[conlang] Digest Number 9391

Sat, 06 Jul 2013 07:28:16 -0700 

There are 10 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1a. Re: Something for we to discuss!    
    From: George Marques de Jesus
1b. Re: Something for we to discuss!    
    From: Roger Mills
1c. Re: Something for we to discuss!    
    From: Padraic Brown
1d. Re: Something for we to discuss!    
    From: C. Brickner
1e. Re: Something for we to discuss!    
    From: R A Brown
1f. Re: Something for we to discuss!    
    From: MorphemeAddict
1g. Re: Something for we to discuss!    
    From: Douglas Koller

2a. The Thorn Letter    
    From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2b. Re: The Thorn Letter    
    From: Padraic Brown

3a. Some progress on Guggruug (was Animal Noises and Other Songs by Popu    
    From: Padraic Brown


Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Something for we to discuss!
    Posted by: "George Marques de Jesus" georgemje...@gmail.com 
    Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:01 pm ((PDT))

2013/7/5 Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>

> On Jul 5, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In expressions like "for me to do", do you use "me" or "I" in your
> > conlangs? (If it distinguish them.)
> >
> > In natlangs, is there a general tendency towards using a specific-case
> > pronoun? In pt-BR, the formal rule is using the nominative ("caso
> > reto", actually), that is, "for I to do" ("para eu fazer"), but people
> > on the streets apparently prefer "for me to do" ("para mim fazer"),
> > what is considered a grave mistake by grammaticians.
>
> Is that _fazer_ the 1sg-inflected one, or a bare infinitive? I.e. Would
> you say _para nos fazermos_?


It's the inflected. "Para nós fazer" is a mistake, one should say "para nós
fazermos".

George Marques
http://georgemarques.com.br





Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Something for we to discuss!
    Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com 
    Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:27 pm ((PDT))

Well, like many other conlangs here, Kash would use a prep. phrase:

'Something for me to do' iyuni mamepu

iyu/ni re ma/mepu
st/ni REL I/ do

You could if desired insert a modal into the Rel.Cl.-- must, want to, should 
etc. thus _ma/Modal mepu_


________________________________
 From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com>
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu 
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Something for we to discuss!
 

In expressions like "for me to do", do you use "me" or "I" in your
conlangs? (If it distinguish them.)

In natlangs, is there a general tendency towards using a specific-case
pronoun? In pt-BR, the formal rule is using the nominative ("caso
reto", actually), that is, "for I to do" ("para eu fazer"), but people
on the streets apparently prefer "for me to do" ("para mim fazer"),
what is considered a grave mistake by grammaticians.

Até mais!

Leonardo





Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Something for we to discuss!
    Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com 
    Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:35 pm ((PDT))

> From: Leonardo Castro
>
> In expressions like "for me to do", do you use "me" or "I" in your
> conlangs? (If it distinguish them.)
 
In Loucarian:
ina cuzules loucareire pros mina cous isfiare : etti mi necessere weirccare
 
this mandarin engages towards me with to-work-at-forced-state-labour-job : and 
I must work
 
ar rabbas daceto podis mina biblionver : inap loucareire pros mina cous ôrcare 
: etti me necessere mulvaniccere
 
the teacher gave to me book-some : he-and engages towards me with to-read : and 
I must do
 
Loucarian seems to avoid subclauses, prefering instead to concatenate related 
but semi-independent clauses.
The "for me" part is clearly at "pros mina"; but the "to do" part comes in the 
second clause and is reworded.
In order to express "to do", the old Latin necesse est, now become active, is 
required in "me necessere". 
This would be much like archaic English: he offers work for me, and I must 
needs do it.
 
As for me vs. I, adpositions always take the oblique.


----- Original Message -----
> From: Tony Harris <t...@alurhsa.org>
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, 5 July 2013, 18:45
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Something for we to discuss!
> 
> Weird, maybe.  But it "feels" correct In Alurhsa, and after all 
> that's all that matters (at least to me).
> 
> Yes, I know it's not correct French, or Spanish either. It was just an 
> example, as it's easier to see as an example in a Romance language than in 
> English.

I like it a lot! Weird and wonderful all around!

Padraic

> 
> 
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5 July 2013 22:08, Tony Harris <t...@alurhsa.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>  I think I would do this in Alurhsa as "that" (conj.) + 
> imperative.
>>> 
>>>  So for example "He has something for me to do" would be 
> "Xô ńólyësán
>> el
>>>  kelyáy" (he-has something[ACC] that I-do[IMPER]).
>>> 
>>> 
>> That's weird. It's weird enough to have an imperative for the first
>> person
>> (but then maybe it's really an imperative-hortative), but an imperative
>> in
>> a subclause?! Usually the imperative mood is restricted to main
>> clauses. In
>> subclauses, it gets replaced with another mood, often something like a
>> subjunctive.
>> 
>> 
>>>  This would be sort of like saying it this way in French: Il a quelque
>>>  chose que je fasse,
>> 
>> 
>> That's not correct French. The correct expression is "il y a 
> quelque
>> chose
>> qu'il faut que je fasse" or "il y a quelque chose que je dois 
> faire"
>> (both
>> mean: "there's something that I have to do"). At the same 
> time, such
>> expressions are a bit stilted. A better translation would be "j'ai
>> quelque
>> chose à faire": "I have something to do". Much more flowing 
> and more
>> native
>> than all those heavy constructions with subclauses.
>> -- 
>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>> 
>> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>   





Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Something for we to discuss!
    Posted by: "C. Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com 
    Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:43 pm ((PDT))

----- Original Message -----
In expressions like "for me to do", do you use "me" or "I" in your
conlangs? (If it distinguish them.)

Leonardo

Senjecas requires an adjectival clause in this sentence, rather than a 
dependent infinitive.

I have something for you to do.
(mus)—nu tus nom kı̋a—sémom űda:
(I)—that you it do—something have

This is true even if the persons in both clauses are the same, dropping the 
pronouns.

I have something to do.
nu nom kı̋a—sémom űda:
that it do—something have

Charlie





Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Something for we to discuss!
    Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com 
    Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 12:30 am ((PDT))

On 05/07/2013 20:28, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> On 5 July 2013 21:09, Leonardo Castro
> <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In expressions like "for me to do", do you use "me" or
>> "I" in your conlangs? (If it distinguish them.)
>>
>>
> Actually, there is no reason for a conlang to even have
> the "for me to do" in the first place. After all, not
> all natlangs do!

Very true    ;)

> Modern Greek, for instance, lacks the infinitive, so it
> uses finite subclauses to translate them, as in: κάτι να
> κάνω: "something for me to do" (literally: "something so
> that I do"), κάτι να κάνεις: "something for you to do"
> (literally: "something so that you do"). In that case,
> your question makes no sense. There's no "me" nor "I"
> nor "you" in those structures, only a conjugated finite
> verb.

Yep - and although Latin has an infinitive, in the Classical
language it is not used with the idea of purpose.  How you
would render "for me to do" would rather depend upon
context.  But "ut faciam/ facerem..." (just like the Greek
να κάνεις - but in Latin the subjunctive will be conditioned
by the 'sequence of tense rule') is one possibility.  One
might also be using a relative pronoun followed by the
subjunctive _faciam/ facerem_, e.g.
Estne quod faciam? - Is there something for me to do?

As in the Greek, there is no separate word for "I" or "me."

[snip]
>
>> In natlangs, is there a general tendency towards using
>> a specific-case pronoun?

That surely depends upon the construction being used.  If a
subject pronoun were to used for emphasis or clarity  in the
modern Greek and in the Latin examples above, it would be
nominative case as it is the subject of finite verbs.

>> In pt-BR, the formal rule is using the nominative
>> ("caso reto", actually), that is, "for I to do" ("para
>>  eu fazer"),

IMO the English equivalent is misleading. The use of _eu_ is
surely because _fazer_ part of the peculiar personal
infinitive of Portuguese, and _eu_ is its subject.   the
preposition _para_ governs _fazer_, not the pronoun.  That
simply does not work in English.

>> but people on the streets apparently prefer "for me to
>>  do" ("para mim fazer"), what is considered a grave
>> mistake by grammaticians.

Presumably on the street _para_ is felt to govern the
pronoun as well as the infinitive.

> Interesting. French doesn't have such constructions. It
> can use the infinitive in an expression like "quelque
> chose à faire": "something to do", but as soon as you
> want to indicate the subject of the doing you need to
> use a relative subclause: "quelque chose qu'il faut que
> tu fasses": "something that you have to do", i.e.
> "something for you to do".

But "il faut" is surely adding the idea of obligation -
  you ought to be doing it.  The English "something for you
to do" doesn't necessarily imply obligation - it's something
you may do if you are so minded.

In Latin, as is well known, if you want obligation
expressed then the gerundive is used, e.g.
Quod est agendum?  "What ought to to be done?"

As soon as you add who ought to be doing whatever it is,
then a _dative_ is used:
Quod mihi est agendum? - "What do I have to do?"

Construction wise, that parallels the use of "for me" in the
English "for me to do."  Thus a bored teenager might say:
"There's nothing to do at weekends here."

If s/he wants to make it personal, then a "dative" is used:
"There's nothing for me to do at weekends here."

That's why I wrote above that translating the Portuguese
"para eu fazer" as *"for I to do" is IMO misleading.  It
shows a misunderstanding of the English expression.

> That said, I believe Portuguese goes out of its way to
> use infinitives where other Romance languages use finite
>  forms instead, so that could simply be one example of
> that trend :) .

Exactly!
=======================================================

On 05/07/2013 21:25, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> On 5 July 2013 22:08, Tony Harris wrote:
>
>> I think I would do this in Alurhsa as "that" (conj.) +
>>  imperative.
>>
>> So for example "He has something for me to do" would be
>> "Xô ńólyësán el kelyáy" (he-has something[ACC] that
>> I-do[IMPER]).
>>
> That's weird. It's weird enough to have an imperative for
> the first person (but then maybe it's really an
> imperative-hortative),

Presumably.

> but an imperative in a subclause?! Usually the
> imperative mood is restricted to main clauses. In
> subclauses, it gets replaced with another mood, often
> something like a subjunctive.

This is true.  But Outidic uses the same form for both
imperative and subjunctive.
http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Outis/Verbs.html#mood

My guess is that Alurhsa behaves in a similar way.  But I
agree that calling the verb form 'imperative' is a little
weird.

In Outidic we might have:
ut aksekan zintot o em dar
i.e.

ut a-ksek-an      zin-tot    o   em dar
he PRS-have-IPFV some-thing which I do

A verb unmarked as regards time is imperative or
subjunctive.  The final verb is assumed to be perfective; if
we wish to mark it as imperfective we must add the suffix
-an (i.e. daran).

Like modern Greek, TAKE has no infinitive (or indeed any
other non-finite forms), the verb being invariable.  It uses
an expression similar to modern Greek, i.e.
ἵνα ἐμέ ποίει ....
that I do ....

To ask what case ἐμέ is (or _em_ in Outidic), is meaningless
as all pronouns are invariable in those languages.
===========================================================

On 06/07/2013 02:01, George Marques de Jesus wrote:
> 2013/7/5 Eric Christopherson
[snip]
>>
>> Is that _fazer_ the 1sg-inflected one, or a bare
>> infinitive? I.e. Would you say _para nos fazermos_?
>
> It's the inflected. "Para nós fazer" is a mistake, one
> should say "para nós fazermos".

Yep - as Christophe observed, the particular use of the
infinitive here is peculiar to Portuguese.  That the
equivalent English has "to do" is misleading in
understanding the Portuguese.  English simply does not have
a personal infinitive.

The question whether, in a language which marks pronoun
cases, one uses "i" or "me" (or a dative, or any other case)
depends _upon the construction being used_.  As Christophe
rightly observed in his first email "there is no reason for
a conlang to even have the "for me to do" in the first
place. After all, not all natlangs do!"

All natlangs most certainly do not.  A more interesting
question IMHO is "What construction does your conlang use?"
  Indeed, this is what is being answered    :)

It is interesting to see how many do not use an infinitive   ;)

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]





Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Something for we to discuss!
    Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com 
    Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 1:01 am ((PDT))

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 09:28:59PM +0200, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
> wrote:
> > On 5 July 2013 21:09, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In expressions like "for me to do", do you use "me" or "I" in your
> > > conlangs? (If it distinguish them.)
> > >
> > Actually, there is no reason for a conlang to even have the "for me to
> > do" in the first place. After all, not all natlangs do! Modern Greek,
> > for instance, lacks the infinitive, so it uses finite subclauses to
> > translate them, as in: κάτι να κάνω: "something for me to do"
> > (literally: "something so that I do"), κάτι να κάνεις: 
> > "something for
> > you to do" (literally: "something so that you do"). In that case, your
> > question makes no sense.  There's no "me" nor "I" nor "you" in those
> > structures, only a conjugated finite verb.
>
> In Tatari Faran, there's no direct analogue of "for me to do" or "he has
> something for me to do". Instead, one would say "I must do X" or "he
> wants me to do X":
>
>         huu ka       kakai eka  jihai     no       ahai.
>         1SG ORG:MASC do    must something RCP:NEUT FIN
>         I must do something.
>
>         tara' ka       uenai ahuu           nijihai              kakai'i
> ia.
>         tara' ka       uenai a-huu          ni-jihai             kakai-i
> ia.
>         3SG   ORG:MASC want  SUBORD_ORG-1SG SUBORD_RCP-something to-INF
>  FIN
>         He wants me to do something.
>
>
> But as I understand it, your question isn't so much about how to express
> obligation or imperatives, but about the use of the nominative vs. the
> accusative in this context. This is interesting, since in English, we
> tend to say "it is me" even though the grammatical prescription is to
> say "it is I".  Apparently, that rule has been eroding, and now "it is
> me" is starting to become the new rule. But English isn't the only
> language where this switch is happening; in colloquial Russian, for
> example, phrases like "Am I visible?" are rendered as with the 1st
> person pronoun in the *accusative* rather than the nominative:
>
>         Меня    видно?
>         1SG.ACC visible.PRED
>         Am I visible?
>
> This also happens in phrases like "He's not here", which literally comes
> out to be "Him's not here":
>
>         Его     нет.
>         1SG.ACC not
>         He's not [here/present/etc.].
>

Unlike the previous example (Меня видно), which I agree is accusative, 
I've
always thought the 'subject' with "нет(у)"  was in the genitive case, not
accusative. E.g., моей сестры нет = My sister isn't (here, etc., in
genitive) instead of Мою сестру нет (in accusative).
Genitive is used to help indicate absence or negation, although I
understand that this is giving way to accusative with little or no sense of
absence.
Section 201 in the following document explains it somewhat (it's in
Russian):
http://evartist.narod.ru/text1/66.htm#з_03

stevo

>
> So at least, we have two quite-distant (though still related) languages
> exhibit a similar phenomenon.  I've no idea what motivates it, though.
> Maybe the more historically-educated among us can enlighten. ;-)
>
>
> T
>
> --
> MACINTOSH: Most Applications Crash, If Not, The Operating System Hangs
>





Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Something for we to discuss!
    Posted by: "Douglas Koller" douglaskol...@hotmail.com 
    Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 1:19 am ((PDT))







> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 22:25:38 +0200
> From: tsela...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Something for we to discuss!
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
 
> On 5 July 2013 22:08, Tony Harris t...@alurhsa.org> wrote:
 
 > This would be sort of like saying it this way in French: Il a quelque
> > chose que je fasse,
 
> That's not correct French.

I think that's rather beside his point. He said (emphases mine):

> > This would be *_sort of like_ saying it this way* in French: Il a quelque
> > chose que je fasse,

He is using (Romance hypothetical) analogy to explain the mechanism of the 
Alurhsa sentence. In that light:

> > I think I would do this in Alurhsa as "that" (conj.) + imperative.

> > So for example "He has something for me to do" would be "Xô ńólyësán el
> > kelyáy" (he-has something[ACC] that I-do[IMPER]).

> That's weird. It's weird enough to have an imperative for the first person
> (but then maybe it's really an imperative-hortative), but an imperative in
> a subclause?! Usually the imperative mood is restricted to main clauses. In
> subclauses, it gets replaced with another mood, often something like a
> subjunctive.

I don't see it as weird at all since the imperative itself is often 'something 
like a subjunctive'. Tony may well correct me if I haven't quite captured the 
Alurhsa Weltanschauung, but here's what I guess is going on (NB: if the French 
goes off the plantation, it's being used *in hypothetical analogy*). 

You have a lovely imperative:

Soyez à l'heure.  Be on time.

You also have lovely sentences like these:

J'insiste que vous soyez à l'heure.  I insist that you be on time.
Il veut que je sois à l'heure. He wants me to be on time.

So, for indirect commands, instead of saying:

Je vous ai dit d'être à l'heure.  I told you to be on time.
Il m'a dit d'être à l'heure.  He told me to be on time.

why not, by extension/analogy, say:

J'ai dit que vous soyez à l'heure. (Dixi ut essetis...)
Il a dit que je sois à l'heure. (Dixit ut essem...)

and use your imperative forms? As such, the imperative will be available in all 
persons. (Géarthnuns does this here.) That gets you to:

Il a dit que je fasse quelque chose.

Now, you also have:

Je veux inventer quelque chose (qui soit) facile à employer.
Je veux inventer quelque chose qui fasse une difference.

Would it be such a big reach to say that Alurhsa kinda conflates these to get:

Il a quelque chose que je fasse.

in its imperative? (Géarthnuns does not do this.) Now Hungarian has an 
*imperative* (felszólító mód) that conjugates for all persons, can be used in 
subordinate clauses, and - surprise, surprise - covers some areas we normally 
associate with subjunctives, all explained from the Hungarian perspective (at 
least in some books), like in Alurhsa, as "'that' (conj.) + imperative". Now 
one can argue that they *call* it an imperative but it's *really* an 
imperative-hortative or that it's a subjunctive that slums it on the imperative 
corner once in a while (as seems to be the case with French "soyez", "ayez", 
and "sachez").  But the "gee-wouldn't-it-be-nice(or, at least, better for 
you)-if-this-happened" mood gets carved up lots of ways, so saying something is 
a subjunctive is being used imperatively or an imperative being used 
subjunctivally seems to me rather a game of inches dependent on the 
cultural/grammatically explanatory traditions of a given language. One 
shouldn't blanch hearing tell of an imperative in the third person or popping 
up in a subordinate clause. At the very least: > From: t...@alurhsa.org
>Weird, maybe.  But it "feels" correct In Alurhsa, and after all that's all 
>that matters (at least to me).

Just so!

Kou


    





 




 


                                          



Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. The Thorn Letter
    Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com 
    Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:20 pm ((PDT))

They just recently updated Jaws, so I tinkered a bitt with Wikipedia.

 

Will this work?

Þorn

It reads it right on the web and this email.

 

 

 

 

Mellissa Green

 

 

@GreenNovelist

 





Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: The Thorn Letter
    Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com 
    Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:39 pm ((PDT))

 
Yep. I see the word "þorn" all properly spelled! 

Padraic

----- Original Message -----
> From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, 5 July 2013, 21:20
> Subject: [CONLANG] The Thorn Letter
> 
>T hey just recently updated Jaws, so I tinkered a bitt with Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> Will this work?
> 
> Þorn
> 
> It reads it right on the web and this email.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mellissa Green
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @GreenNovelist
>  





Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Some progress on Guggruug (was Animal Noises and Other Songs by Popu
    Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com 
    Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 11:03 pm ((PDT))

I have found some, perhaps interesting, details about Guggrrug, the language of 
the Werepigs.

The phonology might be of some interest:

Vowels:        a, uh, e, eh, u, oy, uy
                    aa, ee, uu
Consonants:      b, m, d, n, g, ng, h, y
                        v, z, gh, ngh, r, rgh, rz
                        s, hs, st
                        z, ghz, zd
                        gg, ghgh, rr, rhrh

The doubled letters mark those sounds that are pronounced upon inhalation, 
while the
single letters mark those pronounced in the usual way. What would a porky 
language
be without an assortment of snorts and grunts? RGH represents an exhaled rolling
growl like sound; HS an oro-nasal hiss; GHZ a very rough and rolling gruffulous 
snuff.
GG is a quick insnorting, quintessentially piggy sound; GHGH is a long 
insnorting oro-
nasal-palatal flap trill; RR is an ingressive uvular trill; RHRH is a rougher 
variety of the
same.

All of the sounds ought to be pronounced with considerable gusto and as much 
spittle
as one can manage. Don't worry, your interlocutors have probably never bathed in
their entire lives (apart from rolling about in  a mud wallow), and so won't 
mind a bit
of flying spit.

Syllable reduplication is very common and is used to augment a root. Thus: SU = 
fear,
while the name SUSU = Fearsome; GHAMU = meat while GHAMGHAMU = a lot
of meat. RRAAZEH = fetch; RRAAZRRAAZEH = fetch now! GU = one; GUGU =
two.

Werepigs don't have much need to count discrete numbers. They account only for
"one", "few", "several" and "many". These basic numbers can, of course, be 
augmented
by reduplication: DOMZ = few; but DOMUZDOMZ = quite a few.


On grammatical number, they have only two, which I call "chez" and "away" (on 
account
of the fact that they rhyme). Anything that is “chez” is roughly equivalent 
to first person: I,
me, mine, this thing near me, this person at my side, we, us, etc. Anything 
that is “away”
is roughly equivalent to second and third person: you, he/she/it/they, thing 
away from me/us,
those people, them things, etc. Definitely an Us vs. Them kind of language.


Guggrruug is a partially signed, partially grunted language. So, daghdagh, a 
generic "chez"
pronoun can mean “this thing”, “this person”, "something close to or 
identical with the speaker".
In order to distinguish, one uses the [fist-to-chest sign], along with the 
word, to indicate "me"; 
the [hand-sweeping-down sign] means "a nearby thing".

Happily, morphology and syntax are very easy. Werepigs, having no sense of 
future or past,
can speak in no tenses (or aspects rather) other than those of the Everpresent 
Now. Guggrruug
sentences, if they can be called such, are little more than two word 
object-verb units that convey
rough intent more than refined notions of relationship. Typical word order is 
OVS, where the
subject is typically separated from the OV unit by a slight pause: 

dugdugu muydeh . . Darudaru[hand-sweeping-down sign]

bird  slays; Darudaru [here]

ad.du zegheh . . gheghe[headlift sign]!

water drink; you!

I'm guessing your average Werepig, having exhausted his mental faculties 
putting the object
and verb in their correct places, needs a moment to recuperate, catch up and 
sort out who
actually did what.

Of the Werepig speech recalled by those Daine who
had been in confinement with their chattels note that most speech involved 
little more than
orders of the “cook meat” or “fetch water” sort of thing. Probably the 
most complex sentences
in the language were nothing more taxing than an exchange like the following:

Gagu cooks meat; hey! who eats it?
Susu eats it!

ghamu     sughghaadeh,     Gagu;
meat    cook        Gagu

baaggan huy!    gheghe         mugheh,     huyhuy?
what!        someone    eat        who?

gheghe     mugheh, Susu!
it    eat    Susu

Even so, the Werepigs do have their stories and epic narration, such as it is. 
Mostly
stories of war and hunting and scuffing about, but that largely sums up much of 
the
early epic of human culture as well!

And yes, I did trawl through a number of pig related words to come up with many 
of the
items in the lexicon. For example: Boboy (a name) comes from Filipino boboy = 
pig; 
derhrhuuvu (food) comes from Latin trufa = truffle; darnu (pig keeper) comes 
from the
name of Taran in Black Cauldron; vvaargu (young female Werepig) comes from vark.
Quite a few I don't even recall the origins of.

Padraic


----- Original Message -----
> From: Scar Cvxni <jeviscac...@gmail.com>

>>  Another animal inspired language is Guggruug, the language of the Werepigs.
>>  The inspiration there was to look at all kinds of different words
>>  pertaining to  pigs in different languages and use those as the root forms 
>> for the
>>  (admittedly  rather sparse) lexicon. Words like "pork" and "sus" and 
>> "baboy" and
>>  even things like "taran" and "trotter" all get recycled into different  
>> Guggruug  words.





Messages in this topic (15)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/

<*> Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com 
    conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to