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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------