There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: 9D grammar
From: neo gu
2.1. Re: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the stomach for it.
From: Matthew Turnbull
2.2. Re: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the stomach for it.
From: Charlie Brickner
3a. Re: A sort of "lexicalized syntax"-- has this been done before?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
3b. Re: A sort of "lexicalized syntax"-- has this been done before?
From: Jim Henry
4.1. Re: Grammatical gender (was: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4.2. embodiment in language
From: Dale McCreery
4.3. Re: embodiment in language
From: Sam Stutter
4.4. Re: embodiment in language
From: Dale McCreery
4.5. Re: Grammatical gender (was: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the
From: Padraic Brown
4.6. Re: Grammatical gender (was: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
5a. Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
From: A. Mendes
5b. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
From: Adam Walker
5c. alternative pseudoglyphs
From: Dale McCreery
6a. No present tense?
From: Gary Shannon
6b. Re: No present tense?
From: Logan Kearsley
6c. Re: No present tense?
From: Larry Sulky
6d. Re: No present tense?
From: Peter Cyrus
7a. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
From: Brian
7b. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
From: Galen Buttitta
7c. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
From: Galen Buttitta
8. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
From: John Erickson
9a. Vowel symbolics
From: A. da Mek
9b. Re: Vowel symbolics
From: A. da Mek
10a. Re: fragments of new conlang: chrestomathy thereof
From: Wesley Parish
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: 9D grammar
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:30 am ((PST))
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:29:55 -0600, Matthew Turnbull
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey, I just got a chance to look at the page, nice font!
Thanks!
> anyway, I like the way you derive nominals from verbs using the
> definate article, and liked the amount of detail in the syntax sections,
Good, I was concerned about the syntax sections being inadequate.
> but I think you need more examples on the morphology page, since I
> wasn't sure what you meant by realtional noun, nor how exactly the
> clitic system works.
All noted on my list of fixes. I tend to take my terminology,
like "relational noun", for granted, which is why I need a lot of
feedback.
>On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:08 AM, neo gu <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:39:46 -0500, neo gu
<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I've converted the phonology page to IPA, at worst you should get
>> boxes. I'll fix the rest later. I also made some minor morphosyntax
>> changes.
>>
>> http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/9D/9DIntro.htm
>>
>> --
>> neogu
>>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the stomach for it.
Posted by: "Matthew Turnbull" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:36 pm ((PST))
Jorayn hasn't got a word for "gender" you express such a concept where
it relates to physical gender by refering to someone as a woman or man
(joma iim homa) and psycological gender isn't recognized by them, the
take great stock in sexual orientation though and pronouns decline for
it, since it's so socially important, so they might use some kind of
construction involving a pronoun to account for an unusual gender. I
would translate sex/gender as "type/kind" whose phonetic form escapes
me at the moment. The verb for sex as in sexual intercourse is derived
from the verb for "orgasm" and as such has nothing to do with gender.
Sora^rre - to orgasm (high tone on a)
Ko-mey-nsora^rre - have sex
Same-reciprocal-orgasm
On 12/12/11, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/12/11, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12 December 2011 08:32, R A Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why this the useful distinction between sex and gender has
>>> become confused, I don't know. It's almost as tho 'gender'
>>> is being used as a euphemism for the "vulgar" sounding 'sex'
>
>> Mainly because sex and gender are not confused, but have started to refer
>> to different facets of sexuality: sex is about the physical attributes,
>> gender about the psychological and social reality, which may or may not be
>> in line with the physical one. Since those are different (and not
>> necessarily related) matters, it makes sense that they should be indicated
>> using different words. "Gender" was the best choice, given its grammatical
>> use.
>
> Is that a typo for "not the best choice"? Because it seems that
> adding the psychological meaning to the linguistic and biological
> meanings has made it even more polysemous. Polysemy is sometimes
> unavoidable, but when it's avoidable, it's not the best choice.
>
>> "Sex" isn't used not because it's "vulgar", but because it refers to
>> something else than what the forms you're referring to are asking.
>
> In some people's usage, yes. But my impression is that using
> "gender" to refer to a person's psychological makeup as distinct from
> the set of reproductive organs they have happened later than the use
> of "gender" as a euphemism for "sex" i.e. quality of being
> (physically) male or female, after "sex" started to be used as a
> colloquial abbreviation for "sexual intercourse". And it's also my
> impression that the use of "gender" in the sense you refer to is a
> minority phenomenon, more common among intellectuals than English
> speakers at large. Many, maybe most people, either aren't aware or
> refuse to recognize that physical sex and psychological gender aren't
> the same or aren't always in sync, and thus perhaps don't feel a need
> for distinct terms for each. Ray cites a recent use of "gender" to
> mean "being physically male or female" in a recent message, and I've
> heard a bunch of people use the word that way.
>
> Probably "gender" is more likely to have the sense you refer to in
> collocations like "gender identity" and "gender politics".
>
> Some other observations:
>
> "Gender" is indifferently a noun or adjective; I don't know of a
> distinct adjectival form. "Sex" is typically a noun, and can be used
> as an adjective by zero-derivation in some contexts, but in others one
> uses the form "sexual". "Sex" as a verb means "to determine the
> (phyisical) sex of"; I haven't seen "gender" used in an analogous way
> as a verb.
>
> "opposite sex" gets 15,200,000 Ghits.
> "opposite gender" gets 1,740,000 Ghits; of the ones on the first page,
> it looks like some use it in the physical sense, some in the
> social/psychological, some in the grammatical, and some are ambiguous.
>
> "sexual politics" gets 2,670,000 Ghits.
> "gender politics" gets 1,180,000 Ghits.
>
> "sexual identity" gets 4,290,000 Ghits.
> "gender identity" gets 5,750,000 Ghits. Both these terms are used for
> psychological phenomena; obviously identity of whatever kind isn't
> purely biological. But it seems that the former term is mostly used
> to refer to orientation, i.e. what type of people one is attracted to,
> while the latter typically refers to whether one conceives of oneself
> as male, female, or something more complicated.
>
> ObConlang: does your conlang have distinct terms for "sex" and
> "gender" in the senses Christophe distinguishes for them?
> gjâ-zym-byn doesn't, and it probably should. But I can probably
> figure out a way to do so with existing vocabulary.
>
> And does your conlang derive one of those terms from the other, or
> either from a verb meaning "to have sex (with)" or vice versa, or from
> a term for noun classes or specific gendered family relationships like
> father/mother or more general terms for people like man/woman, or...?
>
> In gzb there are two root words meaning "maleness" and "femaleness",
> ambiguously physical or psychological depending on context. In most
> situations they're compounded with epicene noun stems to get a
> person-term with a specially male or female referent; typical engelang
> design there, but there's one inherently gendered kinship term, the
> word for "wife" (from which "husband" and "spouse" are derived).
> "Sex/gender" is derived from the root word for "femaleness" with the
> generalizer suffix. "Sex" as an activity is denoted by a couple of
> other, unrelated words, one for intercourse and one for sexual
> pleasure as distinct from other kinds of pleasure and comfort. Noun
> class/gender is something I don't think I've had occasion to refer to,
> but I think I'd use the root word for "kind, type, species, category".
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Messages in this topic (54)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the stomach for it.
Posted by: "Charlie Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:56 pm ((PST))
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:24:49 -0500, Jim Henry <[email protected]>
wrote:
>ObConlang: does your conlang have distinct terms for "sex" and
>"gender" in the senses Christophe distinguishes for them?
>gjâ-zym-byn doesn't, and it probably should. But I can probably
>figure out a way to do so with existing vocabulary.
>
In Senjecas:
yéva is the transitive verb to have sex(ual intercourse) with. As an
intransitive verb it means to copulate. Its derivatives are:
1. yévis, sexual
2. yévos, sex(ual intercourse), copulation
Senjecas has no word for gender, since I use the word mhénka, to decline,
inflect, conjugate and its noun mhénkas, declension, inflection,
conjugation.
There is a verb lé(ƶ)dza, to gather (together), collect, pick, group;
amass,
accumulate, cumulate, accrete, accrue, raise [money]'. Its noun
is lédzos, bunch [of grapes]; group, category, set. I suppose one could
use
that for gender.
There is no word with Christophe's connotation.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (54)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: A sort of "lexicalized syntax"-- has this been done before?
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:50 pm ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Monday 12 December 2011 04:57:01 Matthew Martin wrote:
> I was reading "Atoms of Language" and got the idea from the book to create
> a conlang where basic word order (SVO, OVS, OSV, etc) depended on the
> particular verb and the branching direction depended on the particular
> adjective (some branch left, some right). E.g. sentences with the verb "to
> eat" might be OVS, but sentences with the main verb "to snore" might be
> OSV.
>
> I think the author said this was unattested in natlangs. Has it already
> been done conlangs?
Not really what you describe, but logical languages such as Loglan
and Lojban assign semantic roles to arguments lexically, such that,
for instance, a verb means something like "X1 moves X2 from X3 to X4
via X5 by vehicle X6", wherein the Xes are argument positions in the
clause (which are not overtly case marked). At least, that is what
I understood of Lojban grammar. This can be called a sort of
"lexicalized morphosyntactic alignment", I'd say.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Êm, a Êm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Êmel." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: A sort of "lexicalized syntax"-- has this been done before?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:24 pm ((PST))
On 12/11/11, Matthew Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was reading "Atoms of Language" and got the idea from the book to create a
> conlang where basic word order (SVO, OVS, OSV, etc) depended on the
> particular
> verb
....
> I think the author said this was unattested in natlangs. Has it already been
> done
> conlangs?
I don't know of any languages where SOV/SVO/etc. is determined by
lexical criteria, but this:
and the branching direction depended on the particular adjective (some
> branch left, some right).
is ANADEW: in French, a small, closed class of adjectives precede
their heads, while most follow them.
In a later post you say you were thinking of randomly assigning verb
stems to the six word orders. I think it would be more interesting if
there was an apparent but inconsistent system at work, kind of like
the typical noun class system, where each class has prototypical
members with common semantics, but also atypical members whose
membership in that class couldn't be predicted. So maybe class SOV
has a lot of verbs associated with men's work, plus some that used to
be but have shifted in meaning over time, while SVO is associated with
women's work ditto, and VSO with weather verbs, etc.; but each class
also has miscellaneous verbs that don't obviously have anything in
common with the prototypical verbs of that class, and some verbs you'd
expect to fit in one class are actually in another; e.g. maybe "to
snow", "to hail", "to blow wind" etc. are in VSO class, but "to rain"
is SOV.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: Grammatical gender (was: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:31 pm ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Monday 12 December 2011 16:34:31 R A Brown wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 07:12, BPJ wrote:
> > Dear Ray,
> >
> > it seems you and I never really disagreed.
>
> No - I don't think we did.
Great minds think alike ;) Both you and BPJ are to my experience
very reasonable individuals with a good knowledge of linguistics,
so it doesn't surprise me that you agree with each other a lot
(as much as I agree with both of you).
> [...]
> Ah - sorry, I missed that. Yes, I think personification is
> too simplistic an explanation for the gender systems found
> in IE, Semitic and IIRC other Afro-Asiatic languages. I
> don't know what the current thinking is on this. I'm sure
> some of our Nostratic brethren have theories :)
What I have heard is that Early PIE had only two genders, one of
which ("common") included all animate nouns and some inanimates,
while the other ("neuter") was all inanimate, and this is the
state of affairs seen in Hittite. Obviously, that is basically
an animate/inanimate system in which some inanimate nouns were
moved to the former animate class for reasons that are not too
well understood (metaphoric animacy? formal similarity to
animates?). In Late PIE, the feminine gender was branched off
from the common which thus became the masculine. This started
with designations of female beings, but as one of the most
productive feminine suffixes was *-h2, just about everything else
that ended in *h2 was also moved to this gender.
But the problem has not been solved satisfactorily yet. The
messy residue is too large.
As for Afro-Asiatic, no idea. I don't know what the Nostraticists
have to say on this matter, they probably don't have any useful
idea either. (Bomhard doesn't treat grammatical gender in his
2008 book.)
ObConlang: My conlang Old Albic has a two-tiered gender system
with an animate/inanimate distinction and a masculine/feminine/
common distinction within the animate class. Most nouns go where
one would expect them, but there are a few exceptions (e.g., the
Sun and the Earth are feminine, the Moon and the Sky are masculine,
books are common gender animate).
> [...]
> > I guess I overreacted to the above quote from GvdW
> > because I'm deeply allergic to using Mumbo Jumbo as an
> > 'explanation' to anything in anthropology -- clearly
> > that should be the last resort, if any last resort rather
> > than "we can't know" is really needed.
>
> Yes, from an absolute point of view, "we don't know" is the
> only possible answer, short of time-travel. But I guess
> there must be theories - some inevitably of the crackpot
> nature, but I wondered what more academically acceptable
> ideas might be.
>
> But i get enough private emails from crackpots about
> Pelasgians, so maybe I should be more careful where I lead
> threads.
Ah, Pelasgians. Will we ever know which language they spoke?
The less is known about a matter, the more crackpots write about
it ;) Like the endless rows of volumes about Atlantis, alien
visitors (both in the past and the present), and other such topics.
There is of course nothing wrong with making up a Pelasgian conlang,
but don't try to sell it as the truth!
> > Yours,
> >
> > /bpj
> >
> > P.S. As for the Vedic root nouns they were assigned
> > gender based on their meaning/relation to the active
> > verb: action nouns were feminine and agent nouns were
> > masculine -- nothing to do with personification of
> > course! I'm deeply convinced that the association of
> > grammatical gender with biological gender in PIE was
> > secondary.
>
> Very likely.
Perhaps. AFAIK, it were the Greek and Roman grammarians who came
up with the terms "masculine", "feminine" and "neuter"; did the
Sanskrit grammarians also name the grammatical genders for
biological genders, or did they use entirely different terms?
> > Note that the Anatolian lgs had only a common and a
> > neuter gender, which probably reflects the original state
> > of affairs before _*H2_ fused with the preceding vowel.
> > But it's not there the controversy between us lies, I
> > hope!
>
> No, there isn't. I just have not kept up with current
> thinking regarding PIE.
It seems (as BPJ writes and I have written above) that the PIE
gender system emerged from an animate/inanimate system, but the
details need to be cleared up. The Indo-Europeanists are busy
trying to find out.
> ========================================================
>
> On 12/12/2011 11:35, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> > On 12 December 2011 08:32, R A wrote:
> >> Why this the useful distinction between sex and gender
> >> has become confused, I don't know. It's almost as tho
> >> 'gender' is being used as a euphemism for the "vulgar"
> >> sounding 'sex' - which IMO is silly.
> >
> > Mainly because sex and gender are not confused, but have
> > started to refer to different facets of sexuality: sex
> > is about the physical attributes, gender about the
> > psychological and social reality, which may or may not be
> > in line with the physical one.
>
> Yes, yes - I've heard this before; but in practice this is
> not so. The forms that have a box labeled "gender" accept
> only 'male' or 'female' as answers. Surely something which
> referred to 'psychological and social realities' would allow
> answers that do not refer to physical attributes.
Indeed. Psychological and social realities are that much more
complex.
> I heard just yesterday on the radio, a young girl taking
> about finding a baby and saying: "We had been taught at
> school how to tell the gender of a baby. I looked; it was a
> boy."
>
> I don't think she was looking at the psychological and
> social status of the baby - but at something quite physical!
Either the presence or absence of that body part with so many names,
or the colour of the baby's clothing - but I guess the former.
> Sorry - IME the word 'sex' in popular speech seems nearly
> always used to mean "sexual intercourse" - it's only in
> strictly biological contexts it gets used with other
> meanings. Otherwise 'gender' now IME is used not only to
> refer to 'psychological and social realities' but to actual
> physical differences.
Yes.
> =========================================================
>
> On 12/12/2011 13:19, Brian wrote:
> > Vulgar comment alert in this message!!! Not intended to
> > offend!!!
> >
> > Okay, that explains the term 'gender' nicely. Thank you
> > for that. However, why are the terms 'masculine' and
> > 'feminine' used as opposed to other possible
> > class/type/kind/gender distinctions? I mean, we could
> > use the gender labels 'high' and 'low' or possibly 'class
> > 1' and 'class 2', etc.
>
> Tradition - going back ultimately to the ancient Greek
> grammarians. Because females tended to be denoted by nouns
> belonging to 'class 1', it was called θηλÏ
κÏÏ (thÄlykós)
> "woman-like, like a female", whereas males tended to be
> denoted by nouns in 'class 2' which they termed á¼ÏÏενικÏÏ/
> á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½Î¹ÎºÎ¿Ï (arrenikós/ arsenikós [according to dialect])
> "male"; 'class 3' just got called οá½Î´ÎÏεÏÎ¿Ï (oudéteros)
> "neither [of two]."
>
> They got Latinized as _fÄminÄ«nus, masculÄ«nus, neuter_
> respectively, and the rest is history ...
What are the Sanskrit names? BPJ perhaps knows ...
> > I can't remember how many times I've been talking to
> > someone about grammatical gender and had to use the
> > phrase, "Just because it's called masculine doesn't mean
> > it has balls!"
>
> There are many similar jokes ;)
Like one I once poked at the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, namely that
putting a tablecloth on a table must have sexual connotations in
German because _Tischdecke_ is feminine and _Tisch_ is masculine.
Of course, it does not matter at all in German, especially
considering that the synonyms _Tischtuch_ and _Tafel_ are neuter
and feminine, respectively. German tablecloths just don't have
sexual intercourse with tables.
> > I am being serious about this. I really don't understand
> > the purpose of the current terminology when other just
> > as suitable terminology could be used with less
> > ambiguity.
>
> That, alas, can be said about much of linguistic
> terminology. Two millennia and more of tradition is not
> easy to throw aside. Trask, quoting Corbett, writes: "most
> European languages other than English have gender systems
> showing some degree of correlation with sex; as a
> consequence, many non-linguists (and some linguists!)
> needlessly confuse gender with sex. This confusion should
> be avoided: sex is a matter of biology, while gender is a
> matter of grammar, and one which has no necessary connection
> with sex."
>
> But, I fear, while the confusion should IMO have been
> needless, we now seem to be stuck with it.
Indeed.
> The Bantu languages were wise enough to have more than three
> grammatical genders and no one has bothered to think up new
> names for the extra genders, so they just termed 'class 1',
> 'class 2', etc.
Yes.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Ãm, a Ãm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Ãmel." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (54)
________________________________________________________________________
4.2. embodiment in language
Posted by: "Dale McCreery" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:42 pm ((PST))
I've been doing some biblical reading in Cree lately and was struck by the
level to which the language embodies what in English would be more
abstract concepts - for example, in translating the concept of "have pity
on X" there are two possible verbs, kitimaakeyimew, and kitmaakinew - the
first one implying a mental action, and the second one implying physical,
specifically, the hand. In the texts I was reading the embodied version of
many many words was always chosen over the purely mental one, giving the
statements a very existential quality, linking belief to action.
The very fact that the language tends to specifically mention parts of the
body in verbs like this gives it a grounded sense, as opposed to a
language like English that is far more abstract, allowing for more
inaction... for example compare the English word Grace, with Cree
kisitootaakewin - roughly - doing-kindness-to-people-edness, or school to
kiskinohamaatowikamik, roughly, a place where you learn in a reciprocal,
benefactive, hands-on way.
I'm not particularly trying to make a Sapir/Whorfian argument here, but I
am pointing out the potential for creating a language that ties beliefs to
actions in a very visceral way, with a narrative culture that demands
putting your "body where your mouth is".
So - to phrase this as a question, on a continuum between favouring a
metaphysical acontextual world view and an embodied existential one, where
do your languages find themselves?
-muskwatch-
Messages in this topic (54)
________________________________________________________________________
4.3. Re: embodiment in language
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:10 pm ((PST))
On 12 Dec 2011, at 22:42, Dale McCreery wrote:
> The very fact that the language tends to specifically mention parts of the
> body in verbs like this gives it a grounded sense, as opposed to a
> language like English that is far more abstract, allowing for more
> inaction... for example compare the English word Grace, with Cree
> kisitootaakewin - roughly - doing-kindness-to-people-edness, or school to
> kiskinohamaatowikamik, roughly, a place where you learn in a reciprocal,
> benefactive, hands-on way.
I've never defined "grace" like that. I've always seen it as deliberate
inaction; remaining calm and emotionally detached beyond a level of general
benevolence; the way you walk and hold yourself, a quiet and stillness. Perhaps
a resolve to do right. I guess the term varies in meaning between people.
> I'm not particularly trying to make a Sapir/Whorfian argument here, but I
> am pointing out the potential for creating a language that ties beliefs to
> actions in a very visceral way, with a narrative culture that demands
> putting your "body where your mouth is".
I'm surprised no-one has ever thought of it before. It's sounds like a great
idea :)
>
> So - to phrase this as a question, on a continuum between favouring a
> metaphysical acontextual world view and an embodied existential one, where
> do your languages find themselves?
*Remarkable* coincidence here. Thinking about it, both my conlangs are
instilled with my own moral values (this being the first moment I've actually
realised this, so thanks!), the two most important being steadfastness and (my
definition of) grace. So both Nỳspèke and Caccigga both are characterised by
a sort of physical non-involvement.
I always tend to produce a swathe of specific root body terms (such as "the
back of your knee") but with a even larger quantity of emotional and character
descriptors (like the Myers-Briggs personality types: yes, they're a bit
stupid, but hey). I tend to build lexicons rather blindly, so "doers" are
always removed from the action they do and where the relationship (emotional,
physical, temporal or social) is more important than the actual objects. I
always tend to make the verbal grammar much more intricate than the nominal.
I guess it's not absolute, there is a physicality, but it's certainly not as
strong as Cree.
>
> -muskwatch-
Messages in this topic (54)
________________________________________________________________________
4.4. Re: embodiment in language
Posted by: "Dale McCreery" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:26 pm ((PST))
> On 12 Dec 2011, at 22:42, Dale McCreery wrote:
>
. for example compare the English word Grace, with Cree
>> kisitootaakewin - roughly - doing-kindness-to-people-edness, or school
>> to
>> kiskinohamaatowikamik, roughly, a place where you learn in a reciprocal,
>> benefactive, hands-on way.
>
> I've never defined "grace" like that. I've always seen it as deliberate
> inaction; remaining calm and emotionally detached beyond a level of
> general benevolence; the way you walk and hold yourself, a quiet and
> stillness. Perhaps a resolve to do right. I guess the term varies in
> meaning between people.
>
The context I took that word from was the Cree translation of "the grace
of God be with you always" so the translator assumed that in this context,
"grace" should actually be something that had some earthly benefit,
otherwise why wish it on someone? I think the connection we draw in
english between this sort of grace and the concept of graceful says a lot
about how we see goodness and other related concepts as well.
>> I'm not particularly trying to make a Sapir/Whorfian argument here, but
>> I
>> am pointing out the potential for creating a language that ties beliefs
>> to
>> actions in a very visceral way, with a narrative culture that demands
>> putting your "body where your mouth is".
>
> I'm surprised no-one has ever thought of it before. It's sounds like a
> great idea :)
>
>>
>> So - to phrase this as a question, on a continuum between favouring a
>> metaphysical acontextual world view and an embodied existential one,
>> where
>> do your languages find themselves?
>
> *Remarkable* coincidence here. Thinking about it, both my conlangs are
> instilled with my own moral values (this being the first moment I've
> actually realised this, so thanks!), the two most important being
> steadfastness and (my definition of) grace. So both Nỳspèke and
> Caccigga both are characterised by a sort of physical non-involvement.
>
> I always tend to produce a swathe of specific root body terms (such as
> "the back of your knee") but with a even larger quantity of emotional and
> character descriptors (like the Myers-Briggs personality types: yes,
> they're a bit stupid, but hey). I tend to build lexicons rather blindly,
> so "doers" are always removed from the action they do and where the
> relationship (emotional, physical, temporal or social) is more important
> than the actual objects. I always tend to make the verbal grammar much
> more intricate than the nominal.
>
> I guess it's not absolute, there is a physicality, but it's certainly not
> as strong as Cree.
>
I like how you talk about the language having your own values! I've been
looking at the concepts of objectivity in research, and it seems that when
people try to "cut straight to the facts" what they are really doing is
interpreting the data within their own contextual framework of values,
just not recognizing it as such.
How do you go about embedding emotional relationship information into a
verb? I'm curious.
>>
>> -muskwatch-
>
Messages in this topic (54)
________________________________________________________________________
4.5. Re: Grammatical gender (was: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:27 pm ((PST))
--- On Mon, 12/12/11, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]> wrote:
> ObConlang: My conlang Old Albic has a two-tiered gender
> system
> with an animate/inanimate distinction and a
> masculine/feminine/
> common distinction within the animate class. Most
> nouns go where
> one would expect them, but there are a few exceptions
> (e.g., the
> Sun and the Earth are feminine, the Moon and the Sky are
> masculine, books are common gender animate).
Actually, those are just where I'd expect them to be! I've long thought
of the sun('s personification) as female. Yeah I know Helios is male;
but that's Greek and as I recall, "sun" was fem. in OE and generally
viewed as fem. into early modern English.
I've often thought that it was a bit backwards for astrologers and other
pseudo-science types to go on about the generative qualities of the earth
making the planet a kind of mother goddess, while making the sun some
kind male sky god. But what is more generative than a star? They not only
give warmth (within a certain range) to their own planets, but also sweep
out all kinds of nasty radiation from space and provide, upon their death,
all kinds of nice heavy elements that will form the nuclei of future
planets surrounding distant and yet unborn stars.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (54)
________________________________________________________________________
4.6. Re: Grammatical gender (was: Chat. Don't join if you don't have the
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:34 pm ((PST))
On 13 December 2011 02:27, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Actually, those are just where I'd expect them to be! I've long thought
> of the sun('s personification) as female. Yeah I know Helios is male;
> but that's Greek and as I recall, "sun" was fem. in OE and generally
> viewed as fem. into early modern English.
>
>
In Dutch and German, "sun" is feminine and "moon" is masculine, the
opposite of what the Romance languages do. It's probably nonsense, but I've
always liked the explanation that it was that way because in Northern
countries, the sun is actually welcome (brings a bit of light and warmth to
an otherwise cold and dark landscape, helps crops growing), while in
Southern countries it is actually avoided (it can easily be so warm as to
destroy crops and cause physical problems to people). The Northern Sun is
feminine because it's a creator, while the Southern Sun is masculine
because it's a destroyer.
As I wrote, it's probably nonsense, but it's a nice way to remember how it
works :P .
> I've often thought that it was a bit backwards for astrologers and other
> pseudo-science types to go on about the generative qualities of the earth
> making the planet a kind of mother goddess, while making the sun some
> kind male sky god. But what is more generative than a star? They not only
> give warmth (within a certain range) to their own planets, but also sweep
> out all kinds of nasty radiation from space and provide, upon their death,
> all kinds of nice heavy elements that will form the nuclei of future
> planets surrounding distant and yet unborn stars.
>
>
Very true. But I doubt the Ancients Greeks and Romans knew that! :)
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (54)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "A. Mendes" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:58 pm ((PST))
http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/name-that-glyph-round-two/
Greetings All,
The results from last week are in and the new glyph list is up. Thank you
to everyone who contributed; your participation was dearly appriciated.
Please submit your suggestions for round two.
Cheer,
Andrew
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:44 pm ((PST))
A4 butt kicking, B2 good/thumbs up, C1 autumn/rake, E4 lawn chair, H4
tinker toys, J1 telecommunications satelite. Adam
On 12/12/11, A. Mendes <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/name-that-glyph-round-two/
>
> Greetings All,
>
> The results from last week are in and the new glyph list is up. Thank you
> to everyone who contributed; your participation was dearly appriciated.
>
> Please submit your suggestions for round two.
>
> Cheer,
>
> Andrew
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. alternative pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "Dale McCreery" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:48 pm ((PST))
I used to use a system similar to pseudoglyphs, though not as elegant in
appearance, for English. Basically I divided situated the alphabet in a
3x3x3 cube, and defined each letter by three numbers, first number for the
level, second for row, third number for position, so A was 1,1,1, B was
1,1,2, S was 3,1,1, N was 2,2,2, etc. I then used a grid to write the
numbers on as either a null, a short line, or a long line, progressing
around a 3 by 3 grid. Here's an image to give an idea of what it looked
like and how it worked.
http://imgur.com/RgOTD
for example, dale is 121,111,213,122 - or, since I represent the numbers
by nothing, short line, and long line, it could be better understood as
010,000,102,011. I saw it as a code more than a script, but did sort of
enjoy the look of it!
-muskwatch
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. No present tense?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:12 pm ((PST))
I've been playing around with an unnamed grammar sketch off and on for
several months, and I was looking at the verb tense/mood/aspect tables and
I have them nicely organized the way I want, but it occurred to me that I
don't think I need the simple present. If something you're trying to tell
me about is still happening right now then it's progressive. (I'm running.)
If it's not progressive then it has either already happened (I just dropped
my toast.) or is just about to happen (I'm going to sneeze.) But it's not
happening right now.
Yes, I could contrive to hit my thumb with a hammer just as I was saying "I
hit my thumb with a hammer." But that would be pretty artificial, and when,
exactly, do I hit my thumb, as I speak the word "hit" or as I speak the
word "thumb"? So if you did want to construct such an artificial
circumstance you'd just have to use either the immediate past (I just hit
my thumb.), the immediate future (I'm about to hit my thumb.) or the
progressive present (I'm hitting my thumb.)
It seems that in English it's hardly ever used except to intimate habitual
or characteristic actions: Birds sing. Dogs bark. I jog. He smokes.
Realistically, can you think of any situation where a true instantaneous
present tense would be of any use at all? What do you think? (Which, of
course, really means what are you thinking, or what will you be thinking,
or what have you thought, or anything but the instantaneous "what think
you?")
--gary
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: No present tense?
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:20 pm ((PST))
On 12 December 2011 19:12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been playing around with an unnamed grammar sketch off and on for
> several months, and I was looking at the verb tense/mood/aspect tables and
> I have them nicely organized the way I want, but it occurred to me that I
> don't think I need the simple present. If something you're trying to tell
> me about is still happening right now then it's progressive. (I'm running.)
> If it's not progressive then it has either already happened (I just dropped
> my toast.) or is just about to happen (I'm going to sneeze.) But it's not
> happening right now.
I agree with your reasoning, but I don't think I'd describe it the
same way. If the present tense is only available in one aspect, then
I'd just go ahead and say that that's what the simple present means in
that language.
Russian behaves rather like this- an action is either ongoing or
gnomic (no morphological or syntactic distinction between them), and
thus in the imperfective aspect, or else it must be past or future.
-l.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6c. Re: No present tense?
Posted by: "Larry Sulky" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:36 pm ((PST))
I've come to the same conclusion, Gary. So in my current two projects, the
default is present progressive, and a simple marker changes the aspect to
present perfect, which suffices for most uses of the preterit (as in spoken
French and many other languages). ----L
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been playing around with an unnamed grammar sketch off and on for
> several months, and I was looking at the verb tense/mood/aspect tables and
> I have them nicely organized the way I want, but it occurred to me that I
> don't think I need the simple present. If something you're trying to tell
> me about is still happening right now then it's progressive. (I'm running.)
> If it's not progressive then it has either already happened (I just dropped
> my toast.) or is just about to happen (I'm going to sneeze.) But it's not
> happening right now.
>
> Yes, I could contrive to hit my thumb with a hammer just as I was saying "I
> hit my thumb with a hammer." But that would be pretty artificial, and when,
> exactly, do I hit my thumb, as I speak the word "hit" or as I speak the
> word "thumb"? So if you did want to construct such an artificial
> circumstance you'd just have to use either the immediate past (I just hit
> my thumb.), the immediate future (I'm about to hit my thumb.) or the
> progressive present (I'm hitting my thumb.)
>
> It seems that in English it's hardly ever used except to intimate habitual
> or characteristic actions: Birds sing. Dogs bark. I jog. He smokes.
>
> Realistically, can you think of any situation where a true instantaneous
> present tense would be of any use at all? What do you think? (Which, of
> course, really means what are you thinking, or what will you be thinking,
> or what have you thought, or anything but the instantaneous "what think
> you?")
>
> --gary
>
--
*Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I
can hear her breathing. -- Arundhati Roy*
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6d. Re: No present tense?
Posted by: "Peter Cyrus" [email protected]
Date: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:07 am ((PST))
Which TAM would you use for "I speak Catalan", or "When(ever) I'm in
Barcelona, I speak Catalan"?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've come to the same conclusion, Gary. So in my current two projects, the
> default is present progressive, and a simple marker changes the aspect to
> present perfect, which suffices for most uses of the preterit (as in spoken
> French and many other languages). ----L
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I've been playing around with an unnamed grammar sketch off and on for
> > several months, and I was looking at the verb tense/mood/aspect tables
> and
> > I have them nicely organized the way I want, but it occurred to me that I
> > don't think I need the simple present. If something you're trying to tell
> > me about is still happening right now then it's progressive. (I'm
> running.)
> > If it's not progressive then it has either already happened (I just
> dropped
> > my toast.) or is just about to happen (I'm going to sneeze.) But it's not
> > happening right now.
> >
> > Yes, I could contrive to hit my thumb with a hammer just as I was saying
> "I
> > hit my thumb with a hammer." But that would be pretty artificial, and
> when,
> > exactly, do I hit my thumb, as I speak the word "hit" or as I speak the
> > word "thumb"? So if you did want to construct such an artificial
> > circumstance you'd just have to use either the immediate past (I just hit
> > my thumb.), the immediate future (I'm about to hit my thumb.) or the
> > progressive present (I'm hitting my thumb.)
> >
> > It seems that in English it's hardly ever used except to intimate
> habitual
> > or characteristic actions: Birds sing. Dogs bark. I jog. He smokes.
> >
> > Realistically, can you think of any situation where a true instantaneous
> > present tense would be of any use at all? What do you think? (Which, of
> > course, really means what are you thinking, or what will you be thinking,
> > or what have you thought, or anything but the instantaneous "what think
> > you?")
> >
> > --gary
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I
> can hear her breathing. -- Arundhati Roy*
>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "Brian" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:18 pm ((PST))
C3 - to clean (broom)
D4 - to wish, desire, want (wishbone)
H2 - to taste (tongue sticking out)
J4 - to be, exist (that's just what I thought of)
------Original Message------
From: A. Mendes
Sender: Conlang
To: Conlang
ReplyTo: Conlang
Subject: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
Sent: Dec 12, 2011 19:58
http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/name-that-glyph-round-two/
Greetings All,
The results from last week are in and the new glyph list is up. Thank you
to everyone who contributed; your participation was dearly appriciated.
Please submit your suggestions for round two.
Cheer,
Andrew
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "Galen Buttitta" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:04 pm ((PST))
The link as given produces an error. The link should read thus:
http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/name-that-glyph-round-two/
End of line.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
> C3 - to clean (broom)
> D4 - to wish, desire, want (wishbone)
> H2 - to taste (tongue sticking out)
> J4 - to be, exist (that's just what I thought of)
> ------Original Message------
> From: A. Mendes
> Sender: Conlang
> To: Conlang
> ReplyTo: Conlang
> Subject: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
> Sent: Dec 12, 2011 19:58
>
> http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/name-that-glyph-round-two/
>
> Greetings All,
>
> The results from last week are in and the new glyph list is up. Thank you
> to everyone who contributed; your participation was dearly appriciated.
>
> Please submit your suggestions for round two.
>
> Cheer,
>
> Andrew
>
--
S A T O R
A R E P O
T E N E T
O P E R A
R O T A S
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
7c. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "Galen Buttitta" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:13 pm ((PST))
Sorry for the double-message, just wanted to make sure the corrected link
got out. Some glyphs as I see them:
A1 Wheelchair (reminds me of the symbols sprayed in some parking spaces)
A2 Restrain (looks like a rope threaded through a hook)
B1 Give someone the finger
B2 Knight
B3 Infantryman (looks like a helmet to me but of a different type than
that of B2's)
C1 Broom, sweeper
C4 Horse, mule, donkey
D3 Interrupt
D4 Wishbone
E1 Suction cup
I3 Be receptive to, welcome (kind of looks like someone with open arms)
End of line.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Galen Buttitta <
[email protected]> wrote:
> The link as given produces an error. The link should read thus:
> http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/name-that-glyph-round-two/
>
> End of line.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> C3 - to clean (broom)
>> D4 - to wish, desire, want (wishbone)
>> H2 - to taste (tongue sticking out)
>> J4 - to be, exist (that's just what I thought of)
>> ------Original Message------
>> From: A. Mendes
>> Sender: Conlang
>> To: Conlang
>> ReplyTo: Conlang
>> Subject: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
>> Sent: Dec 12, 2011 19:58
>>
>> http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/name-that-glyph-round-two/
>>
>> Greetings All,
>>
>> The results from last week are in and the new glyph list is up. Thank you
>> to everyone who contributed; your participation was dearly appriciated.
>>
>> Please submit your suggestions for round two.
>>
>> Cheer,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>
>
>
> --
> S A T O R
> A R E P O
> T E N E T
> O P E R A
> R O T A S
>
--
S A T O R
A R E P O
T E N E T
O P E R A
R O T A S
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. Re: Name That Glyph Round Two « Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "John Erickson" [email protected]
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:45 pm ((PST))
Cool, I see a few of my round 1 suggestions!
For round 2:
A2 = dodge
B1 = ship, boat
C3 = house, tent
D3 = tall
E1 = meditate, wise
E3 = dance
E4 = conversation
F1 = book
G1 = happy
H1 = wheel
I3 = table
J4 = dive
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9a. Vowel symbolics
Posted by: "A. da Mek" [email protected]
Date: Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:21 am ((PST))
According to the Hexapotamian philosophers and mystics, the vowel
"u" is associated with depth, weakness and dispersing
whereas the vowel
"i" is associated with shallowness, strength and gathering.
Another association is "u" with animals and "a" with plants.
Of four "elements", fire is associated with "u" and air with "i". Rather for
sake of symmetry than for their own properties, water is associated with "e"
and earth with "o".
There are two systems of assignment of vowels to genders.
In the nominal system, the feminine vowel is "a". This developed
independently in Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic from different sources.
The Afro-Asiatic female marker is "-t", vocalized (at least in Semitic) with
the default vowel as "-at"; in Hebrew the final consonant "t" was dropped
and so the remaining vowel (lengthened to [a:], written as <ah>) became the
feminine marker.
The Indo-European female marker is "-h2", coloring and lengthening the
default vowel "e" to [a:], thus the result is the same as in Hebrew.
(Both IE -h2 and Sem. -t serve also as neuter plural, and their original
meaning was probably "collective". The reason for applying it to females was
maybe that they were always accompanied with their offsprings; or maybe it
could by used to pregnant females, as the poet said: "with two hearts
beating".)
Originally, there was no "masculine vowel". In some Romance languages, this
role is played by the thematic vowel "o", although in Latin itself, both the
nominative "-os" and masculine "-om" were raised to "-us" and "-um". Similar
sound change happened in Slavic, but in the pronominal neuter suffix "-od",
the vowel "o" retained its quality, so there was 3-way distinction:
feminine -a, neuter -o and masculine -u. Later, the short "u" was reduced
and then in odd syllables entirely disappeared, so again there is no
"masculine vowel" in Slavic languages.
*There*, in the Qeqwish language, the development of "gender vowels" was
similar as *here* in Slavic, but the masculine "u" was retained, so the
Qegwish declination is:
m. f. n. athematic
nom. -us -as -os -s
gen. -üs -äs -ös -es
dat. -üj -äj -öj -ej
acc. -um -am -om -m
loc. -uj -aj -oj -j
ins. -üm -äm -öm -em
In the frame of the Hexapotamian Sprachbund, this influenced the Gad¨hish
language, whose declination is:
sg. m. f. n. dim. unmarked
nom. -utum -atum -otum -itum -um
gen. -utim -atim -otim -itim -im
dat. -utom -atom -otom -itom -om
acc. -utam -atam -otam -itam -am
loc. -utym -atym -otym -itym -ym
pl.
nom. -ûtum -âtum -ôtum -îtum -ûm
gen. -ûtim -âtim -ôtim -îtim -îm
dat. -ûtom -âtom -ôtom -îtom -ôm
acc. -ûtam -âtam -ôtam -îtam -âm
loc. -ûtym -âtym -ôtym -îtym -y^m
Similar masculine plural can be seen at Old Babylonian adjectives.
But still most Gad¨hish words is used in unmarked form.
Inanimate things marked for feminine and masculine gender:
mortar and pestle, nut and screw, socket and plug, etc.
Marked neuter is used for oxen, wethers, geldings etc.
Diminutive is used for children, kids, whelps, calf etc.
The rules of marking gender of animate beings differs depend on dialects:
In one system, mammals have marked feminine and unmarked masculine, whereas
birds have marked masculine form and the unmarked form is considered to be
feminine.
In the other system, marked feminine and unmarked masculine is used for
citizens and wild animals, whereas the marked masculine and unmarked
feminine is used for slaves and domesticated animals.
As was said above, aside to the "feminine a", which in the languages of the
Hexapotamian Sprachbund contrasts with "masculine u" and "neuter o", there
was also pronominal system with "feminine i",
which can be seen in PIE -yeh2, zero grade -ih2,
and Old Babylonian pl. 2nd person m. -kunu, f. -kina, 3rd person m. -Å¡unu,
f. -Å¡ina;
and Egyptian 2nd person m. sg. -k, f. -t_ < *-ki.
This "feminine i" contrasts in the languages of the Hexapotamian Sprachbund
with "masculine u" and "neuter a".
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
9b. Re: Vowel symbolics
Posted by: "A. da Mek" [email protected]
Date: Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:36 am ((PST))
Because the previous message was sent in utf-8, which is not properly
displayed in archive at yahoo.com,
here are the tables of declination in western encoding:
Qegwish declination is:
m. f. n. athematic
nom. -us -as -os -s
gen. -üs -äs -ös -es
dat. -üj -äj -öj -ej
acc. -um -am -om -m
loc. -uj -aj -oj -j
ins. -üm -äm -öm -em
In the frame of the Hexapotamian Sprachbund, this influenced the Gad¨hish
language, whose declination is:
sg. m. f. n. dim. unmarked
nom. -utum -atum -otum -itum -um
gen. -utim -atim -otim -itim -im
dat. -utom -atom -otom -itom -om
acc. -utam -atam -otam -itam -am
loc. -utym -atym -otym -itym -ym
pl.
nom. -ûtum -âtum -ôtum -îtum -ûm
gen. -ûtim -âtim -ôtim -îtim -îm
dat. -ûtom -âtom -ôtom -îtom -ôm
acc. -ûtam -âtam -ôtam -îtam -âm
loc. -ûtym -âtym -ôtym -îtym -y^m
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10a. Re: fragments of new conlang: chrestomathy thereof
Posted by: "Wesley Parish" [email protected]
Date: Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:57 am ((PST))
Extra names I found when counting the bits and adding up the bytes:
On 12/12/2011, at 2:07 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:
> I've been working on a novel of sorts for the last few years, and
> have decided to work out the language behind the names. this is the
> current state of the names:
>
> -aia formation
> Anaia
> Antaia
> Irianaia
> Bitanaia
> Anastasaia
> Apaia
> Jenaia
> Menaia
Sarakaia
-en formation
Avmattaien
Merauaen
>
> -oia formation
> Itudoia
>
> -eia formation
> Kereia
>
> -ais formation
> Farais
>
> -in formation
> Keruin
> Bin
> Jean
>
> -iun formation
> Edeiun
> Maiun
> Biennuiun
Peraiun
Fedaiun
>
> -yi formation
> Odayi
-ei formation
Binnamei
>
> -aiohh formation
> Rebaiohh
>
> -na formation
> Teraiana
> Ivanna
> Johanna
>
> -nza formation
> Firanza
>
> -u formation
> En Vilou
En Vilou appears to be a title of some sort. It's used by the Grand
Mage who maintains the animal-specific generalized environment that
is the Enclave. I suspect it means something like Maintainer or Mage.
>
> -yl formation
> Karyl
> Daryl
-el formation
Namel
>
> -ya formation
> Meya
> Bituya
>
> -ye formation
> Antuye
Peraye
>
> -we formation
> Bitewe
>
> -os formation
> Boutros
>
> -an formation
> Geman
-k formation
Maraiek
-ut formation
Mariut
-ahh formation
Dainikahh
-ai formation
Denekrai
-e formation
Pataire
Paraire
-au formation
Teranggau
> Wesley Parish
"Just before the doors closed, I overheard Jeanette's voice,
commenting drily in making a reply to a question I had not heard:
"No, I am not in constant touch with John. I bifurcated. That
extinguishes shared experience. And yes, John has not got complete
control over his bifurcation, and he has hardly learnt truncation,
either. Or he would've truncated me."
"Truncation," said the MMA-indentured neuter. "Truncation. If more
people could truncate at will, there would be less pain in this world
today."
I could only agree, though precisely what about, I didn't know."
>
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:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
