They tend to be overlooked, because if you
see what you think is a dependent clause floating
about on its own, it invites the interpretation that the speaker's made an error.
If you're really focused on the rules or-- and we'll get to this in a moment--
if you're focused on sentences in isolation from the broader conversation.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Welcome to Conlangery, the podcast
about constructed languages and the people who create them.
I'm George Corley.
And with me, the next town over, is William Annis.
After a long time.
Yes, yes.
He used to be down the road a ways, but I have moved.
So I'm not in Madison anymore.
I'm not going to tell you exactly where I am, though.
But this is going to be something
I haven't actually done since we started video
episodes, but it's kind of a return to form.
I've been doing a lot of interviews of people.
And William used to be just the regular co-host of
Conlangery, if you were here for audio episodes.
And he's coming back to talk about a linguistics topic again.
And hopefully, we can do-- I'll be doing more interviews in the future,
but I'll also come back and do a little bit more of this,
because this is the thing that people really liked about the audio podcast.
And I think it's good to introduce,
now that we have video folks on YouTube as well, to there.
But William, thank you for coming on.
It's been so long.
There's fancy new technology.
I had to sully my computer with Chrome, but I'm like, for George, I can do it.
Yes, I don't know why-- nobody develops these video platforms for Firefox.
I don't know.
I wish they would.
It's just Chrome has too much penetration, and they just go for that.
And they could get a bunch of different browsers with that.
But anyway, yes, we are here.
You can see William for once.
And I have a face for radio.
I will see if people who are longtime audio listeners who
have not seen William's face-- I wonder what your reaction is going to be.
Because any time I see someone I'm used to hearing in audio see their face,
it's like, that face-- the face doesn't match
the voice, like almost every single time.
Why is his head so shiny?
Well, hopefully I can adjust with color correction there.
OK, so anyway, what are we talking about today, William?
We're talking about subordination.
This was an idea I had a long time ago.
And then it took us many months to finally get to this.
There was a little COVID in there for me.
And in the course of making my usual slew of notes,
my opinion is there are a few of these topics that deserve their own show.
We've already done one on relative clauses.
But I think we could do an entire episode on temporal clauses.
Absolutely, we could do an entire show on conditional clauses.
If we haven't already, we could probably do it again and other sorts of things.
So today, we'll do a top-level overview of...
.. whatever it is subordination means.
Different kinds of meanings and semantics
those can have, different ways of forming those.
I have a lot on my favorite thing, insubordination, which sounds fun.
I like the idea of insubordinate grammar, which
is the term that people have settled on for an underdescribed feature where
subordinate clauses cut loose from the main clause and go off on their own.
And that's super interesting.
So that's what we'll cover today.
And then some of the things we can deep dive
into in later episodes, I think, would be
better, rather than try to cover them all here.
Or we'll end up with another one of our two-hour episodes,
which is asking a lot of people.
Yeah, we don't do that anymore.
That was early on.
Before we knew better.
OK, so what is a subordinate clause, basically?
We'll start with a simple definition.
And that's just when a sentence is crammed
inside another sentence, either as an argument,
like a subject or direct object, or a modifier.
And those modifier ones usually get called adverbial clauses.
And that's different from coordination,
where sentences just follow each other like ducks in a row.
"And," "or," and "but" are normally
the standard coordinating conjunctions and clauses.
But obviously, immediately, theoretical issues arise.
And it's not clear to me anymore that speaking of subordination
is useful as a distinct thing from other kinds of clause combining.
So my favorite heroes, Dixon and Aikhenvald,
have a book called "The Semantics of Clause Linking" that covers all of them.
And that probably makes sense, because there is more overlap.
"And" can do surprisingly subordinating-like things in many languages, which we're not
going to talk about too much today.
So the distinction isn't always maybe as clear-cut as we might think.
In some cases, it absolutely is, but...
And sometimes I'll talk about embedded clauses
versus subordination, or dependent clauses versus subordination.
These are all terms used to describe basically the same thing.
The big thing is, normally, a subordinate clause has been modified in some way such
that it cannot normally go wandering off on its own.
Right.
So if you think about just English examples, relative clauses do this in English,
where, like, "I saw the man who," I don't know, "I saw the man who watched the movie."
I don't know.
That's a bad example.
But anyway, but "who watched the movie," like that-- there's no subject pronoun.
The "who" is like a linking thing that signals it's a relative clause.
And so that "who watched the movie," I mean, you could turn it into a question,
but it's not really an independent clause anymore.
It has to be attached.
There are sometimes--
Tests for this can be tricky in English because we murdered our subjunctive.
Yeah, yeah.
And there's also times where the subordinating, like,
complementizer-type thing is, like, deleted,
like a "that" is deleted, where I think that something-- "I think that it was blue."
You say, "I think it was blue."
So in English, a lot of times, it's fuzzier.
In a lot of other languages, you would
have a different verb form or something else that's signaling.
But we'll get into all of those strategies.
Yeah, it can be even-- in some languages, it is extremely blunt and obvious.
In other languages, it's trickier.
I think Mohawk, I have a note on this, where a subordinate
clause is marked off entirely by intonation.
[LAUGHTER]
So nothing, no conjunctions, nothing else.
And the main point here is that, in general,
subordinate clauses have to be fiddled with some way
to make them work within the main clause grammatically.
And we'll talk about different kinds of fiddling shortly.
And normally, parts of the subordinate clause
are not allowed to go wandering about other parts of the main clause.
But with relative clauses, you have
a pivot word, which is part of both clauses, in effect.
But in general, the two clauses are kept separate.
And something has been done to the subordinate clause
to make it fit in with the rest of the sentence.
It's a separate constituent, as people say.
It is its own thing.
It's a sentence embedded into a sentence.
And it has to be kept unified, generally.
Yeah.
So when it comes to different strategies for subordination, there's a lot of--
there's so many different kinds of terminology.
One set of terms that I'm familiar with,
so I will tend to use, is a balanced verb versus a deranked verb.
A balanced verb is a kind of verb clause that can be used independently.
And a deranked clause or verb cannot be used independently.
And there are lots of ways to derank a verb.
Could be a completely different conjugation type.
Could be a change in mood.
Could be a converb, participles, nominalization, extra goo.
Like jumping back into form, talking about ancient Greek.
Some kinds of ancient Greek subordinate clauses
require both a mood change and a particle in the clause.
Oh, OK.
So you have to-- yeah.
And we have links to cover all of these things.
We just have the Wikipedia link will cover the basics of balancing versus deranking.
But yeah, so you can have a situation.
So it's both a particle and a mood change in ancient Greek.
Yeah, for some clauses.
For some clauses.
Some clauses, just it's a mood change.
Yeah.
I think a lot of times subjunctive-- subjunctive is like a broad, ill-defined term.
But often, the subjunctive is used in this way
to mark that this clause is dependent on the other clause.
And that is also kind of deranking.
Yeah, yeah.
So the point about balanced here is,
especially in some kinds of temporal clauses in English,
like before and after, the sentence just looks like a normal sentence.
"Before, you've got to talk to the doctor, do this."
That is a balanced clause using a conjunction
versus a deranked, which, "if I were to fall asleep..."
So the last vestiges of the English subjunctive
sometimes occur in conditional clauses.
And I mean, could you also consider
infinitive clauses in here?
Because we have that.
Well, right.
So an infinitive, I consider a kind of nominalization most of the time.
So yes, absolutely infinitives are part of that.
So things like infinitives, things that are clearly deranked in English
are things like infinitives, gerunds, or any--
gerunds, participles, anything with the -ing form, those kind of things.
Yeah, "Sleeping during a thunderstorm is very difficult."
So that's a deranked, "Sleeping during a thunderstorm."
It's a nominalized clause.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And I think that's an important thing to say,
is like, nominalization is a really easy pathway to this.
Because very often, these subordinate clauses are taking an argument position.
They are taking the same place as a noun.
So if you have a good distinction between nouns and verbs in your language, then you
can stick some kind of a nominalizer onto the verb,
and use that for your subordinate clauses.
But you don't have to.
This is always-- always, this is options for you to do, because languages are diverse.
They do all kinds of different things.
Yeah.
I'm trying to find a fun example I saw.
But I can't find it.
We've talked about conjunctions, many kinds of those.
I will confess, a lot of the time, my approach is very boring for temporal clauses,
when they could be a lot more interesting than I have been making them, typically.
Conjunctions, nominalization-- and nominalization
doesn't just have to mean doing something to turn the verb into a noun.
Like, we have the classic-- we'll go back to another standby--
Mandarin, de shihou (的时候), for when, where you're just
taking a clause, and then a possessive or attributive marker, and the word for time.
So "When I saw my father," whatever.
Right.
In that case, it's sort of-- so shihou.
So in that case, shihou, "time", is like the noun there.
And then you're adding a relative clause
for what the actual subordinate clause is there.
Whereas in English, we have more of a-- so "When something, something happened,"
then that's sort of a more like-- just like a lot of
our other clauses with the relative pronoun and such.
Yeah.
So that's another strategy, is you
could come up with one kind of subordinating structure
and reuse it to make other subordinating structures.
Correct, yeah.
Yeah.
I couldn't find an online resource for this,
but Hixkaryana , which is famous for its default word order,
also has an enormous number of nominalization types.
Which at first, you're like, what a weird derivational system.
But then you realize it's almost entirely structural.
It's for grammar purposes.
It's not for creating new kinds of words.
Right, right.
So you're nominalizing verbs just to get that--
Right, so an example one is a manner nominalization.
The way you sneeze is not a special kind of word
you normally use, except to shove it into a clause.
The way he talks annoys me.
So a special nominalization just for manner.
Where English is-- in some sense, English is doing the same kind of nominalization
with a relative clause, the way in which he talks.
Yeah, the same kind of thing.
So one fun thing I just wanted to note--
I found this little paper here on the semantics of perception.
And this looks like paper, like a presentation notes, rather than a full paper.
It's talking about verbs of perception
and the kinds of subordinate clauses they can take.
"I see that it is raining."
"I heard that he went to the store."
That sort of thing.
There's a fun thing in Spanish that differences
between vision and hearing can lead to grammatical changes.
So visual perception mainly involves object perception,
while auditory perception aligns more with event.
So in Spanish, this affects pronominal agreement
with perception verbs.
Visual perception tends to favor object agreement,
while auditory perception often triggers event
agreement, which means it will always be in the singular.
So if you look on--
this is on page 3 of this paper I linked to, George.
Where is that?
Which paper is that?
It's the one under nominalization, so above the big table.
OK.
So this one.
I already opened that.
So we have a document that I have also shared-- this one?
OK.
So page 3.
OK.
So we have-- So the example is 8-9.
"Se veían desfilar ese día por las ..."
OK.
Oh, OK.
So you have-- so the use of seeing versus hearing, it changes the meaning here.
OK, that's interesting.
Right, because this sort of impersonal expression,
one can hear dogs barking, you'd think that it would be plural.
But because it's an event, and the verb is hear versus see,
it goes into the singular.
So there's subtle kinds of semantics related to, again,
the whole business of verbs of perception and how they work with everything.
But certainly, with subordination is really interesting.
And again, probably we can do a deep dive on that later.
Yeah, that's-- I mean, but that's really important.
Because a lot of times, like the big thing-- I know that you're not totally into it,
but a big thing that people do is historical stuff.
And they're looking for sources for grammaticalization.
Absolutely.
And this can be a source for a distinction that gets grammaticalized later.
Absolutely, yeah.
And it's just important to understand
that we're thinking, especially English speakers,
we're mostly thinking in terms of conjugations
and maybe conjugations with some mood dances.
But nominalization is super common all over the place to do a lot of these functions.
And it's very important to remember that that noun phrase
has to be worked into the rest of the clause somehow.
In many Australian languages, these subordinate
clauses take all kinds of case marking.
To add additional subtleties, the process,
this very exuberant process of case marking subordinate
clauses, is so strong that it has had a strong impact
on the historical development of a bunch of these languages.
So that's something to keep in mind if you're going with
a more nominalizing mode for a bunch of these things.
All right, so nominalization, conjunctions, intonation, as I said, mohawk.
Just like one clause, it happens at a slightly higher pitch, and then it drops.
We have another paper on clause combining
in languages of North America.
So here we have some differences between-- so we have complements versus adjuncts.
That's a distinction you need to think about,
like a complement of a verb, versus an adjunct, a modifier kind of thing.
Sometimes they'll use different strategies for subordination.
Sometimes they'll be similar.
It's just going to be language dependent.
We have a bunch of papers to look at here that you can check into.
Let's talk about, what is clause chaining?
Right, I'm not sure where clause chaining belongs in all this discussion.
But as I was saying earlier, that the distinction
between subordinate and coordinating clauses
is maybe not as strict as we're suggesting while we're talking here.
So we talked about this when we had Matt Pearson on to talk
about converbs.
He has something called medial verbs in Okuna.
And these are verb forms that cannot exist on their own.
But in any normal translation, you would just use "and."
They're a verb form used for sequencing.
I did A, and then B, and then C, and then finally, I did X.
And depending on the structure of the word order default
in the language, you might save your fully inflected verb for the end or the front.
So medial verbs are usually where you get a main verb,
and then these other subsequent verb forms that just say--
that basically mean "and then, and then, and then."
Whereas in languages with converbs,
they might use the general converbs as the sequencing
in addition to other sorts of more things that we might think is more dependent.
Yeah, and just to refresh people, converbs are like a particular kind of verb form.
Yeah.
That we covered in the audio archives-- I can link to that.
But those are-- oh, I mean, they're
sort of similar to a participle, similar to other things.
Often what they do is they encode
some sort of connective meaning between two verb phrases.
Well, many-- you can have a language, you can have one
or two converb forms, which mean all sorts of things.
Or you can get languages, especially some from the Caucasus, or my favorite,
Coptic, where they mean all sorts of very, very specific things.
And you have lots of converbs.
And they cover a lot of this.
In my opinion, many kinds of converbs qualify as subordinate clauses.
Right.
They can have adverbial meanings.
They can also have just like conjunctive meanings attached to it.
And that gets into-- combined with this clause chaining thing,
that gets into what you're saying about the boundary being fuzzy.
Because if you have a chain of verbs where only one of them
has full inflection, but semantically it's not really
like embedded meanings, then the question is,
is that conjoined sentences, or is it a subordination?
Because grammatically, it's kind of looking like subordination.
But semantically, it's like, oh, these are just conjoined clauses.
So that can be an interesting way to play with that.
Right.
And that's why it's fuzzy.
These things can have multiple meanings.
And as I said, "and" can do weird things in English as well.
Right, right.
So popping back a bit for strategies for subordination,
we've talked about conjunctions and nominalization.
Or another thing you could do is have
a different conjugation paradigm for different clause types.
That can be as simple as the standard Indo-European,
like, oh, we'll use the subjunctive.
But you can have other languages like Coptic,
which has many pages of paradigm forms, which
encode specific subordinate clause types.
And there are other languages that have separate paradigms
that go beyond just having a different mood or something.
Right, right, right.
I've talked a bit about nominalizations that can take different kinds of case marking.
Right.
Another kind of search, you can-- go ahead.
Let's talk about this, because with case marking,
are we talking about they take an argument role,
and then they get ergative case, or accusative case,
or whatever, case marking to fit the argument that they're in?
Yes.
Or locatives are very commonly used for temporal.
OK.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Right, where you smack a dative onto an infinitive,
or a {unclear}, or some kind of verbal noun.
And you get that sort of temporal thing.
That's interesting.
You can do the same sort of thing
by sticking an adposition phrase there, too.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
And in addition to different kinds of case marking,
the clause itself might have its normal case marking
capabilities mangled.
- So if you have - Right.
And again, we go back to ancient Greek.
If you have a clause where, because of its dependency,
it is using an infinitive for the verb, right?
It's been deranked.
It's an infinitive.
The subject has to be expressed with the accusative.
Right.
OK.
And in English, we do the same.
Like, "he was talking," "I saw him talking."
Yeah.
Right?
He is talking, it has to be the him.
Again, makes it fit into normal English structure better.
Right, right.
"I saw he talking," is not--
Yeah, "I saw he talking," that is not the way we do it.
Yeah.
But that is interesting, like, what
happens when you have a pronoun that's in between the two.
Obviously, that happens more often with stuff like relative clauses and such.
But it's-- and we can do a whole thing on relative clauses,
because there's so many different layers of how those get worked together.
But-- We did a relative clause show a long time ago,
like more than 10 years ago.
Maybe we can revisit it.
Revisiting some of them, now that we're both older and know more.
Yeah, I could re-listen to it and see.
I think something that unites all of this stuff
is one thing you need to do when you're doing subordination
is you have to think about what role is this sentence taking in the matrix sentence.
Because-- so you talk about nominalization.
Well, why does nominalization-- why is nominalization used for subordination?
Because very often, it is taking the place of a-- what would normally be a noun.
Either it is taking an argument role,
or it is in some oblique role, object of a preposition,
of an adposition, or a locative, or benefactive, something like that.
But you have to keep in mind that you also
have to consider when a sentence becomes something akin to an adjective or an adverb.
Especially adverbs, yeah.
Yeah, adverbs all the time.
That's temporal constructions.
You're adding an adverb all the time.
Which, I mean, that can be still related.
You could still end up using a nominalization
with an adposition or something like that,
or a nominalization with case marking to get that meaning.
Or you could go with something completely different.
But I think when you're doing your different flavors
of subordination, that's the thing to keep in mind,
is what role is this sentence playing in the matrix sentence?
Yep.
I'm going to start with an abstract thing, which, George,
I've not put in the notes here, but which I think about a lot.
So sorry about that.
And then we'll move on to the types.
And that is your different kinds of--
sometimes these clauses are called complement clauses.
And many of them have a broad distinction
between where the subordinate clause is either a fact,
it could be an activity indicating an extension
in time, or it could be indicating a potential.
Fact-type complements, fact-type subordinate
clauses are most likely to not be deranked.
They're most likely to be balanced.
But they-- or maybe a mood change, but that's about it.
Activity types are very often nominalized.
And then finally, the potential type definitely
is going to have most likely to be reduced tense and aspect
marking, reduced pronominal marking, most often using a different mood.
Right, right, right.
And so certain kinds of verb types
are more often going to take one of these or the other.
Attention verbs or perception verbs usually take an activity complement.
"I see him walking to the store."
Or they might take facts.
Verbs of thinking take either fact or activity.
Decisions take fact or potential.
Verbs of liking or preferring typically take activities.
So all of these have-- it's worth thinking about these,
because most languages are going to have five, six, seven
of these different types, possibly with some subtypes.
You do not need every kind of subordination strategy
that exists in your conlang, nor do you need two.
There will be differences that all have to do both the semantics
and the structure of your language.
Right, right, right.
Any time we're going over all these different options,
there is a tendency for a lot of conlangers to do what we
call the kitchen sink and just throw everything in, right?
But it's useful to know all of your options and then decide what you're going to pick.
And it may be the case that choosing one option
leads you to have different other varieties.
Maybe you end up with just one strategy that dominates,
like you have one nominalizer that gets used for everything, right?
Especially if you can have nouns modifying nouns,
then you could do your relative clause with the same thing, all that kind of thing.
But maybe if you go with a converb strategy
and then you decide to make a few different converb forms,
then you're like, OK, well, I've got-- now I've got lots
of different subordination strategies going all at once.
And also, you know what?
It's always an option to just stick a sentence in a sentence in the relevant place.
Just like you mentioned the Mohawk example, it's only
distinguished on intonation, that you can just do that.
And some languages' relative clauses to an English speaker
look bonkers, because it's like, you've just shoved
that sentence inside another one with no over-marking.
Like, in-place relatives can be tricky.
Or even just not even just stick that sentence in the place,
but also have the noun in the relative clause sentence impeded.
And it's even more wacky-looking to us.
It's a perfectly natural thing to do, but it looks strange to English speakers.
OK.
And then my last on the list was converbs,
but we've already talked about those, so we'll skip over.
So let's talk about some common types of subordinate conjunctions.
And I've got a list here, just like cause, like
because, reason, or cause, reason, result, place.
I see where he's leaving.
Report, I said that someone said that.
Manner, which could be like a real manner, or a hypothetical, sort of like an as-if.
And then one that's a possible consequence, which you don't use much in English, lest.
Lest.
For fear that.
Yeah.
Some languages have things like this and use them a lot more.
Like, it seems like the Australian languages really like their lests.
Oh, really?
OK, that's interesting.
Yeah.
But it's not like you sound goofy
if you say that in English.
Yeah.
Chinese really likes resultative clauses.
In Chinese, it's kind of-- if it's the same subject, it's like the verbs
kind of form a pseudo-compound.
And so that's an interesting strategy that that uses.
And then it also messes with like aspect as well.
Yeah, it does funny things with aspect marking.
A lot is going on with those.
And there's very weird things, like the whole example of kill-retreat, meaning--
do you know that example?
I do not know kill-retreat.
That's great.
OK, so there's an example that you hear a lot in Chinese.
他们杀退了敌人 (tāmen shātuì le dìrén)
So they kill-retreat enemies.
What that means is they were going to kill the enemies and the enemy retreated, right?
So kill, which is normally a telic verb, normally has an endpoint, becomes atelic
because it's not realized that you killed all the enemies because they retreated.
So that's-- telicity is another episode that we covered.
Yeah, we talked about the telicity one, didn't we, these cancelable--
Yeah, I think we may have covered that example.
But you can end up with weird semantics
when you add a different sort of subordination in there
because they are very good at canceling things and adding weird--
canceling what you expected to be an entailment and stuff
like that, yeah.
So cause, reason, result, place, report, manner--
you have a whole section here on specifically temporal clauses.
Again, all of this-- and that's just the tiniest bit of stuff I read.
So we can go over this to get people thinking about some stuff.
But I really want to do a whole temporal clause show
because there's so much that goes on with these things.
Yeah, so you can have-- so you're saying, OK, so the past--
so I just want to think about six temporal conjunctions
in English that distinguish between past-- this is in comparison to the main clause.
It could be past, co-temporal, like at the same time, or the future.
And it could refer to either a point or a duration.
So past point is after, past length is since.
Same time point is when, same time duration is while.
Future point is before, future duration is until.
Right.
And we do happen to have a nice regular chart
for that in English.
I'm assuming that in many languages that is not the case.
Boy, if you can get it-- I have no non-copyrighted
references talking about this subject.
But the two or three pages you need
for a full chart of Korean subordinate clause types is amazing.
It's huge.
And there are many temporal things that all look like they're translated the same.
They can't possibly all be the same, but I've not had a chance to dig into it.
But I will try to find good references for that if I can,
if we can do a temporal subordinate clause episode,
because it's huge, many things, much more rich than most languages I'm used to seeing.
So let's talk about how they can overlap and things like that.
Right.
So again, many kinds of subordinate clauses
are polysemous with other kinds of subordinate clauses.
So in English, and in German, and in many languages,
when clauses, which look temporal, can also be conditional.
"When it rains, get an umbrella."
That's not a temporal consideration.
That's a conditional.
While clauses can evolve into conditionals or clauses of concession, like "although".
And while clauses are one of those
that locative case marking is a really popular thing.
After is much less likely to be polysemous with other things.
Before is often deranked and usually involves negation in complicated ways.
Have we ever talked about expletive negation?
Oh, honestly, I don't know.
It's been so long.
We've been doing this for so long.
Expletive negation, it doesn't really exist in English.
But again, it does occur in Greek.
Like, "I was afraid she died," in Greek was, "I was afraid--"
it looks like, "I was afraid she didn't die."
But that's coming from, we believe, a kind of optative.
"I was afraid, may she not be dead."
Right, so that's expletive negation.
And there are certain kinds of verbs where that happens.
And the before constructions are often
a situation where you get expletive negation because of the semantics.
Right, right, right.
And you talk about-- so in English, obviously, we're mentioning these mostly
come from prepositions and one interrogative pronoun.
But we have-- all of the strategies
apply to temporal as well as any other.
You could use case marking.
You could use-- I mean, anywhere you could use adpositions, you can use case marking.
You can use converbs.
You can use any of those strategies.
Or again, just stick a sentence in a sentence.
But it is interesting--
I just want to interject quickly, with temporal clauses,
there might be iconicity related to the ordering of the clauses themselves.
So for example, even in a language that has very strict head final--
and so that normally means your dependent clauses come first--
things like result clauses might still come last for iconic reasons.
Right, right, right.
Because the result comes after because that's what happens naturally.
And so the grammar gets changed to move the result clause,
- for example, to the end where normally-- - Another thing with that is a result--
if you have any kind of broader, either historically
or synchronically in your language, you have any kind of broader-- what is it?
Verb sequences?
What is the term that I'm looking for?
Serial verbs?
Serial verb constructions, yes.
If you have any kind of serial verb constructions,
you're very, very likely to have that iconicity happen.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because serial verb constructions are just like that.
They tend to have that iconicity of temporal order.
That's why Chinese has the resultative immediately after the matrix verb.
And they also have lots of cases of prepositional phrases
that come from verbs coming before the verb.
It all kind of leads into that-- my theory, at least.
So that's all super interesting.
But my question is, with this ordering,
does that ever happen with past versus future clauses?
Oh.
I didn't see any of that in my reading.
But that would be worth looking to pay attention
to see if there's something like that in the future.
That would be super interesting.
It's kind of--
So I did see a paper specifically on the
conceptual metaphors of time as it relates to subordination.
But I didn't dig into it heavily.
I should have, probably, because that would really
imply that, like, where is the future in relation to you in your language?
Is it in front of you, or is it behind you?
Ooh, we should look at just Aymara conjugations.
I mean, I'm just saying the position of that in the sentence--
because obviously, in English, we can just place the temporal clause wherever we want.
But it doesn't seem to really-- not perfectly, but there's
several different slots in the sense where it can go.
Because adverbs in English just go float on the sentence.
But there doesn't seem to be any of that.
Like, before or after will just occur anywhere.
And it's usually not tied to the actual temporal order of events.
But it would be interesting if we had a language that was militant about,
like, if it's a before clause, it has to happen.
It has to be placed before the matrix clause.
And if it's an after clause, it has to be after the matrix clause.
I don't know if that would ever actually happen.
But it would be interesting if we found a language that's like that.
Yeah, I don't know if there'd be--
it is interesting that it's normally result
clauses that come in for this sort of dislocation,
where cause and effect seems to matter more than time.
Right, right, right.
One last thing that I think, since we're coming close
to time, I want you to get to your favorite thing.
Insubordination.
Insubordination, yes.
I love it so much.
So as I said, there's a recent entire book on it,
because it's only a recently investigated phenomenon.
It had all sorts of terrible names.
And now, finally, everyone's converging on insubordination.
I just think it's fun.
They tend to be overlooked, because if you
see what you think is a dependent clause floating
about on its own, it invites the interpretation that the speaker's made an error.
If you're really focused on the rules or-- and we'll get to this in a moment--
if you're focused on sentences in isolation from the broader conversation.
Oh, OK.
So insubordination is generally agreed
to evolve from full sentences, where a stereotyped main clause
got dropped, or a situation where a clause is implicitly
part of what the other speaker has just said.
So the other speaker has said something
that we're going to pretend is the main clause.
And the response-- Is a subordinate clause.
Yes.
So this is like a discourse thing.
Yes.
Conversation analysis, the discourse stuff.
Which a lot of conlangs just don't get to.
So it's important to think about this.
And if you think about how it's used,
it's really clearly related to discourse and pragmatics a lot.
So politeness rituals.
"If you could fill out this form, please."
Uh-huh.
Well, then what?
We leave it implied.
This is a normal way in English.
We use insubordination with conditionals to do politeness.
But we also can do it to use threats.
"If you touch my car!"
And then, let people imagine the rest of that sentence.
Right.
So yes, requests, threats, warnings, politeness rituals.
Also kinds of evaluation.
We don't say this much in English anymore,
but "that you dare to say that" has an I can't
believe, that you dare to say that in front of it.
So evaluation.
So it's all much more emotional, pragmatic, and politeness things.
Conditionals seem to be a super common source for these.
Right.
But not the only.
The examples you gave are mostly conditionals, right?
Yeah, in English, they're conditionals.
Oh, and there are other ways you can use result clauses and other things.
Let me look at Dahlstrom here, because I have some examples that I wanted to see.
So here's a fun one.
So Dahlstrom, again, now people are talking about insubordination a little bit more.
Where in Plains Cree, you can have an independent question, "Are you hungry?"
And you can also have an "Are you hungry?" with what they call a conjunct inflection.
So a dependent form.
The dependence, the insubordinate version, is used in a context where you're
trying to understand why they're doing something.
Like if someone's running to the fridge and
rummaging around, you'd use the subordinate one.
Whereas if you were just like, if someone was visiting,
and you're like, hey, do you want some food,
then you would just use the normal independent one.
So that's a very subtle contextual distinction.
So insubordination doesn't have to be like these big things either.
So I just wanted to talk about that.
There's an entire literature on this now that if you search on insubordination,
you will find papers now, an entire book, as I said.
Right, right, right.
And we're going to have links in the show notes.
And if you're on YouTube, in the description to the papers
that we are referring to here.
And probably citations for books and stuff that we can't necessarily link to.
OK.
So that's really great.
Are there any other things that you
want to cover before we sign off?
Like any particular things?
No, nothing new.
It's just that there are many more-- again, as is always the case with typology,
there's more things than probably most of us have thought about available to us.
Well, it's definitely been helpful to me, and I hope it'll be helpful to listeners.
Because I need to do some more interesting
subordination than I did with the last language.
Which I think the last language, I did something with relative clauses.
But then with other subordinations, I was like, just stick a sentence in a sentence.
And that works.
You don't want to do that every time.
Yeah.
I've been casual about temporal subordination in pretty much all of my languages.
And there's just so much more that could go on there.
I do like using adpositions for temporal clauses.
And having the thoughts about, OK, what spatial metaphor
am I going to use to choose the adposition
that goes with the temporal clause, right?
That is important.
You've got to work out your conceptual metaphor of time
before you start coming up with grammar for it.
Yeah, you can think about, OK, is time in front
of you or behind you or above you or below you
or all those things, or however that works out.
But again, there's lots of options out there.
Go read the materials that we're going to link and take a look at those things.
And we'll try to do a few more episodes on some of these.
And I think we probably will do a whole one
on temporal clauses sometime in the future.
Yeah.
And conditionals, too, I think, if we've not done it before.
I'm going to-- probably we'll have interviews
and some other guests.
I think I will be moving on and doing
more of these linguistics episodes in the future.
So stay tuned for that.
Getting back into that either linguistics episodes
or like conlanging techniques kind of things can be something I come back to a little bit.
But thank you, William, for being on.
Thanks for having me.
And we are-- do you have any final wisdom?
Nope, no wisdom this time.
You can check out William at Linguini.
Yes, Lingweenie.org.
Yeah, the Lingweenie blog.
I can -- Acta Lingweenie
I can link to that.
He is also the guy who made the Conlanger's Thesaurus,
which a lot of people out there apparently use.
I'm glad they do.
I'm glad.
Yeah.
And the word generator that I use every single day,
lexifer, yes, which you've seen on my streams.
This is the guy who made that one.
But thank you, William, for being on.
And I hope to have you on again to talk,
to have another deep dive on another big
linguistics topic, more typology sharing and things.
And with that, I'm going to say happy conlanging.
Ciao.
OK.
Thank you for listening to Conlangery.
You can find archives and show notes at conlangery.com.
And if you'd like to support the show, the best way to do that is to go to our Patreon
at patreon.com/conlangery.
With just $1, you can get access to exclusive polls for my Tongues and Runes series.
And also, for $5, you can get every podcast episode early and ad-free.
And now to thank our patrons.
Mintaka, Kenan Kigunda, Conor Stewart Roe, Jesse,
Kaye, Alex Rossell-Hayes, Vyren Patrick, Tabby,
Alexis Hugelmann, Sylvia Sotomayor, Grammar Antifa,
Grakka Grunk, Sigourney Hunter, iloivar Jaana Mentoleum,
Niklas Norblad, Anthony Docimo, Jake Penny,
Artifexian, Miles Wronkovich, Daniel Quigley,
Paul Roser, our table, Langworm, Nai, and Horn Bory.
Thank you.
Conlangery's theme music is by Null Device.
Conlangery is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
Non-Commercial Share Alike 4.0 international license.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[BLANK_AUDIO]