A Philosophical Grammar of Ithkuil, a Constructed Language

+ Syntax refers to the rules for sequencing the order of words + within a phrase or sentence, including rules permitting more than one possible + sequential ordering of words. To understand the following discussion of Ithkuil + syntax it is necessary to have a cursory understanding of the notions of semantic + role, pragmatic role, and grammatical (or syntactical) + relations:

Semantic role: This refers to the underlying semantic + function of a particular word, irrespective of overt morphological category. + We have already seen how Ithkuil marks its noun cases to reflect semantic + roles, not grammatical relations. Such roles include Agent, Patient, Experiencer, + Recipient, Instrument, etc., as previously explained in Section + 4.1 et seq.
+
Pragmatic role: This refers to the function of a word + or phrase in relation to its predicate or the rest of the sentence in terms + of whether and how it represents “given” versus “new” + information, i.e., whether or not the word or phrase represents background + information already known to the addressee, or whether it represents new + information previously unknown to the addressee. Three such roles or relations + are generally delineated: topic, comment, + and focus. The topic of a sentence is the word + or phrase about which the speaker has been asked or is expected by the addressee + to talk about. The comment is the information (usually a predicate) + given by the speaker about the particular topic. The term focus + refers to whatever information in a sentence is new to the addressee, (i.e., + not previously known), and has been discussed in detail in Sec. + 3.5. To illustrate these concepts, consider the sentence I can see + why Mary’s angry, but what about Bill? (i.e., What happened + to make Bill angry, too?). In the hypothetical answer Bill (or + He) is angry because he lost his keys, ‘Bill’ (or ‘he’) + is the topic, ‘is angry because he lost his keys’ is the comment, + and ‘he lost his keys’ is the focus.
+
Grammatical (or syntactical) + relations: the arbitrary word-ordering rules of a language, irrespective + of semantic or pragmatic roles, e.g., the subject of the sentence in English + normally precedes the main verb and the direct object normally follows the + main verb.

In general, the syntax of a language either (1) establishes + the permissible grammatical relations of the language, (2) reflects and/or reinforces + semantic roles, (3) reflects and/or reinforces pragmatic roles, or (4) any combination + of these. As one might surmise from the above, English syntax is weighted heavily + toward establishing grammatical relations at the near-total expense of identifying + semantic roles. As for pragmatic roles, English rarely reflects these in its + syntax (one exception is the strong tendency for placing wh- question + words in sentence-initial position in specialized questions, even if they represent + a direct object, e.g., What have you done? or Who[m] are they talking + about?), however, such roles do tend to be marked “supra-segmentally” + by inflection of vocal pitch and tone of voice.

We have already seen the extreme to which Ithkuil marks semantic + roles morphologically as opposed to syntactically. And since grammatial relations + in and of themselves are relatively arbitrary within language, Ithkuil uses + pure word order constraints only to an extent necessary to ensure avoidance + of ambiguity in determining which nouns belong as participants to a verb, which + nouns lie in apposition to their head, and which words of a compound sentence + lie within a case-frame as opposed to outside the case-frame. As for pragmatic + roles, we have already seen that semantic focus and optional topicalization + are accomplished morphologically in Ithkuil (see Sec. + 3.5 and the TPF affix in Sec. + 7.7.13). As a result, Ithkuil has relatively free word order which, subject + to a few constraints, is manipulated for euphonic and phonaesthetic reasons. + Those constraints on word order which do exist are explained below.

The highly inflected nature of Ithkuil morphology allows the + order of words within a sentence to be quite flexible. Nevertheless, two neutral + or “default” patterns exist, one for main clauses, the other for + case frames.

+ 9.1.1 Word Order Within Main Clauses

Nt1/R = first transrelative participant or + a personal reference adjunct
+ Nt2 = second transrelative participant
+ Na = attributive/associative/adverbial nouns
+ Ns = spatio-temporal nouns
+ A = aspectual adjunct
+ Cv = conflation or valence adjunct
+ Co = other adjuncts (e.g., affixual adjunct or combination + adjunct)
+ Vb = verb

Thus we see that a main clause normally starts with the highest-order + transrelative noun (see Sec. 4.2) + or any personal reference adjunct, followed by any nouns in lower-order transrelative + cases, followed by nouns in non-transrelative cases. The last part of the clause + consists of the verb in final position preceded by any aspectual adjunct, conflation + (or valence) adjunct, and combination or affixual adjunct, in that order. As + for “higher-” versus “lower-” order transrelative nouns, + this refers to the hierarchy or sequence of transrelative cases in which certain + cases take precedence over others. This hierarchy is as follows:

ERGATIVE

+ EFFECTUATIVE

+ INDUCIVE

ABSOLUTIVE +

DERIVATIVE +

+ SITUATIVE

+ AFFECTIVE

+ DATIVE

INSTRUMENTAL +

OBLIQUE

9.1.2 Word-order within Case-Frames

Within a case-frame (see Section + 5.7), a different default order is used in order to identify the clause + as a case frame:

Vc = verb inflected for case-frame
+ A = aspectual adjunct
+ Cv = conflation or valence adjunct
+ Co = other adjuncts (e.g., affixual adjunct or combination + adjunct)
+ Na = attributive/associative/adverbial nouns
+ Ns = spatio-temporal nouns
+ Nt2 = second transrelative participant
+ Nt1/R = first transrelative participant or a personal reference + adjunct

This is nearly the reverse order of the main clause, with the + case-marked verb appearing initially within the case-frame followed by its attendant + adjuncts, then any secondary nouns, followed by any transrelative nouns with + the highest-order transrelative noun or any personal reference adjunct in final + position within the case-frame. Additionally, the last noun within the case-frame + will usually take one of the –V1’ + suffixes (see Sec. 7.7.13) + signifying the end of the case-frame unless this is clear without the suffix + (e.g., because the case-frame is in sentence-final position).

9.1.3 Flexibility and Constraints in Word Order

Despite there being a normal word-order for main clauses and + case-frames, these are by no means grammatically required. In general, the order + of most words can be changed for purposes of euphony. Nevertheless, Ithkuil + word order is not completely free. The following word-order constraints exist + in order to avoid potential ambiguity or semantic incoherence.

Nouns in Attributive, Associative and Adverbial cases (see Secs. + 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5) + which are dependent on, or in apposition to a “head” noun, must + immediately precede or follow that head noun, unless the relationship between + the two nouns is readily ascertainable without the two being in apposition.
+
Sentences containing case-frames are most likely to follow the default, + normal word-order, in order to avoid ambiguity as to which formatives and + adjuncts belong to the main clause and which to the case-frame. Case-frames + especially often reflect a verb-initial pattern, in order to easily signify + the beginning of the case-frame.
+
A case-frame cannot be broken apart into segments within a main sentence, + i.e., the case-frame must constitute a single cohesive clause and not contain + elements of the main clause within it. It is possible to “nest” + a second case-frame within a case-frame, similar to the way in which subordinate + or relative clauses can be nested in English and other Western languages, + e.g., [Despite owning a Picasso [that comes from his Blue period] [of + which I, [a mere student,] am fond,]] Joe is actually a very humble person.
+

9.1.4 Phonotactically-Induced Syntactic Modifications

As mentioned above, word-order can shift in an Ithkuil sentence + to accommodate phonotactic or phonaesthetic ends, i.e., for purposes of euphony. + This is because suffixes on a formative, as well as morphemes associated with + categories of Bias and Mood, can be transformed into autonomous adjuncts (see + Secs. 8.3, 8.4 + and 8.6.2). As + was described in Sec. 1.4.5, words + of six syllables or more are generally undesirable, therefore any formative + with numerous affixes is potentially subject to having several of its morphemes + redistributed to adjuncts. As an example, the word umreiquçîîmšën + ‘series of bombs’ can separate out two of its four suffixes into + a separate word çu’’î + to give the form çu’’î_umreiqîmšën + whose morphological structure is

When ordering such phonaesthetically-induced adjuncts, it is + important that they can be easily associated with the formative to which they + apply. Generally, this means that they will be adjacent to the formative, or + occur on either side of other adjuncts associated with the formative.

+ 9.1.5 Iconicity

English and other languages generally display phrase-structure + patterns and word-order patterns which reinforce, or even reflect, a cognitive + understanding of what is being described, i.e., the order of the words themselves + reflects information about how we are to understand the utterance. Such a phenomenon + is known as iconicity. In English and other Western languages, + the most common way in which iconicity is manifested is what is termed “sequential + order iconicity,” the idea that the actual sequential order of words in + a phrase or sentence reflects the sequential order of the events they describe. + For example, the phrases ‘eye it, try it, buy it,’ ‘I came, + I saw, I conquered,’ or ‘dine and dash’ describe sequential + events where the sequence of the words reflect the sequence of the events. What + is most important is that re-ordering of the words either changes the meaning + of the phrase or leads to semantic nonsense, e.g., ‘buy it, eye it, try + it’ implies that a different sequence of events actually takes place than + ‘eye it, try it, buy it.’ This can be more dramatically illustrated + with the following pair of sentences.

In English, the ambiguous word ‘and’ is interpreted + as connecting a sequence of events, i.e., ‘and’ is interpreted to + mean sequential ‘then’ (= ‘and following that,’ ‘then + next’ or ‘then later’). As a result, the meanings of the two + sentences imply very different social interpretations about Jane.

Besides the reflection of sequential order, other types of + word-order iconicity are possible. For example, compare the subtle difference + in meaning between the following two sentences:

In the first sentence, we do not know what color the fence + was prior to being painted, or even if it was a new fence that had never been + painted before. In the second sentence, not only do we know what color the fence + had been, but also that it was not previously unpainted, however, we do not + necessarily know what its new color is. This sort of iconicity is used to convey + a resultative state of affairs, i.e., by placing the adjective ‘white’ + after the word ‘fence’ (seemingly in violation of the usual adjective-before-noun + word order used in English), we describe a resulting state of affairs.

Yet another type of word-order iconicity is displayed in comparing + the following two sentences.

Most grammar textbooks would state that these two sentences + are semantically equivalent, the first employing a “ditransitive” + pattern (i.e., juxtaposing an indirect object ‘Sue’ with a direct + object ‘wedding gift’), while the second uses a “complement” + pattern in which the indirect object follows the direct object and is changed + to a prepositional phrase using ‘to.’ However, there is a subtle + semantic distinction between the two sentences. The first strongly implies that + the wedding gift is for Sue, i.e., Sue is the bride and intended recipient. + The second sentence, however, invites the possibility that Sue is only a temporary + or circumstantial goal for the act of giving, but not the bride and intended + recipient. For example, if Sue is merely a guest at the wedding and Loretta + needed Sue’s help carrying an armload of wedding gifts, she might give + a wedding gift to Sue, but that does not mean she would give Sue + a wedding gift. This type of iconicity distinguishing a recipient from a directional + goal is an example of what is termed “distance iconicity,” because + the two linked words are made more “distant” from each other in + the sentence as a reflection of their more circumstantial association.

Ithkuil does not display iconicity. While the order of words + in an Ithkuil phrase or sentence may coincidentally reflect a temporal or causative + sequence of events, this is not by syntactic design. Because of the myriad means + available in Ithkuil to morphologically distinguish sequence, cause-and-effect, + resulting states, and the distinction of recipients from directional goals, + no iconicity patterns are required.

For example, we saw in sentences (1) and (2) above how English + ‘and’ can be used to convey not just mere coordination, but also + a sequencing function. In Sections + 7.7.3 and 7.7.4, we saw + that Ithkuil has no less than thirty-six suffixes (four suffix categories, each + with nine different degrees) which convey various coordinative and sequencing + patterns with great specificity. Thus, Ithkuil has no morpheme directly equivalent + to the ambiguous English word ‘and.’ There is an affix corresponding + to ‘and’ in its use as a mere additive listing device (e.g., ‘pears + and apples and bananas’), another corresponding to its use as an indicator + of simultaneity (e.g., ‘I clenched my fists and scowled’), another + corresponding to its use as an indicator of additional information (e.g., ‘The + clown likes children and loves to eat’), another to its use as an indicator + of parallel description or activity (e.g., ‘We went dancing and so did + they’), and yet another as a temporal sequencing indicator (e.g., ‘I + went to the window and looked out’).

We first discussed semantic focus in Section + 3.5, describing it as a means to distinguish new from background information + in a sentence. In languages like English, such distinctions are generally accomplished + syntactically by means of word order, as illustrated by the distinction between + The clown selected a redheaded girl from the audience versus It + was a redheaded girl the clown selected from the audience. Because semantic + focus (along with optional topicalization) is shown morphologically (with affixes) + in Ithkuil, word order changes are not necessary to distinguish new from background + information in a sentence. Comparison between the word-order based system of + English and the morphology based system of Ithkuil is analyzed in Sec. 9.2.1 + below. Additionally, while Ithkuil’s system for indicating topics and + semantic focus does not require changes in word order per se, it does + allow for significant word deletion, creating abbreviated sentences which, in + effect, modify the default word order of a sentence. Such word deletion is analyzed + in Sec. 9.2.2.

+ 9.2.1 Using Focus and Sequencing Affixes in Lieu of Word-Order Changes

Focus, in conjunction with the sequencing affixes described + in Sec. 7.7.3, can be used + to subtle effect in Ithkuil, providing semantic nuance. For example, compare + the following English sentences:

All four sentences indicate two sequential events: shopping, + then going home. The difference between them is one of focus and viewpoint. + In the first two sentences, going home has semantic focus, as that is the new + information being conveyed, while in the latter two sentences it is shopping + that has focus. The first and third sentence have a “prospective” + viewpoint in that the sentence conveys the events in the same sequence in which + they occurred, looking upon the events from the viewpoint of the one that occurred + first. However, the second and fourth sentences have a “retrospective” + viewpoint, conveying the two events in a reverse order from how they occurred, + looking back on the events from the viewpoint of the event which occurred last.

In Ithkuil, the distinction in focus and viewpoint in these + four sentences would be accomplished morphologically, not syntactically. Positive + Focus would be used to identify those parts of the sentence which present new + information, while the two viewpoints would be accomplished using the aforementioned + sequencing suffixes.
+

9.2.2 Abbreviated Sentences Using Focus and Topicalization

Focus and topicalization allow Ithkuil, as with other languages, + to provide abbreviated sentences in direct answer to commands, the equivalent + of questions (see Sec. 5.1.6), + or to comment on a topic already under discussion. Because the topic is already + known within the contextual discourse, only the portion of the new sentence + carrying semantic focus need be spoken. Similarly, the topicalization + suffix in conjunction with the INTERROGATIVE + illocution affix, allows for abbreviated inquiries within a known contextual + discourse, similar to such abbreviated sentences in English, e.g., ‘and + Bill?’ in lieu of the full sentence ‘Comment on how this applies + to Bill.’

It should be noted that when structuring an Ithkuil sentence, + particularly when translating from other languages such as English, care must + be given to avoid capturing irrelevant semantic information reflected by the + morphology of the source language and trying to find an equivalent or parallel + way to reflect those irrelevancies in the Ithkuil sentence. This can have a + profound effect on the morpho-syntactical structure of the resulting Ithkuil + sentence.

9.3.1 Arbitrary Delineations of Perspective or Point of View

One area where word-choice in English and other Western languages + arbitrarily affects sentence structure is in the unintentional schematicization + of a particular perspective or point of view. For example, consider the following + pair of sentences in English.

Both of these sentences are describing the same property of + the path — its steepness. The distinction in the sentences comes from + the point of view being reflected by the speaker. In sentence (1) the implied + point of view is from the bottom of the canyon upward, while in sentence (2) + the viewpoint is from the top of the canyon downward. What is important is that, + semantically, the point of view is of no relevance to the steepness of the path + per se. So if the cognitive intent of the utterance is simply to describe + the vertical gradient of the path within the canyon, there would be only one + Ithkuil translation for both of these sentences, eschewing the point of view + entirely and restating the sentence to read:

9.3.2 Masking of Semantic or Participatory Roles

Similarly, care must be made, when comparing Ithkuil sentence + structure with other languages, to note that Ithkuil grammar allows for a more + overt reflection of the underlying semantic roles inherent in a given sentence. + As a result, sentence structures in Western languages which “mask” + potentially anomalous semantic structures are avoided in Ithkuil. For example, + compare the following pairs of sentences.

The syntactical patterns of these two pairs of sentences are + identical, yet the word-order in sentence (4b) is ungrammatical (as indicated + by the asterisk), while the same word-order in sentence (3b) presents no problem. + The underlying reason for the difference is one of semantic role. While ‘analysts’ + can function in the role of Recipients, ‘stains’ cannot (they are + merely directional Goals, i.e., where the solvent gets applied). Cognitively, + stains cannot “possess” a solvent the way analysts can “possess” + a report. In Ithkuil, the semantic roles would be clearly defined by the case-markings + of the participants. Therefore, syntactically inconsistent pairs such as (3b) + and (4b) do not occur.

Sometimes, rather than semantic role, it is a participant’s + relationship to an underlying clause that presents the problem. For example, + He’s a tall president means ‘He’s a president who + is tall.’ So why doesn’t He’s a likely president + mean ‘*He’s a president who is likely’? The reason is that, + while ‘tall’ describes its adjacent referent ‘president,’ + ‘likely’ does not describe its adjacent referent. Rather, ‘likely’ + describes an underlying process in which that referent is or will be engaged, + i.e., ‘running for president.’ Therefore, while these two sentences + are morpho-syntactically identical in English, their Ithkuil translations are + quite different from one another morpho-syntactically:
+

9.3.3 Negation

Negation is another morpho-semantic area where translation + from English or other Western languages can be tricky. Consider the English + sentence Shelly doesn’t think they like her cooking. Note this + sentence does not mean what a literal word-for-word analysis implies, i.e., + ‘That they like her cooking is not something that Shelly is thinking.’ + Rather, the correct meaning is ‘Shelly thinks that they don’t like + her cooking.’ Ithkuil is very precise in specifying exactly what components + of a sentence are to be negated. Use of the four affirmation/negation affixes + from Sec. 7.7.9 (

) + in conjunction with a formative carries very specific information as to what + morphological components of a sentence are being affirmed or negated and to + what degree. Using these four affixes alone, Ithkuil can distinguish between + the following four sentences without any syntactic rearrangement of the words:

Thus when translating negative sentences into Ithkuil, care + must be taken to not syntactically “rearrange” a sentence as with + Shelly doesn’t think they like her cooking. Additionally, Ithkuil + makes a morpho-semantic distinction not found in Western languages: the difference + between absolute negation and relative negation. + Absolute negation implies that the non-existence or non-occurrence of an entity, + state, or event is due to contextual inapplicability, while relative negation + indicates that the non-existence or non-occurrence is circumstantial. This distinction + is illustrated in the two sentences below:

+ .

+ The girl doesn’t sing [even though she can, i.e., she chooses + not to].

Since the Ithkuil declensional and conjugational system is + based on predictable multi-level patterns of consonant and vowel mutation, proper + nouns such as personal and place names, as well as non-Ithkuil words from other + languages are by nature morpho-phonologically incompatible with such as system. + Nevertheless, such words can be declined or conjugated like any other Ithkuil + formative by means of the “carrier” root k-r. + In addition to this use, the carrier root is employed in certain other contexts + as well, as described below.

+ 9.4.1 Words that Cannot Take Affixes or Be Mutated

The six primary stems of the carrier root (kar, + kur, kir and their Form II counterparts kâr, + kûr, kîr) are respectively associated with animate + beings (the two complementary derivatives being humans versus non-humans or + figuratively/metaphorically animate entities); inanimate entities (the two complementary + derivatives being objectively concrete entities versus subjective entities such + as thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc.); and finally intangible abstract referents + (the two complementary derivatives being place names and abstractions). The + carrier stem is placed immediately before the proper noun or foreign word or + phrase, then declined or conjugated normally for any desired morphological categories, + even verbal categories. The proper noun or foreign word or phrase itself is + left unchanged.
+

9.4.2 Emphasizing or Highlighting a Particular Category

Another use of the carrier root is to emphasize or topicalize + a particular affix or grammatical element associated with a word. For example, + in English we can say ‘a big house’ with extra intonation + on the word ‘big’ to emphasize that word. To accomplish such emphasis + in Ithkuil, the carrier root is used with the augmentative suffix in conjunction + with the noun ‘house’ as opposed to simply using the augmentative + suffix on the stem for ‘house.’ No change in vocal pitch or intonation + is required, as the grammatically unnecessary use of the carrier root serves + to accomplish the required emphasis. Any morphological category manifested by + a carrier root rather than an adjunct or mutation serves to emphasize that category. + (It should be noted that the use of optional combination and euphonic adjuncts + do not accomplish such emphasis. Their use versus non-use imparts no difference + in emphasis for the particular morphological categories contained in the adjunct.) +

9.4.3 Titles of Address

It should be noted that the use of the carrier root in front + of the names of persons serves to function as a title of address corresponding + to English Mister, Ms. or Miss. There is no distinction of + gender or marital status conveyed by the term.

Home	5a + Verb Morphology	9 + Syntax
Introduction	5b + Verb Morphology (continued)	10 + Lexico-Semantics
1 + Phonology	6 + More Verb Morphology	11 + The Script
2 + Morpho-Phonology	7a + Using Affixes	12 + The Number System
3 + Basic Morphology	7b + Using Affixes (continued)	The + Lexicon
4 + Case Morphology	8 + Adjuncts	Revised Ithkuil: Ilaksh

	3a) He supplied a report to the analyst.	4a) She applied a solvent to the stain.
	3b) He supplied the analyst a report.	4b) *She applied the stain a solvent.

Home	5a + Verb Morphology	9 + Syntax
Introduction	5b + Verb Morphology (continued)	10 + Lexico-Semantics
1 + Phonology	6 + More Verb Morphology	11 + The Script
2 + Morpho-Phonology	7a + Using Affixes	12 + The Number System
3 + Basic Morphology	7b + Using Affixes (continued)	The + Lexicon
4 + Case Morphology	8 + Adjuncts	Revised Ithkuil: Ilaksh

Chapter 9: Syntax