There are 8 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Creating Fictional Cases
From: Alex Fink
1b. Re: Creating Fictional Cases
From: yuri
2a. Re: vocabulary exercise: navel-gazing
From: Puey McCleary
3.1. Re: New Year's Thoughts
From: Puey McCleary
4a. Name That Glyph | Round Six | Pseudoglyphs
From: A. Mendes
4b. Re: Name That Glyph | Round Six | Pseudoglyphs
From: Brian
5a. Re: A Quick Question
From: R A Brown
5b. Re: A Quick Question
From: MorphemeAddict
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Creating Fictional Cases
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:14 pm ((PST))
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:47:22 +1300, yuri <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 10 January 2012 12:55, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> Save yourself some wheelreinventing work and look here first:
>>
>> http://www.frathwiki.com/Labels_for_local_cases
>>
>> If you don't find a relationship you need, you can follow those models to
>> devise novel cases.
>
>KlaXa has a hypothetical case for pronouns that translate loosely to
>"someone", "something", "somewhere" when referring to a person, thing
>or place that may or may not exist.
>
>For example, in the sentence "someone should put a stop to this
>nonsense", in KlaXa the word "someone" would be the common-gender
>personal pronoun in the hypothetical case.
Really a case? That operation seems to me like it should be orthogonal to
case, given that whether something might or might not exist isn't really
affected by whether it's agent or patient or possessor or ...
Alex
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Creating Fictional Cases
Posted by: "yuri" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:21 pm ((PST))
On 10 January 2012 14:14, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
>>KlaXa has a hypothetical case for pronouns that translate loosely to
>>"someone", "something", "somewhere" when referring to a person, thing
>>or place that may or may not exist.
>>
>>For example, in the sentence "someone should put a stop to this
>>nonsense", in KlaXa the word "someone" would be the common-gender
>>personal pronoun in the hypothetical case.
>
> Really a case? That operation seems to me like it should be orthogonal to
> case, given that whether something might or might not exist isn't really
> affected by whether it's agent or patient or possessor or ...
Okay. Don't call it a "case". Call it an "inflection".
Personal pronouns have forms for:
Proximity (he, she, it over here)
Opposite of proximity (he, she, it over there)
Hypothetical (someone, something)
Interrogative (who? what?)
and a few others.
Some of the forms are correspond to cases in other langs. Some don't.
Possession, agent, victim, etc are indicated by marker words, not
case, in KlaXa.
Don't ask why, it just made sense at the time :-)
Yuri
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: vocabulary exercise: navel-gazing
Posted by: "Puey McCleary" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:40 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Wm Annis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Truly, is there any hobby that doesn't step into fine-arts
> territories as preoccupied with its own processes as conlanging?
> It was unable to find any "Model Railroad Manifestos," except
> the one about budgeting for the hobby during rough economic
> times. Not that I don't love me a good, near-impenetrable
> artistic manifesto from time to time (the Italian Futurists are
> always good for some fun!), but it does seem like meta-issues
> and artistic anxieties are aired regularly among language
> inventors.
>
> In any case, I was inspired to invent some vocab for Kahtsaai,
>
> kátei'ínorókna [kÉÌ.teË.ÊÃ.no.ɾÊÌg.nÉ]
> káá-tei'-noró-k-na
> 1PL-face-exchange-DETRANS-IPFV
> We are navel-gazing.
>
> The word {tei'} "face" finds itself in various Kahtsaai words
> relating to one's social roles and identities. Here I've incorporated
> it with the verb {noró} which means "exchange" at its most
> basic. The detransitive covers various functions, but is here
> acting a bit like a reflexive, producing the image of an identity
> face turning itself over for examination repeatedly.
>
> --
> wm
>
##
Navel-gazing!
Strangely enough, Khlìjha has the word jhyùpo, jhyùpot which means âthose
who contemplate their navel as an aid to meditation, who engage in
omphaloskepsis.â Most often though I believe Iâve encountered the word
jhyupoyàjhwen which just means âcontemplating oneâs navel as an aid to
meditation, omphaloskepsis.â
I have no idea where Empress Éfhelìnye got such a word, especially since
she doesnât have a navel herself. Not like we bring that up in everyday
conversation, mind you.
--
Puey McCleary
http://pueyandtheprincess.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: New Year's Thoughts
Posted by: "Puey McCleary" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:50 pm ((PST))
Herman, I completely sympathize with problems of localizing
Alice into an alien planet or dimension. If you like, youre more than
welcome to join us on the Alice-conlang mailing list, where we can talk
about specific passages of Alice.
http://lists.conlang.org/listinfo.cgi/alice-conlang.org
Personally Ive been surprised of what has and what has not
proven to be the most difficult. I had assumed that the puns would be the
biggest problem, but as it is, finding slightly different puns in the
target language has ended up easier than figuring out whats the equivalent
of a puppy dog or a trial or bathing machines.
I love the idea of playing croquet with Tirelat dragons. In
my version Princess Alixhlìnye is using a phororhacos. And the Suzerain of
Blood (Queen of Hearts) actually was supposed to have black roses, so her
servants were painting red roses with what might be blood (the blood of her
people being black of course).
Whether or not you join us, Ill take a look at Tirelat. It
sounds like a nifty language!
Messages in this topic (48)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Name That Glyph | Round Six | Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "A. Mendes" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:26 pm ((PST))
It's week six conlangers. Next week, I'll begin posting some sample
sentences with the aggregate data. This way we'll see the ideographs in
action. I can't wait.
Time to assign stone meaning:
http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/name-that-glyph-round-six/
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Name That Glyph | Round Six | Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "Brian" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:03 am ((PST))
A2 - lemur
B2 - bunny
D1 - explosion
D3 - implosion
E4 - to race, a race
H3 - spelology
I3 - incontinence
------Original Message------
From: A. Mendes
Sender: Conlang
To: Conlang
ReplyTo: Conlang
Subject: Name That Glyph | Round Six | Pseudoglyphs
Sent: Jan 9, 2012 21:26
It's week six conlangers. Next week, I'll begin posting some sample
sentences with the aggregate data. This way we'll see the ideographs in
action. I can't wait.
Time to assign stone meaning:
http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/name-that-glyph-round-six/
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: A Quick Question
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:57 pm ((PST))
On 09/01/2012 20:46, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Monday 09 January 2012 21:29:31 Brian wrote:
>
>> It's what Latin does.
>
> Actually, not. Latin prepositions govern either the
> ablative (which is the same form as the dative in many
> words, but still a different case) or the accusative.
> AFAIK, there is not a single Latin preposition that
> governs the dative! (Where is Ray Brown when we need
> him?)
Still here - I've been recently *very busy* in 'real life'
and just lurking.
Yes, there are _no_ Latin prepositions that govern the
dative. The majority govern the accusative, a small number
the ablative and just four of them govern either the
accusative or the ablative according to meaning.
============================================================
On 09/01/2012 21:45, Brian wrote:
> That's probably what confused me, the ablative and
> dative being the same for many words.
Dative & Ablative plurals are all the same, but the two
cases are generally distinct in the singular, except for the
2nd declension.
============================================================
On 09/01/2012 23:09, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Mon, 1/9/12, J. Snow<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> I don't see why prepositions *must* go with the dative. I
> recall in Old Norse, til takes the genitive.
Of course they can. We've already seen in this thread that
in German and Latin prepositions are found with the
accusative case.
In ancient Greek prepositions might govern the accusative,
genitive or dative cases. If the preposition could denote
motion, then:
- motion towards was shown by the accusative;
- motion from was shown by the genitive;
- no motion was shown by the dative.
With other prepositions differences were more idiomatic, e.g.
'meta' + accusative = "after"
'meta' + genitive = "with"
(In modern Greek there are fewer prepositions and the all
govern the accusative - boring)
[snip]
> If you find that some little word is associated with the
> dative or the genitive or the nominative -- then thát is
> the case which that adposition "governs". Don't let the
> grammarians tell you that the nominative *can't* take a
> preposition!
A half-decent _descriptive_ grammarian will merely point out
that no Indo-European languages are known where prepositions
govern the nominative case (unless, of course, one starts
classifying certain conlangs as IE - but I have no wish to
go down that road again!!).
Obviously if you are trying to model a plausible
naturalistic IE language, you would not have prepositions
with the nominative; but if it is some fictional conlang,
practically anything goes ;)
> If your language has prepositions that are associated
> with the nominative or the vocative,
However, if you have a distinct vocative (and AFAIK most
languages don't), it is rather difficult to see what sense a
preposition with a vocative would give :)
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: A Quick Question
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:49 am ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:46 PM, J. Snow <[email protected]> wrote:
> In Sironu, nouns have the 4 basic cases, nominative, accusative, dative and
> genitive. When it comes to the object of a preposition, I use the dative
> case.
> Is that grammatically acceptable, or should I create a new noun case
> altogether?
>
Whatever case you want to use with prepositions is okay, and natlangs do it
all kinds of ways. Another odd way is to use different cases in the
singular and plural. I think it's Romanian that does that.
stevo
Messages in this topic (13)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
