Knənʔtəəʔ: Ergativity and Relative clauses

So last night I realized that Knənʔtəəʔ is sort of ergative and I decided to go with that. So I needed to redo its relative clauses. And uh, I ended up getting exactly what I started with. Anyway, since relative clauses are interesting, I'll post my final explanation, where I basically justify what I already have. It's not all of my internal and external dialogue trying to figure it out, but it is something

"So I think I've figured out what was going on. There's two competing rules that I did realize I had going on until some analysis...Or maybe none of this makes sense and more research is need

anguishes

Let's analyze sentences together and see what happens:
bmis [so kaalbaa] dɨwõ kwiis
bmis so=k<aa>lbaa d<ɨ>wõ kwiis
man 3S=<REL>be.clean <CONT>eat seaweed
"the clean man is eating seaweed"
So we have a head which is the absolutive argument of the relative clause (which if not relativized would be kɨlbaa bmis "the man is clean". Since the relative clause technically takes a pronoun as its head, it works on a nom-acc alignment and fills the slot that would be occupied by the ergative pronoun, resulting in the pronoun preceding the relativized verb and everything being dandy. Let's work up to the next level of relative clause: non-stative intransitive verbs.

bmis [so lutɨhut] dwõ kwiis
bmis so=l<ut><ɨ>hut d<Ø>wõ kwiis
man 3S=<REL><PROG>sleep <PERF>eat seaweed
"the sleeping man has eaten seaweed"
Once again, the head is the absolutive argument of the relative clause, which free would be lɨhut bmis "the man is sleeping". Since the relative clause takes the pronoun as the head, it once again converts to nom-acc and fills the ERG slot(edited)

So far, so good. I've been maintaining the alignment (more or less :p) that I discovered yesterday

But then things get rough

"the man who ate seaweed is sleeping"
The relative clause is headed by a pronoun, so it goes nom-acc and should look something like :
Lɨhut bmis [so dwõ kwiis] or (Sï̵) bmis [so dwõ kwiis] lɨhut so (topic marking way to do it)
l<ɨ>hut bmis so=dwõ kwiis and (sï̵) bmis so=dwõ kwiis l<ɨ>hut so
<CONT>sleep man 3S=eat seaweed or TOP man 3S=eat seaweed <CONT>sleep 3S

Anyway, the restrictions with the way pronouns work basically mean (since agent incorporation isn't allowed and there are no voices) that relativization like this is limited to subjects=agent, despite the ergativity in main clauses. I guess technically these transitive ones could be interpreted either way, but that is abnormal for the speakers. However, part of the ergativity means that the main interpretation of a possessed verbal noun is that the possessor is the patient which allowed for a nice work around of which there are many ways to do it, based on topicality:

Kɨlbaa kwiis dnwõ so räp bmis or Sï̵ kwiis dnwõ so räp bmis kɨlbaa so so on and so forth k<ɨ>lbaa kwiis d<nØ>wõ so räp bmis
<CONT>be.clean seaweed <NOM>eat from man
"the seaweed the man ate is clean"
Notice that the possessor has to be removed from the possessive phrase to make the argument of the main verb clear. Other wise it could be translated as "The man's eating of the seaweed was clean" or "the man cleanly ate the seaweed"

Well, there you have it, something I should turn into a blog post. And it was all for nothing since it ended up looking the same as what I had originally anyway"

As for other things with ergativity, I plan on having deleted arguments follow an ergative pivot (basically "I hit the man and died" would mean that the man died, not that I died).

The Problem of Polysynthesis

I hold many controversial opinions. One of them is polysynthetic is a bad term, not just because of it's vagueness but because of what it signals, especially in conlanging. Anyway, this argument with some people got out of hand (#selfexaminationhurts) (I said some dumb things too) so I never really got explain why it is bad beyond the vagueness.

Here's the first thing I never sent and then I'll follow up with some other ideas I've had since then:

"Anyway, my point is that even now, the languages we choose to label as polysynthetic (especially taking the large amount of morphemes approach) tend to fall on minority and especially disenfranchised groups. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if there was actually an agreed on definition for polysynthesis. But there isn't, because whenever someone tries to come up with something, other people get angry because their language gets excluded (the biggest example of this being Baker and his exclusion of Inuit languages) or because a language they don't consider polysynthetic is included. So we are left with a category that means "lots of morphemes and if feels that way". Which then brings us back to the point that "feels that way", for whatever reason, closely aligns with "languages spoken by minority groups". So we have a category that (like all morphological typologies, mind you) doesn't tell us really much of anything about the languages classified in it, except that 1) they have long words with multiple morphemes; 2) are not placed with the other languages for some reason.

And that's crux of it. The category doesn't tell us anything that synthetic (here being agglutinative and fusional) doesn't already tell us. Yet people defend it so viciously and want their language to be in the category. Why?"

Well, a big part of it is what I call "fetishization of the exotic" (and I am guilty of it too). Polysynthesis is seen as something cool, so you want your language in it (especially for conlanging). It is seen as cool because it is different from IE (and especially English) therefore something you want to be. And that's where the underlying "racism" (for lack of a better term) comes in. It doesn't mean that the linguists/enthusiasts are being racist, but they are, because of the way the terms has been used, perpetuating stereotypes and signaling certain ideas (namely primativity/noble savage/north americanness) through the use of the term "polysynthesis". It is the "exotic" that really binds the different types of polysynthesis together, more so than head-marking, polypersonal agreement or noun-incorporation.

Why is this important? Well, the category "polysynthesis" hurts conlanging and reduces its diversity. How? First of all, since there is little if any actual tendencies that fit for polysynthesis, it isn't signaling features for the most part. Instead it signals that you want your lang to be North American-like, especially in a Salishanesque way. This is fine and all, but it further reduces the amount of languages people learn about and makes them think that polylangs actually have many binding features. It also means that they are less likely to learn about features not found in those languages. For example, I did an informal survey on switch reference (with a bunch of polylang enthusiats) and none of us could think of any conlang with a switch reference system (other than my own, in progress one). Why? I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the primary references for polysynthesis don't have it, even though it is very common in polylangs in other parts of the world (like New Guinea) and even in the United States! In all this reduces the diversity of conlangs (I've seen one papualang (excluding my own) and none based on Australian langs, for instance) because people have an incomplete view of what "polysynthesis" really is and don't realize it.

Fetishization of the exotic aside, polysynthesis would be an okay term if it could be well defined, people agreed on a definition, didn't try so hard to fit every language into it and recognized its limits and unreasonability. It would be fine if the community used a wider variety (not just of Native American langs) of languages to act as references, showing the diversity in the term and maybe counteracting some (though not all) of the underlying marks/stereotypes within the term. But it doesn't and we don't have the self-awareness nor desire in the community to fix this. So I'm stuck ranting about it on a blog. Well the next time the inevitable "how do I polylang" or "I never see polylangs (cue 15 polylangs)" post comes up, I can link this as I try to raise awareness :p