As ideas pile up in margins of notebooks, on scraps of paper, in random files on a variety of computers, etc, one interesting problem arises. They do not necessarily conform to the other ideas that have gone before them, and therefore either require 1) new projects, 2) reform of old projects, 3) changes in the idea or 4) discarding. Now that I took the time to finally organize the ideas of the last few years - ideas that have been amassing since before I made the current version of Bryatesle, I realize I haven't actually done much of the actual organizatory work needed for my kind of conlanging. Part of the creative work is done, but since the organization of this material also is a creative act, much remains before any of this could be called a conlang. Some of the ideas offer possible glimpses into fascinating structures, though.
These ideas have occured at any time, and been recorded quickly (alas, as you'll soon see, also somewhat unorganizedly) on whatever surface it could be recorded on.
Now, part of a problem I am discovering (again) is that Past Miekko doesn't communicate very well. In part, this is because I write unclearly and fragmentarily, in the illusion that what I mean is obvious.
The italic text is the note itself, the text afterwards the further creative process when pairing it with a language and wondering whether there's conflicts with earlier ideas etc. I am trying to catch the thinking I would do as closely as possible.
Anyways, here's some nuggets of what I've come up with.
coordination - no coordinating particle needed for simple 'and'. constraints: same case (but also abl + dat permitted)
relatively easy to understand, but i left out which conlang this was meant for. My guess is bryatesle, since its case system would permit rather nifty ways of distinguishing noncoordinated from coordinated nouns, but Tatediem and Dairwueh are just as likely.
rcp + weak agentivity -> subj[1](high anim)
obj/subj[2](low anim).sec subj
rcp + strong agenitivity
-> subj.rcp.obj subj.rcp.obj
clearly something to do with reciprocality. the case system used in the glossish things imply bryatesle. I guess this simply means that reciprocal stuff is done in Bryatelse as if it were normal transitivity but with additional markers on the subject and object. What exactly strong and weak agentivity mean in this context was left unspecified, so I guess I have to figure that out?
"between" as in N[1].dat.rcp.obj+N[2].dat.rp.obj
pretty ok way of rendering 'between'
obviously bryatesle, not much more work needed except coming up with the word 'in' in the first place.
only the 3sgII-form of a verb can be fronted; 3sgII can be used with 0-subjects, 3sgI otoh permits subject omission (because it is more clearly bound to a real 3sg subject)
these are likely dairwueh-thingies, since it has two verb forms that I call 3sgI/3sgII, altho' in fact the 3sgII is not purely a third person verb - it's less strictly bound to person, but still most likely to pop up in 3/impersonal situations.
'in +dative (or whichever) being the normal way of that adposition, with the exception of x.nom AUX (presumably along the lines of 'to have', but possibly exceptionally marked) obj.instr in + y.accusative for 'x put/poked/threw/placed/whatever obj in y (with implication of this having been done somewhat violently)'
probably dairwueh, due to the nom-acc alignment, altho' it could also be bryatesle.
also, in +dat is what the previous bryatesle idea says is the normal way, so I guess that helps qualifying this as a more or less set idea!
These were examples of the oldest notes I've been finding - I've since then taken to organizing them somewhat better in a notebook specifically for ideas (altho' not limited to conlanging ideas - ideas for algorithms, stories, compositions, experiments in music theory, outlines for posts in religious debates, rather imprecise calculations of the n:th power of the o:th root of p, etc etc also occur), they've taken to being a bit more organized - I (very) recently took to tagging every conlangy idea with a set of marks, and numbering them.
have a large number of different participles, e.g. 'active participle of future obligation', 'active participle of fulfilled obligation', 'passive participle of likelihood', etc etc. few verbs have a full paradigm, and different verbs tend to have different sets of these participles. [try at some point making an elaboration of this with example systems].
This seems to be an idea that would require a language of its own, or could maybe work in dairwueh (less likely in tatediem, but I'll have a look). Coming up with a rich morphology isn't something I like doing a lot, but I guess this is a good enough idea to warrant it.
related: transitive and causative verbs for intransitives are formed by aux + trns/caus participle (cf how English forms passives)
This idea actually predates the prior idea, but it's just popped up every now and then and I never wrote it down until rather recently.
auxiliary for future tense comes in two flavours - transitive AND volitional intransitive subjects versus nonvolitional intransitive subjects.
pretty basic, really. prolly put it in dairwueh, might put it in tatediem? Tatediem being ergative, this could be kinda cool, but on the other hand why not put it in a nom-acc language?
nominal classes otherwise not marked except by auxes showing agreement through suppletion - often with partially incomplete paradigms, to a lesser degree similar agreement through adpositions and even less so - again mostly through suppletion and lexically determined thingies - for adjectives.
doesn't work for B, T or D, but I have plans for a future, more isolating language. This fits in with that, but on the other hand, it'd be interesting to build a more complex system of classifiers and stuff, but wth, this could be rather neat.
