout most of
the country (though the western part of the main island as well as the
two southern isles are largely catholic) and has left many traces in the
vocabulary. Spocania has approx. 7 million inhabitants, a million of whom
live in the capital Hirdo. One of the strategies for breaking down
isolationism and getting the country to rise with the modern
international tide has been the development of tourism. This resulted in
a travel guide being published in the Netherlands, besides in some TV
promotion, so that many Dutchmen have attempted to travel to this unknown
but attractive country. This book has provoked a lot of reactions, and
all the Dutch media have given attention to both the country and the
book's author.
---== A COUNTRY AS A BASIS FOR A LANGUAGE ==---
My main reason for "creating" a nation of my own was not to write a
travel guide, but rather to provide a world in which the Spocanian
language could be spoken. Like many children, I used to have a kind of
secret language in order to communicate with a school friend. It was not
a real language, but merely a transposing of Dutch words into imaginary
words, conforming to Dutch phonology and morphology. There was no real
grammar, though some particular rules may have existed (I am talking
about the stage at which this "language" was when I was 10 years old).
One of my initial ideas at that time was that I needed an imaginary
country for this imaginary language to be spoken in. I do not consider
this very exceptional, for I am aware that many school children do the
same. But the fact that I am 45 now and that Spocania and its language
are still in existence does seem rather exceptional to me.
Spocanian is the result of a hobby (and is not intended as an alternative
Esperanto): where others have collected stamps or software, I have
collected words and grammar rules all my life. Though "collecting" may be
not the right word for I have the feeling that the Spocanian words and
grammar rules have always existed: my task has simply been to gather them
for future use. This resulted in a dictionary with over 25,000 entries
(also available as electronic dictionary) and a grammar book containing
1500 pages.
There are thousands of languages in the world which have to make do with
less descriptive material.
---== SPOCANIAN AS A NATURAL LANGUAGE ==---
Spocanian has grown and developed over a period of 30 years. My main goal
was to create a language that would be "as real and realistic as
possible". Someone studying the grammar must have the impression that
(s)he is reading the grammar of a natural, unfamiliar exotic language.
And as, by definition, any natural language is spoken by people in a
natural setting, the kingdom of Spocania is a necessary basis for such a
language. All languages show the influence of cultural, geographical,
political, historical and climatological circumstances in which the
people, speaking those languages, have to live. Thus, for every word I
put in the dictionary, I have to be aware of how the Spocanian people use
it: whether or not the Spocanian word for "blackbird" or "elephant" is a
loanword depends on whether there are any blackbirds/elephants in
Spocania. And if this is not the case, are they then familiar with such
creatures; and if so, how do they know them and how have they chosen a
word to refer to them?"
It will be obvious that the language also reflects the typical Spocanian
culture and religion. The word "pakra" means a "religious feast at full
moon, during which a lamb is sacrificed and people bask in the moonlight,
saturating themselves with health-giving beams". The verb "dreuma^ne"
originally meant "to do all things necessary in order to get a
boat/vehicle/horse ready for sailing/driving/riding", but in modern
Spocanian this verb is also used for "starting up a computer".
The verb "kajjynte" means "ignoring that somebody is trying to draw
attention, while knowing that the person is aware that you are ignoring
this". A single verb for a situation we all recognize, yet less exotic
languages have no word for it.
Another challenge for me was to create a detailed grammatical system,
that does not clash with language universals as they are generally
accepted, but which is nevertheless special, with a set of rules that
lack counterparts in other languages but still have natural properties.
For example: I have abandoned all auxiliaries, and most of the copulas.
One of the results is that a passive cannot be expressed by means of an
aux, so I opted for a suffix. Furthermore, this lack of auxiliaries has
led to an entirely different treatment of tenses. In my previous message
I have explained that tense is primarily expressed in the word order.
Another speciality of Spocanian is the extensive use of affixes. Apart
from the numerous grammatical pre- and suffixes, the language also has
*lexical* affixes: many nouns only exist as suffixes that can never be
used independently, e.g.: _-mip_ means 'book' and is used in nouns like
_ca^smip_ 'cash book' or _cofd^iymip_ 'fairy tale book', but the plain
noun 'book' is _mimpit_. The nominal nature of such lexical suffixes is
noticeable in the way they form their plurals: a suffix like _-klan_
'-wheel' has the irregular plural _-kla^ne_, and not the expected
_*-klans_: _otoklan -- otokla^ne_ 'wheel of a car -- wheels of a car'.
Since _-klan_ can only be used in compound nouns, the plain word 'wheel'
has to be translated by _tro^cha^_. Sometimes, lexical suffixes are
semantically subordinated in the nouns in which they occur. Here is an
example with _-o^m_, meaning 'industry, factory, work': _ara^nka_ is
'railway', but _ara^nkao^m_ does not mean 'railway industry' but rather
'industrial railway'. _Helbio^m_ is 'workclothes, overalls', but not
'clothing industry'. However, Spocanian morphology is too complex to
discuss here.
---== THE NAME SPOCANIA ==---
"Spocania" is the anglicized form of the Dutch _Spokanie"_ (note the
diaeresis on the final e). This name is derived from the Dutch word
_spook_ 'ghost, spectre, spook', and is reminiscent of the time when I
was 4-5 years old and imagined that there was a country/world inhabited
by ghosts. When I was 7 or 8, I invented some "Spocanian words". This was
not a real language of course (at that age, I was unaware of grammar
rules), but just a few names referring to creatures and places in this
country. Some words for the awful diseases these ghosts could catch had
already been invented at that time. Some of these words are still in use:
_kinur_ used to be the name of a severe ghost disease, and _aftomirus_
was the medicine for it. Nowadays _kinur_ is the ordinary adjective for
'ill', while _aftomirus_ means 'semolina' (yes, there is a reason for
it). From the same period stem proper nouns like _Huron_ (the King's
name) and _Hirdo_ (the capital). All those ancient words are Dutch in
appearance and lack diacritical signs. When I was about 14 years old, I
decided that _Spokanie"_ had to be a real, human country. Any relation
with ghosts had to be avoided, and I invented a new "etymology" for the
country's name: it was related to the English verbal paradigm 'to speak -
spoke - spoken'. In Spocanian, the name of the language is _Spoka^nda_
and the name of the country is _Spooksoliy_. Of course there has to be an
imaginary etymology in order to explain these words, but up to now I have
not been able to decide which etymology is most suitable here, and how
the relation between _Spookoliy_ and _Spoka^nda_ should be explained. I
have used this lack of clarity to develop an imaginary polemic among
"Spocanian linguists" about the origin of these words. This polemic
(written in Spocanian) has been published in the Spocanian periodical
_La^nga^r ur Tiba^n_ ('Language and Science'), in fact the Spocanian
counterpart of the abovementioned periodical "Spocanistics", the English
linguistic magazine "published in Spocania".
I do not recall when somebody told me that there was a town called
Spokane in the US State of Washington. It came as a surprise, and I was
expected to explain a possible link between Spokane and Spocania.
Naturally, this was not too difficult, for many place names in America
were imported from Europe. So why shouldn't a group of Spocanian farmers
have settled somewhere in the forest, naming their settlement after their
native country? There is a fragmentary history of the Spocanian
settlement in America, including some details about "Spocamerican", the
mixture of English and Spocanian, as spoken by the descendants of the
early Spocanian settlers. I have "discovered" a bit of text, written in
approx. 1880, and this is the only instance of Spocamerican, which is
extinct nowadays. It was, by the way, a colleague of mine in Amsterdam,
specialized in Canadian indian and pidgin languages, who suggested that
the early settlers of Spokane might have used a mixture of English and
Spocanian. And as so often, such a suggestion set me thinking, thus
laying another brick of the building called >Spocanian<. Perhaps more
about this Spocamerican text in a next message.
---==||==---
This is the first introduction concerning Spocania and its language. It
depends on your reactions, whether and how I shall continue!
Rolandt Tweehuysen
University of Amsterdam
Department for General Linguistics
Spuistraat 210
Amsterdam - Netherlands
twee@alf.lett.uva.nl
---------------------------------------------------------------
(
geocities.com/athens)