Antipassives, Ergative Verbs and Nominalizations in Kélojùù

I have not worked on this language for a long time. And then a little while ago someone was asking about someone else's conlang, specifically if the agent nominialization could fit on unaccusative verbs (something like that). And that got me thinking. Then a few days later I was looking up stuff on antipassives and learned that while they normally aren't in nom-acc languages, it does happen in some Nilo-Saharan langs. So I thought about how to shove it in mine.

Some base things to keep in mind. First of all, most transitive verbs in Klj are ambitransitive, but they are ergative verbs, even though in English they are often accusative verbs. Why? Such is life. Anyway, this means that the subject of an intransitive verb (well, detransitivized) is treated as the patient rather than the agent. So while in English we can do "He cooks food" -> "He cooks" the same process (simple deletion of the object) in Klj means "He is cooked/He cooks (like a cake does)". The next thing to consider is that Klj has two basic denominalization processes. One is the action noun (much like a gerund or infinitive in English) and the other is concrete noun. The concrete noun can work like an agentive/patientive/result, basically some sort of more concrete object or idea.  The interpretation of these is based on the role of the subject of the original verb, which is important because generally only intransitive verbs can take these in Klj. And so comes the need for the antipassive

The antipassive (-nú) demotes the object of a transitive verb, while keeping the old agent in subject position. Consider the verb wííza "to break (something)". You might have a sentence like mọ́llééṃò zawíízajù "I broke the pot". To say "The pot broke" you could say  mọ̀llééṃò ìwíízajù or use the passive/reflexive/general detransivizer -ḍà giving us mọ̀llééṃò ìwíízadàjù "The pot broke/was broken". "I broke (things)" is zawíízánújù and "someone who breaks things" is wíízánúsaw but "a broken thing" is just wíízasaw with no passive required.
Other than nominalizations, when is the intransitive important? For one, the intransitive form of ambitransitive verbs in the present tense often has a habitual meaning. So (to use a slightly silly example), zawííza means "I break (apart) a lot". The antipassive allows us to keep the subject as an agent in these habitual clauses, zawíízánú "I be breaking (things)". Habitual intransitives can take a genitive complement to reintroduce the former direct object as in mọ̀òlleek zawíízánú "I be breaking pots" (had the singular been used there, it would mean "I keep breaking this same pot"). 
So what's even the point of having a passive (as seen above) if all the verbs are ergative? Well, a large part of it is to clarify that that action was intentionally done/caused by the agent. In the ergative (technically unergative?) form, no intention is drawn to the fact that it was caused or done. This implies either an accident or something causeless. Pots can just randomly break, yannow? A passive with a reintroduced agent complement (with the dative postposition) means that agent intentionally did the verb. Even one without a reintroduced agent could be taken as a volative act, though because it could also be reflexive or something else, usually an indefinite pronoun is brought in regardless. The next question is, "if the act was volative and the agent known, why use the passive and not the active voice?" Further research is needed, the likely answer has something to do with bringing attention to the patient/result of the action. So the difference between mọ̀llééṃò ìwíízajù, mọ̀llééṃò ìwíízadàjù, and mọ̀llééṃò zlàkọ ìwíízadàjù is something like "The pot (has) broke(n)/Somebody (accidentally) broke the pot" "The pot was broken (by someone)" and "The pot was broken by me!" respectively/

The antipassive works in the opposite (ish) way. An antipassive with a reintroduced patient (also in the dative) implies that the agent did the verb on accident. So while mọ́llééṃò zawíízajù means "I have broken the pot", mọ́llééṃò kọ zawíízánújù means "I accidentally broke the pot".

Pragmatically, this means that people, when accused of doing something, often reply with an antipassive. Mọ́llééṃò ìwíízajù! "You broke the pot!"(Note that this is technically ambiguous and could mean "The pot broke!") nẹẹh, zawíízánújù "It was an accident!" (lit. "no, I broke (something)"). This is a way of admitting fault while trying to absolve yourself of full guilt.

Obviously, there's still a lot to work out here/discover. But it is a work in progress and more progress I've gotten on this language than I have all year. Plus, it was like actual work combing morphology, syntax, and pragmatics, which feels good.

Scoped Derivation in Knǝnʔtəəʔ

Someone on reddit asked about having multiple infixes in a single word. I answered and then included some stuff on Knǝnʔtəəʔ, as copied below.

I have a conlang that works similarly. It has many infixes and they work sort of on a scope basis. Basically derivational affixes applied in order where each newly added one changes meaning based on the last one, and then if a verb, the aspectual inflection is added last. For example, take the root klbaa "to be clean". The prefix s- marks a causitive so sklbaa "to clean something". The infix <w> marks a location of a verb. kwlbaa "a clean place, a medicine man's house", skwlbaa "To turn into a clean place, to sanctify" swklbaa "a place of cleaning, a river bank". Now we have the prefix+infix combination m-ä- to derive agent nouns giving us mkälbaa "elder, a person who is clean". But there is also msäklbaa "launderer" and msäkwlbaa "one who sanctifies". So on and so forth. Point is that all the different things stack on top of each other, and that is how the order is determined.

Adding in the aspectual infixes (in this case the cessative as marked by infixation of the final vowel and consonant), we get things like kaalbaa "to stop being clean" vs saaklbaa "to stop cleaning" vs saakwlbaa "to stop sanctifying". With reflexive derivation based on some reduplication and infixation we get məmkälbaa "to be an elder", kǝkwlbaa "to be a clean place" səswklbaa "to be a river bank used for washing". Honestly, this root is a bad example since it doesn't have a final consonant. Anyway, with aspects we end up getting maamkälbaa "to stop being an elder", kaakwlbaa "to stop being a clean place", and saaswklbaa "to stop being a place for washing". Lots of stacked infixes, all based on how changes of the order matter.

Let's discuss this a little more. Knǝnʔtəəʔ is super fun since it straddles that fine line between Mandarin and Inuktitut, by which I mean it has minimal inflectional morphology but quite rich derivational morphology. This post really only went into a couple things. For example, you can have srkwlbaa "incense, an instrument used to sanctify something". Or swrkwlbaa "an incense holder, a pantry". Now the thing is, a lot of these would never be used outside of word games like this; instead compounds or other constructions would be used. But it is technically limitless, even if srswrkwlbaa "a tool used to make pantries" is pretty absurd (let alone swrswrkwlbaa "a place that holds the tools used to make pantries").

You might notice that the words are quite contextual. For example, you probably wouldn't guess that "one who is clean" means "elder". This points to the fact that while these derivations are productive, people seem to learn many of them as distinct lexical units than as derivations in and of themselves. Another example would be hwyrëëy "a paved (well stone paved) road, a place of catching frogs". Once again, the main meaning isn't obvious from the initial construction. It actually comes from the fact that roads (as built by the Kikxotians as they colonized the place) would often cut through areas that had lots of frogs. Since the roads were flat and not grassy/swampy, it became easier to catch frogs on the road than off. Of course, hwyrëëy can also mean "ambush point", since in anti-colonial conflicts, people would often attack convoys on the road. If asked why someone was hanging around a road, the excuse would be "catching frogs" to the point where hyrëëy came to mean "to ambush someone" and mhäyrëëy "rebel". And this of course led to the slur hrëëy "frog" for "Kikxotian soldier". All good clean fun.

And now for some sentences since those are fun. I'll supply the translations in another post!

Sɨ̈ mthäwäk thɛ̃ɛ̃n pcããʔ nɔk hwyrëëy löw cəclör thɛ̃ɛ̃n?
TOP AGENT<AGENT>-be.irritating 3P ride.wagon on <LOC><CAPT>frog 2S PLUR~see 3P?

Jɛt klbaa srjob kbə mã or Sɨ̈ srjob kbə mã jɛt so klbaa
NEG clean <INST>drink GEN 1S or TOP <INST>drink GEN 1S NEG 3S clean

Intesification in Indonesian?

Random question of the day. Has anyone done a study/published a paper on the indonesian infix -w- (alternatively -u-). Like in panas vs pwanas and bagus vs bwagus. I think it comes from javanese, but I can't find any literature about its use in Javanese either.

I heard it all the time, especially in East Java, and occasionally I see it written to, but I can't seem to find anything actually about it. Like it is a feature that everyone seems to know and understand when someone else uses it, but no one officially recognizes it as a real thing.

I'm a just crazy thinking that this is an actual productive infixation? Is my analysis of it being an intensifier wrong? Do people actually understand it whenever it is used, or only in lexicalized words? And most importantly, why has no one studied this? It seems like a surely some Malayacist would have done a paper on it by now. If not, I guess I have a possible research paper to write, if I had time and was actually in a lingustics program.