There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Introducing Instrumentation
From: Ralph DeCarli
1b. Re: Introducing Instrumentation
From: David Peterson
1c. Re: Introducing Instrumentation
From: Ralph DeCarli
2a. A translation exercise.
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
2b. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Toms Deimonds Barvidis
2c. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow
2d. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Toms Deimonds Barvidis
2e. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Padraic Brown
2f. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Samuel Stutter
2g. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
2h. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
2i. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Cullen Kain
3a. Re: My new language
From: Jim Henry
4. Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Introducing Instrumentation
Posted by: "Ralph DeCarli" omniv...@sysmatrix.net
Date: Sat Apr 2, 2011 3:47 pm ((PDT))
Disclaimer: I am not a linguist (obviously). I am a systems
designer (allegedly). Instrumentation may be less of a language and
more of a semiotic toy, but either way I found its derivation
to be quite enjoyable.
You can find it here: (and, there's a game!)
http://www.sysmatrix.net/~omnivore/Insthome.html
I think instrumentation would be qualified as an
automated-engineered-logical(Boolean)/taxonomic-auxiliary-ideographic
language (more or less). I've tacked-on a syllabary, but it really
isn't meant to be a spoken language. It's meant to be a
'chorded' (typed) transmitted language. The morphology is visual
rather than acoustic (if I have the terminology right).
The vocabulary is still minimal and clumsy, but I think it shows
what I am trying to do. I'm looking for an automated way to increase
and align the existing vocabulary. I know that Instrumentation has an
'English bias', but I think that is more of a problem with the
vocabulary than a problem with the basic design. (I could easily be
wrong)
I'm also looking for any similar languages (or systems) from which I
might steal things (I did say that I'm a systems designer). I'm
aware of semantic primes, Toki Pona, Lojban, Solresol, Ro and the
characteristica universalis (and Wikipedia in general). I haven't
really begun to explore natural logographic languages.
I would love to hear any comments anyone might have, good or bad.
Thanks,
Ralph
--
Eloquence is to intelligence
as elegance is to elephants.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Introducing Instrumentation
Posted by: "David Peterson" deda...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Apr 2, 2011 4:25 pm ((PDT))
On Apr 2, 2011, at 3◊42 PM, Ralph DeCarli wrote:
> I'm also looking for any similar languages (or systems) from which I
> might steal things (I did say that I'm a systems designer). I'm
> aware of semantic primes, Toki Pona, Lojban, Solresol, Ro and the
> characteristica universalis (and Wikipedia in general). I haven't
> really begun to explore natural logographic languages.
I don't quite get what everything is here (took me a long time to realize that
"Instrumentation" was the name of the language), but that could be because the
Java applet won't run on my browser (Mac OS X 10.6.7, Chrome 10.0.648.204).
I've done a few things which sound like they might be relevant. X is a
fully-visual logographic language:
http://dedalvs.com/x/main.html
In 2001, I ran an experiment that was an attempt to create a full language
using only a small list of vocabulary items without any grammar. After the
experiment, I ran a student-run class, which I've written up (though the
write-up is still unfinished) here:
http://dedalvs.com/wasabi.html
I also created a language based on that experiment here:
http://dedalvs.com/kelenala/main.html
And a sign language based on that:
http://dedalvs.com/knsl/main.html
Here are some other logographic conlang orthographies:
http://dedalvs.com/kamakawi/orthography.html
http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/
http://idrani.perastar.com/ISMS_orthography.htm
http://www.khm.de/~timot/PageElephant.html
I know I'm missing some; maybe others can fill in the blanks.
David Peterson
LCS President
l...@conlang.org
www.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Introducing Instrumentation
Posted by: "Ralph DeCarli" omniv...@sysmatrix.net
Date: Sat Apr 2, 2011 8:22 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 16:20:42 -0700
David Peterson <deda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't quite get what everything is here (took me a long time to
> realize that "Instrumentation" was the name of the language), but
> that could be because the Java applet won't run on my browser (Mac
> OS X 10.6.7, Chrome 10.0.648.204).
>
Sorry, I'm actually using Java features that require Java version
1.5.
The Complete glyph with all of its elements is the name of the
language. It would be pronounced "CHU CHAH CHE CHEH CHAY CHIY CHO
CHU" (or FF FF FF FF). I'm going to stick with the short name.
>
> I've done a few things which sound like they might be relevant. X
> is a fully-visual logographic language:
>
Great! I'll check them out.
Thanks,
Ralph
--
omniv...@sysmatrix.net ==> Ralph De Carli
Eloquence is to intelligence
as elegance is to elephants.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" terje...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Apr 2, 2011 7:13 pm ((PDT))
So, I am feeling a bit poorly today and am therefore entertaining
myself by rereading some of my favorite books. While doing so I came
upon a passage that just begged to be translated. Here it is, slightly
modified to hide who is speaking (because then you could google the
name and know which book I'm reading, not that I'm really hiding it
from anyone who recognizes the passage or the style anyway):
"I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and moreover, why?"
"Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then it follows
no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are going to do,
well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from doing it?"
In Kēlen:
sele jakīña ien sele jatēla ien sema jakīña ien ñi lēim mōrre mo makēñ ī tōkēñ;
lerāe; tōkēñ; tō wā selte jatēla ien ñalta jāo tō-jāo wā sema mo mawae
ī; tō wā sema jatēla ien rēha ñalta jāo tō sema jakesāo mo manahan ien
ñi lēim mapāsre jē rēha ñalta jāo tōkēñ;
An interlinear, more or less:
to.1SG wish REL to.1SG knowledge REL to.3SG wish REL do 1PC stopped to
who also why;
yes; why; because not to.1PC knowledge REL 1PC.do that therefore not
to.3SG to nobody also; because not to.3SG knowledge REL FUT 1PC.do
that why to.3SG eager to someone REL do 1PC prevented from FUT 1PC.do
that why?
[SG = singular, PC = paucal, REL = relative pronoun, FUT = future tense marker]
How would you say this in your conlang? Bonus points for convoluted
sentence structure of course.
-S
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Toms Deimonds Barvidis" emopun...@inbox.lv
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 6:20 am ((PDT))
Citējot Sylvia Sotomayor <terje...@gmail.com>:
> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and moreover, why?"
>
> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then it follows no one
> else does either; and, if no one
knows what we are going to do, well then, why is someone so determined to
prevent us from doing it?"
Longrimol:
- "Dëräil' lôr brädhäilindhe, a chal."
[di.rejl lo::r brE.Dej.lik.fil a xal]
know-OPT.-1.sng who-ANIM stop-1.pl.INCL-PAS-SUB and why.
* I wish to know who would want that we are stopped, and why.
- "Nich. In-nërichimbri lo-dhäänäilimbe nir indo-dhërig cû."
[nix in:.i.ri.ximb.ri lo.De:.nej.lim.bE nir in.dO.Di.rig ku::]
be-true-3.sng.IND. know-COND-1.pl.INCL what(preclitic)-do-SUB so
no-one-ANIM(preclitic)-know-3.pl-ANIM
[strengthening particle]
* It is true. If we do not know what it is we do, so surely neither do the
others.
-"A indo-dhërichighri lo-dhäänrembe, du..."
[a in.dO.Di.ri.xig.ri lo.dhe:n.rEm.bE du]
and no-one-ANIM(preclitic)-know-3.pl.COND what(preclitic)-do-1.pl.INCL.FUT.SUB
* And if no one knows what we will do, then
-"chal so-dhru-cguivagre bradha-v'il pênadhäänon'rem?"
[sO.Dru.guj.vag.rE bra.Da.vil De:.nOn.rEm.pil]
someone(preclitic)-INTS-try-3.sng-INT stop-us-INCL(clitic)-INF it-GEN-do-GER-ELT
*why somebody tries so eagerly to stop us from doing it?
OPT - optative
ANIM - animate
INCL - inclusive
PAS - passive
IND - indicative
SUB - subordinate clause mood
FUT - future
INTS - intensive
INT - interrogative
INF - infinitive
GEN - genitive
GER - gerund
ELT - elative
- "Dëräil' lôr brädhäilindhe, a chal."
- "Nich. In-nërichimbri lo-dhäänäilimbe nir indo-dhërig cû. A indo-dhërichighri
lo-dhäänrembe, du chal so-dhru-
cguivagre bradha-v'il pênadhäänon'rem?"
--
In mist and twilight I shall linger
~TDB~
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Amanda Babcock Furrow" la...@quandary.org
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 7:25 am ((PDT))
I'm curious about some of your pronunciations in the interlinear!
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 04:16:10PM +0300, Toms Deimonds Barvidis wrote:
> Longrimol:
> - "Dëräil' lôr brädhäilindhe, a chal."
> [di.rejl lo::r brE.Dej.lik.fil a xal]
Was a morpheme removed from brädhäilindhe that would account for the
"lik.fil" part?
> -"chal so-dhru-cguivagre bradha-v'il pênadhäänon'rem?"
> [sO.Dru.guj.vag.rE bra.Da.vil De:.nOn.rEm.pil]
How about the silent pê in pênadhäänon'rem, and the pronounced-but-
unwritten /pil/ at the end?
tylakèhlpë'fö,
Amanda
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Toms Deimonds Barvidis" emopun...@inbox.lv
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 7:55 am ((PDT))
Citējot Amanda Babcock Furrow <la...@quandary.org>:
> I'm curious about some of your pronunciations in the interlinear!
>
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 04:16:10PM +0300, Toms Deimonds Barvidis wrote:
>
>> Longrimol:
>> - "Dëräil' lôr brädhäilindhe, a chal."
>> [di.rejl lo::r brE.Dej.lik.fil a xal]
>
> Was a morpheme removed from brädhäilindhe that would account for the
> "lik.fil" part?
Oh, my mistake. Originally I wrote brädhäilic-v'il but later decided that a
passive form brädhäilindhe should be used
in stead, so I just forgot to update the pronunciation. It should be
[brE.Dej.lin.DE].
>> -"chal so-dhru-cguivagre bradha-v'il pênadhäänon'rem?"
>> [sO.Dru.guj.vag.rE bra.Da.vil De:.nOn.rEm.pil]
>
> How about the silent pê in pênadhäänon'rem, and the pronounced-but-
> unwritten /pil/ at the end?
The same mistake here. I changed dhäänon'rem-p'il to pênadhäänon'rem. It should
be [pe:.na.De:.nOn.rEm]
P.S. The pêna part might as well be written péna. It is the genitive form of
pronoun pên - it. Usually, a circumflex
is used in monosyllabic words only to show the allaphonic "superlength" of a
long vowel, but a spelling convention
is to keep circumflexes in declinations of pronouns (they should become acutes,
used to denote normal long
vowels). However, I'm a little bit inconsistent with these spellings,
especially in compounds.
>
> tylakèhlpë'fö,
> Amanda
You must be a careful reader, if you can notice such things. I guess would've
never noticed them.
--
In mist and twilight I shall linger
~TDB~
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 8:04 am ((PDT))
--- On Sat, 4/2/11, Sylvia Sotomayor <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wee! Translation exercise!
> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and
> moreover, why?"
>
> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then
> it follows
> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are
> going to do,
> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from
> doing it?"
Assà, mina velere clevere itan qouemverver, al oud, ett' ica velere ican
nesser sissere moulvaniccere itan, al nasem jestem, etti annon mim velere
clever al qoueiso!
Ahe annon, al qoueiso. Ai gar nas nan scire itan qouem, nas moulvanicciendo
itan, orim de avir logicam: men gar naaqouisqouem nan scire itan qouem, ne
moulvanicciendo. Accò: ai gar naaqouisqouem scire itan qouem, nas
eiomoulvanicciendo itan, orim de qoueio avir qouen ispent al qouisqouem
etti ica velere sathare 'l ipendimentum avors nasser ver, etti nas nan
poudire moulvaniccere itan?
Ack! Well, that was a load of relative clauses to slog through... Nothing
terribly convoluted, though. Just a long concatenation of connected
clauses!
Look, me wants to-understand it whoever, the same, and he wants it, us
to-stop to-do it, the our doing (deed), and moreover I want to
understand the wherefores!
Yes moreover, the wherefore. If for we do-not know it what, we are-doing
it, then but there-is a-logic: indeed for no-whoever doesn't know it
what, they are-doing. Look: if for no-whoever knows it what, we
will-be-doing it, then but why there-is such desirous the someone and
he wants to-put the impediment against us against, and we not can to-do
it?
Loucarian doesn't have relative pronouns or relative clauses, so what
would be a relative clause in English is an independent clause answering
the interrogative pronoun that finished the previous clause:
I want to know him who(?); that same man is enting the souq. Means I want
to know who is entering the souq.
There's no verbal morphology, so "moulvaniccere" means to do, I do as
well as do! Word order tells you which is meant. Progressive forms are
shown with what once was a participle: mim ajire itan = I (just) said it /
I say it versus mim ajiendo itan = I am (now) saying it. Past time is
shown by what was once the past participle: mim ajito itan = I said it.
Future time is a compound of an old word for tomorrow plus the present
tense: mim eioajiendo itan = I will be speaking / saying it.
Emphatics are much in evidence: mi = I, mim = *I*; qouem = who,
qouemverver = who*ever*. Many adpositions sourround the substantive when
they indicate location as opposed to motion: en civam an = in the city;
en civam = (motion) within the city. So, avors naser ver means "location
against us" as opposed to avors nasser, which means something like "acting
against us". So an ipendimentum can be a stationary block, or it can be
an adversarial force depending on the adposition used.
>
> In Kēlen:
>
> sele jakīña ien sele jatēla ien sema jakīña ien ñi
> lēim mōrre mo makēñ ī tōkēñ;
>
> lerāe; tōkēñ; tō wā selte jatēla ien ñalta jāo
> tō-jāo wā sema mo mawae
> ī; tō wā sema jatēla ien rēha ñalta jāo tō sema
> jakesāo mo manahan ien
> ñi lēim mapāsre jē rēha ñalta jāo tōkēñ;
>
> An interlinear, more or less:
>
> to.1SG wish REL to.1SG knowledge REL to.3SG wish REL do 1PC
> stopped to who also why;
Ah, for the want of a relative system, Loucarian could be trimmed down
to half its verbosity!
Padraic
>
> yes; why; because not to.1PC knowledge REL 1PC.do that
> therefore not
> to.3SG to nobody also; because not to.3SG knowledge REL FUT
> 1PC.do
> that why to.3SG eager to someone REL do 1PC prevented from
> FUT 1PC.do
> that why?
>
> [SG = singular, PC = paucal, REL = relative pronoun, FUT =
> future tense marker]
>
> How would you say this in your conlang? Bonus points for
> convoluted
> sentence structure of course.
>
> -S
> --
> Sylvia Sotomayor
>
> The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Samuel Stutter" sam.stut...@student.manchester.ac.uk
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 8:33 am ((PDT))
Ooh; a rare attempt to let fly with three of the several "wanting"
verbal moods in Nauspayr:
Precative = I attempt to make so
Desiderative = I would like something
Cohortative = I intend to effect a change in the other party
Horrible moment halfway through when I realised I was confusing my
conditional and subjunctive moods. In terms of nouns though, not so
horrifying. Also a surprising number of palatal fricatives and regular
verbs.
“Khenauded khi ghretòstad plù, yutyana, khoghè amhì?”
“Yà amhì, kho? Pa khenetra pauyen khela fòrerrpae, dhùs pàwen
khenòschà khela fòrerrpae et; plù pàwen pa khenéthè pauyen khela
fòrerrash, táur, khoghè mann ghretelhun fyevharpae taela?"
know(1stSing)(PresentStill)(Desiderative) who(Nominative) stop(Y-Sing)
(HodiernalPast)(Cohortative) and moreover why(Dative) (politeness
marker)
Yes(normal) (politeness marker) who (Not) know(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)
(Conditional) (Nothing) what(Accusative) do(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)
(Subjunctive)+(Continuative) thus (No-one) know(Y-Plu)(PresentStill)
(Subjunctive) what(Accusative) do(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)(Subjunctive)
+(Continuative) also and (No-one) (Not) know(Y-Plu)(PresentStill)
(Conditional) (Nothing) what(Accusative) do(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)
(Subjunctive)+(Prospective), (FILL) why(Dative) someone stop(Y-Sing)
(PresentStill)(Precative) do(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)(Interrogative)+
(Continuative) it(Accusative)
"I would like to know who wanted to have us stopped today and,
moreover, why?"
"Yes, why? If we don't know what we are doing, so no-one knows what we
are doing also; and if no-one knows what we are going to do, well...,
why is someone trying to stop us doing it?"
Much easier in Caçienne:
"M'eciege çienne cien eciege retàrd nette, e, èlleur, ¿fyà?"
"Foue, ¿fyà? At nè n'ucillege pas cie nè fèala, rill'éciege cie
nè fèala; e at rill'ucillege cie nè fèaèra, là, ¿fyà
comm'atempta retàrd nè fàa bette?"
I want know who want stop us(ACC) and moreover why
Yes why if NEG we know(COND) NEG what we do(SUBJ)+(CONT) no-one
know(SUBJ) what we do(SUBJ)+(CONT) and no-one know(COND) what we
do(SUBJ)+(Nr.FUTURE)+(CONT) FILL why someone try stop us do it(ACC)
Do hope you feel better soon :)
On 3 Apr 2011, at 03:05, Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
> So, I am feeling a bit poorly today and am therefore entertaining
> myself by rereading some of my favorite books. While doing so I came
> upon a passage that just begged to be translated. Here it is, slightly
> modified to hide who is speaking (because then you could google the
> name and know which book I'm reading, not that I'm really hiding it
> from anyone who recognizes the passage or the style anyway):
>
> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and moreover, why?"
>
> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then it follows
> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are going to do,
> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from doing it?"
>
> In Kēlen:
>
> sele jakīña ien sele jatēla ien sema jakīña ien ñi lēim mōrre
> mo makēñ ī tōkēñ;
>
> lerāe; tōkēñ; tō wā selte jatēla ien ñalta jāo tō-jāo wā
> sema mo mawae
> ī; tō wā sema jatēla ien rēha ñalta jāo tō sema jakesāo mo
> manahan ien
> ñi lēim mapāsre jē rēha ñalta jāo tōkēñ;
>
> An interlinear, more or less:
>
> to.1SG wish REL to.1SG knowledge REL to.3SG wish REL do 1PC stopped to
> who also why;
>
> yes; why; because not to.1PC knowledge REL 1PC.do that therefore not
> to.3SG to nobody also; because not to.3SG knowledge REL FUT 1PC.do
> that why to.3SG eager to someone REL do 1PC prevented from FUT 1PC.do
> that why?
>
> [SG = singular, PC = paucal, REL = relative pronoun, FUT = future
> tense marker]
>
> How would you say this in your conlang? Bonus points for convoluted
> sentence structure of course.
>
> -S
> --
> Sylvia Sotomayor
>
> The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" terje...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 9:57 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Samuel Stutter
<sam.stut...@student.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> Ooh; a rare attempt to let fly with three of the several "wanting" verbal
> moods in Nauspayr:
>
> Precative = I attempt to make so
> Desiderative = I would like something
> Cohortative = I intend to effect a change in the other party
>
> Horrible moment halfway through when I realised I was confusing my
> conditional and subjunctive moods. In terms of nouns though, not so
> horrifying. Also a surprising number of palatal fricatives and regular
> verbs.
>
> “Khenauded khi ghretòstad plù, yutyana, khoghè amhì?”
> “Yà amhì, kho? Pa khenetra pauyen khela fòrerrpae, dhùs pàwen khenòschà
> khela fòrerrpae et; plù pàwen pa khenéthè pauyen khela fòrerrash, táur,
> khoghè mann ghretelhun fyevharpae taela?"
>
> know(1stSing)(PresentStill)(Desiderative) who(Nominative)
> stop(Y-Sing)(HodiernalPast)(Cohortative) and moreover why(Dative)
> (politeness marker)
> Yes(normal) (politeness marker) who (Not)
> know(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)(Conditional) (Nothing) what(Accusative)
> do(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)(Subjunctive)+(Continuative) thus (No-one)
> know(Y-Plu)(PresentStill)(Subjunctive) what(Accusative)
> do(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)(Subjunctive)+(Continuative) also and (No-one)
> (Not) know(Y-Plu)(PresentStill)(Conditional) (Nothing) what(Accusative)
> do(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)(Subjunctive)+(Prospective), (FILL) why(Dative)
> someone stop(Y-Sing)(PresentStill)(Precative)
> do(1stPluInc)(PresentStill)(Interrogative)+(Continuative) it(Accusative)
>
> "I would like to know who wanted to have us stopped today and, moreover,
> why?"
> "Yes, why? If we don't know what we are doing, so no-one knows what we are
> doing also; and if no-one knows what we are going to do, well..., why is
> someone trying to stop us doing it?"
>
> Much easier in Caçienne:
>
> "M'eciege çienne cien eciege retàrd nette, e, èlleur, ¿fyà?"
> "Foue, ¿fyà? At nè n'ucillege pas cie nè fèala, rill'éciege cie nè fèala; e
> at rill'ucillege cie nè fèaèra, là, ¿fyà comm'atempta retàrd nè fàa bette?"
>
> I want know who want stop us(ACC) and moreover why
> Yes why if NEG we know(COND) NEG what we do(SUBJ)+(CONT) no-one know(SUBJ)
> what we do(SUBJ)+(CONT) and no-one know(COND) what we
> do(SUBJ)+(Nr.FUTURE)+(CONT) FILL why someone try stop us do it(ACC)
>
> Do hope you feel better soon :)
Thank you. I do feel better already. I like the verbal moods!
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" terje...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 9:58 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 4/2/11, Sylvia Sotomayor <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wee! Translation exercise!
>
>> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and
>> moreover, why?"
>>
>> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then
>> it follows
>> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are
>> going to do,
>> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from
>> doing it?"
>
> Assà, mina velere clevere itan qouemverver, al oud, ett' ica velere ican
> nesser sissere moulvaniccere itan, al nasem jestem, etti annon mim velere
> clever al qoueiso!
>
> Ahe annon, al qoueiso. Ai gar nas nan scire itan qouem, nas moulvanicciendo
> itan, orim de avir logicam: men gar naaqouisqouem nan scire itan qouem, ne
> moulvanicciendo. Accò: ai gar naaqouisqouem scire itan qouem, nas
> eiomoulvanicciendo itan, orim de qoueio avir qouen ispent al qouisqouem
> etti ica velere sathare 'l ipendimentum avors nasser ver, etti nas nan
> poudire moulvaniccere itan?
>
> Ack! Well, that was a load of relative clauses to slog through... Nothing
> terribly convoluted, though. Just a long concatenation of connected
> clauses!
>
> Look, me wants to-understand it whoever, the same, and he wants it, us
> to-stop to-do it, the our doing (deed), and moreover I want to
> understand the wherefores!
>
> Yes moreover, the wherefore. If for we do-not know it what, we are-doing
> it, then but there-is a-logic: indeed for no-whoever doesn't know it
> what, they are-doing. Look: if for no-whoever knows it what, we
> will-be-doing it, then but why there-is such desirous the someone and
> he wants to-put the impediment against us against, and we not can to-do
> it?
>
> Loucarian doesn't have relative pronouns or relative clauses, so what
> would be a relative clause in English is an independent clause answering
> the interrogative pronoun that finished the previous clause:
>
> I want to know him who(?); that same man is enting the souq. Means I want
> to know who is entering the souq.
>
> There's no verbal morphology, so "moulvaniccere" means to do, I do as
> well as do! Word order tells you which is meant. Progressive forms are
> shown with what once was a participle: mim ajire itan = I (just) said it /
> I say it versus mim ajiendo itan = I am (now) saying it. Past time is
> shown by what was once the past participle: mim ajito itan = I said it.
> Future time is a compound of an old word for tomorrow plus the present
> tense: mim eioajiendo itan = I will be speaking / saying it.
>
> Emphatics are much in evidence: mi = I, mim = *I*; qouem = who,
> qouemverver = who*ever*. Many adpositions sourround the substantive when
> they indicate location as opposed to motion: en civam an = in the city;
> en civam = (motion) within the city. So, avors naser ver means "location
> against us" as opposed to avors nasser, which means something like "acting
> against us". So an ipendimentum can be a stationary block, or it can be
> an adversarial force depending on the adposition used.
>
>>
>> In Kēlen:
>>
>> sele jakīña ien sele jatēla ien sema jakīña ien ñi
>> lēim mōrre mo makēñ ī tōkēñ;
>>
>> lerāe; tōkēñ; tō wā selte jatēla ien ñalta jāo
>> tō-jāo wā sema mo mawae
>> ī; tō wā sema jatēla ien rēha ñalta jāo tō sema
>> jakesāo mo manahan ien
>> ñi lēim mapāsre jē rēha ñalta jāo tōkēñ;
>>
>> An interlinear, more or less:
>>
>> to.1SG wish REL to.1SG knowledge REL to.3SG wish REL do 1PC
>> stopped to who also why;
>
> Ah, for the want of a relative system, Loucarian could be trimmed down
> to half its verbosity!
>
> Padraic
Ah, but there are bonus points for verbosity, too!
-S
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Cullen Kain" cullenk...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 10:57 am ((PDT))
On 4/2/2011 10:05 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and moreover, why?"
>
> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then it follows
> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are going to do,
> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from doing it?"
In Çideaux:
"I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped
wish.1SG.PRS know.INF who.ACC wish.3SG.PRS REL stop.1PL.SUBJ
"Sudélli a sapaire quique sudéllit que arrètessant
and moreover, why?"
and moreover, why?
ei de plû, pûrquoi?"
"Yes, why?
Yes, why?
"Ui, pûrquoi?
For, if we do not know what we are doing,
Because, if NEG know.1PL.PRS that.which do.1PL.PRS
Pûrsque, sé no sappiant celleque façant,
then it follows no one else does either;
follow.3SG.PRS REL NEG.PRSN NEG know.3SG.PRS, in.addition
secquit que gent no sat, d'ajû
and, if no one knows what we are going to do
and, if NEG.PRSN know.3SG.PRS that.which go.1PL.PRS do.INF
ei, sé gent no sat celleque alatant faire
well then, why is someone so determined
then, why be.3SG.PRS 3SG.INDF so determined
puive, pûrquoi et quellequn si détrimnû
to prevent us from doing it?"
to 1PL.ACC prevent.INF from "3SG.ACC do.INF
a nû impètér de li faire?"
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: My new language
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 9:24 am ((PDT))
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:20 AM, andrew <hob...@griffler.co.nz> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011, Patrick Dunn wrote:
>
>> IV. Adjectives
>>
>> Adjectives usually agree with nouns, unless they've been drinking.
> What happens if they have been drinking? .....
> Is there any difference if the
> one speaker has been drinking and the other hasn't?
I think you misread; "they" refers to the adjectives, not the speakers.
What adjectives drink and how well they can hold their drink is left
as an exercise for the reader.
> And what is that
> sticky patch I just stepped in?
The superlative degree.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 10:02 am ((PDT))
Hallo!
Today I shall share with you a brief essay on Albic historical
morphology. Enjoy!
Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
=================================================
Jörg Rhiemeier, 2011-04-03
The oldest pronouns reconstructible for Indo-Uralic are *mi (1st
person), *ti (2nd person) and *sa (3rd person). The number markers
are *-k (dual) and *-t (plural). The objective case is marked by
the suffix *-m& (the symbol & represents a vowel of uncertain
quality). An oblique base, to which various postpositions attached,
was formed by adding a vowel. Thus, we get the following paradigm:
1st 2nd 3rd
Agentive sg. *mi *ti *sa
du. *mik *tik *sak
pl. *mit *tit *sat
Objective sg. *mim& *tim& *sam&
du. *mikm& *tikm& *sakm&
pl. *mitm& *titm& *satm&
Oblique sg. *mi&- *ti&- *sa&-
du. *mik&- *tik&- *sak&-
pl. *mit&- *tit&- *sat&-
An emphatic/reflexive paradigm was formed by suffixing *-w- to the
pronoun root:
1st 2nd 3rd
Agentive sg. *miw *tiw *saw
du. *miwk *tiwk *sawk
pl. *miwt *tiwt *sawt
Objective sg. *miwm& *tiwm& *sawm&
du. *miwkm& *tiwkm& *sawkm&
pl. *miwtm& *tiwtm& *sawtm&
Oblique sg. *miw&- *tiw&- *saw&-
du. *miwk&- *tiwk&- *sawk&-
pl. *miwt&- *tiwt&- *sawt&-
In the Europic branch, two vowel changes affected these forms.
The first was "Resonant-Conditioned Lowering" (RCL): all high
vowels were lowered before nasals, liquids, semivowels and
vowels in hiatus. This was followed by the "Great Vowel
Collapse" (GVC), which involved the merger of all non-high
vowels (including the products of RCL) in one vowel phoneme,
*/a/. Also, a consonant change (weakening of stops in post-
tonal syllables) affected the forms. The resulting paradigm:
Non-reflexive
1st 2nd 3rd
Agentive sg. *mi *ti *sa
du. *mix *tix *sax
pl. *mis *tis *sas
Objective sg. *mama *tama *sama
du. *mixma *tixma *saxma
pl. *misma *tisma *sasma
Oblique sg. *ma- *ta- *sa-
du. *mixa- *tixa- *saxa-
pl. *misa- *tisa- *sasa-
Reflexive
1st 2nd 3rd
Agentive sg. *maw *taw *saw
du. *mawx *tawx *sawx
pl. *maws *taws *saws
Objective sg. *mawma *tawma *sawma
du. *mawxma *tawxma *sawxma
pl. *mawsma *tawsma *sawsma
Oblique sg. *mawa- *tawa- *sawa-
du. *mawxa- *tawxa- *sawxa-
pl. *mawsa- *tawsa- *sausa-
As the verb was inflected for person and number of both agent and
patient, the non-reflexive agentive and objective pronouns were
little used, and in the Indo-European branch completely lost.
The PIE pronouns developed from the reflexive forms by a number
of sound changes, as proposed by Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen 1987
(_The Consituent Elements of the Indo-European Personal Pronouns_).
The Proto-Hesperic pronouns are similar to those of Proto-Europic.
In West Hesperic, the syllable rimes *-Vx and *-Vs become *-u and
*-i, repsectively, giving the paradigms:
Non-reflexive
1st 2nd 3rd
Agentive sg. *mi *thi *sa
du. *mu *thu *su
pl. *mi *thi *si
Objective sg. *mama *thama *sama
du. *muma *thuma *suma
pl. *mima *thima *sima
Genitive sg. *masa *thasa *sasa
du. *muasa *thuasa *suasa
pl. *miasa *thiasa *siasa
etc.
Reflexive
Agentive sg. *mawa *thawa *sawa
du. *mawu *thawu *sawu
pl. *mawi *thawi *sawi
Objective sg. *mawama *thawama *sawma
du. *mawuma *thawuma *sawuma
pl. *mawima *thawima *sawima
Genitive sg. *mawasa *thawasa *sawasa
du. *mawuasa *thawuasa *sawuasa
pl. *mawiasa *thawiasa *sawiasa
etc.
The ambiguous non-reflexive agentive singular forms *mi and *thi
which were identical to the plural forms were analogically
restored to *ma and *tha after the model of the other case forms.
>From there, it is not a long way to the Old Albic forms:
Non-reflexive
1st 2nd 3rd
Agentive sg. ma tha sa
du. mu thu su
pl. mi thi si
Objective sg. mam tham sam
du. mum thum sum
pl. mim thim sim
Genitive sg. mas thas sas
du. mus thus sus
pl. mis this sis
etc.
Reflexive
1st 2nd 3rd
Agentive sg. móa thóa sóa
du. móu thóu sóu
pl. mǿi thǿi sǿi
Objective sg. móam thóam sóam
du. móum thóum sóum
pl. mǿim thǿim sǿim
Genitive sg. móas thóas sóas
du. móus thóus sóus
pl. mǿis thǿis sǿis
etc.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
