There are 21 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: Charlie Brickner
1b. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: MorphemeAddict
1c. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: MorphemeAddict
1d. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: MorphemeAddict
1e. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: Roger Mills
1f. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: Douglas Koller
1g. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: J. Snow
1h. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: Matthew Boutilier
1i. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
From: Padraic Brown
2.1. Re: Happy New Year
From: MorphemeAddict
2.2. Re: Happy New Year
From: Douglas Koller
2.3. Re: Happy New Year
From: George Corley
2.4. Re: Happy New Year
From: Douglas Koller
2.5. Re: Happy New Year
From: MorphemeAddict
2.6. Re: Happy New Year
From: Alex Fink
2.7. Re: Happy New Year
From: MorphemeAddict
3a. Re: OT:Shameless self-promotion
From: Jim Henry
4a. Introduction and A Question for the Group
From: J. M. DeSantis
4b. Re: Introduction and A Question for the Group
From: George Corley
4c. Re: Introduction and A Question for the Group
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
4d. Re: Introduction and A Question for the Group
From: Padraic Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "Charlie Brickner" caeruleancent...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:41 am ((PST))
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:35:38 -0800, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Really depends entirely on who is being referred to:
>
>Our Father who art in heaven. "Who" is not third person.
>I am the one that wrote the story. "That" is not third person.
>Who are you? / What am I? Not third person.
>
This reminds me of a criticism of some of the prayers in the former Roman
Catholic liturgy: "O God, you who are, bless, give, etc." They are known as
the yoohoo prayers.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:50 am ((PST))
No, because the subject follows the verb in those questions. In these two
questions the personhood of "who" is irrelevant.
stevo (JMO)
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Luke Fleischman <zyx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although, if 'who' were being treated as a third person pronoun,
> wouldn't it be "Who is you?" and "Who is I?", which it obviously
> isn't?
>
> --Loki
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 20:39, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, those examples are no different from "he is you" or "Are you my
> mother?"
> >
> > The person of the predicate noun has nothing to do with the person of the
> > subject or verb.
> >
> > stevo (JMO=just my opinion)
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Charlie Brickner <
> > caeruleancent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:30:17 -0500, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >...interrogative pronouns (who/what) are third person.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't questions like "Who are you?" and "Who am I?" show that "who"
> can
> >> also be first and second person?
> >>
> >> Charlie
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> ȝyxw59
>
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:52 am ((PST))
"Be" doesn't take a direct object, but it does take a predicate noun.
stevo
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:40 AM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, wait, nevermind. In "Who are you?" -- "Who" is the direct object --
> "you" the subject. Normally "who" takes third person singular.
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:39 AM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Are" can be third person -- it just so happens to be first and second as
> > well. We still say "this is" and "that is".
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Luke Fleischman <zyx...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Although, if 'who' were being treated as a third person pronoun,
> >> wouldn't it be "Who is you?" and "Who is I?", which it obviously
> >> isn't?
> >>
> >> --Loki
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 20:39, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > No, those examples are no different from "he is you" or "Are you my
> >> mother?"
> >> >
> >> > The person of the predicate noun has nothing to do with the person of
> >> the
> >> > subject or verb.
> >> >
> >> > stevo (JMO=just my opinion)
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Charlie Brickner <
> >> > caeruleancent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:30:17 -0500, MorphemeAddict <
> lytl...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >...interrogative pronouns (who/what) are third person.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wouldn't questions like "Who are you?" and "Who am I?" show that
> "who"
> >> can
> >> >> also be first and second person?
> >> >>
> >> >> Charlie
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ȝyxw59
> >>
> >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:55 am ((PST))
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 1/27/12, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "This" and "that" would be demonstrative pronouns
> > ("that" is also one of
> > > the relative pronouns available in English). "Who" can
> > be an interrogative
> > > pronoun or a relative pronoun. None of these
> > would be associated with a
> > > grammatical person, if that's what you're asking.
> > >
> >
> > I would say that the demonstrative pronouns (this/these,
> > that/those),
> > possessive pronouns (mine, yours, etc.), and interrogative
> > pronouns
> > (who/what) are third person.
>
> Really depends entirely on who is being referred to:
>
> Our Father who art in heaven. "Who" is not third person.
>
"Who" here is a relative pronoun, and it assumes the person of its
referent.
I am the one that wrote the story. "That" is not third person.
>
"That" here is a relative pronoun, and it assumes the person of its
referent.
Who are you? / What am I? Not third person.
>
Also not subject. See previous posts.
stevo
>
> Padraic
>
> > stevo
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Ian Spolarich <mouton9...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm... It seems as though I missed the majority of
> > the conversation in my
> > > > inbox.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, thanks for the responses. As for whoever
> > asked how it was
> > > possible
> > > > to not have tenses and a nonpast tense, what I
> > meant was that the conlang
> > > > has a nonpast tense and a past tense, and has
> > numerous other
> > > > particles/constructions to convey other tenses.
> > > >
> > > > Also, how does one classify words like "that,"
> > "who," "this," et cetera.
> > > > I've heard of them as pronouns, but what forms are
> > they? (i.e. "my" is
> > > the
> > > > 'possessive' form of "I")
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:05 am ((PST))
From: kechpaja <kechp...@comcast.net>
> Although, if 'who' were being treated as a third person pronoun,
> wouldn't it be "Who is you?" and "Who is I?", which it obviously
> isn't?
It's treated as third person, but it's part of the predicate, whereas the verb
agrees only with the subject. The subject is "you" or "I" in such a sentence —
"who" is a predicate nominative.
==============================================
At last!! Someone other than me who remembers 6th grade grammar.........or may
a little Chomskyan "subject-verb question transformation"..... English, like
most (all?) the Germanic languages, inverts the subject and verb in questions:
Q-I am a linguist > Am I a linguist?
Then there's the requirement that the Q-word has to come first, so--
Q-you are who > who are you? The Q-word was originally a predicate nominative,
as Kechpaja says.
If the element being questioned is actually the direct object of a trans.verb,
then the q-word comes first rule applies:
John killed Q-[someone]: who(m) did John kill? otherwise:
Q-someone killed John > either who killed John // or Passive: John was killed
by whom? or by whom was John killed?
Same with "what": you are eating Q-[something] > what are you eating or what is
being eaten by you?
Is that clear now? Class dismissed :-)))))))))))))
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" douglaskol...@hotmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:13 pm ((PST))
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:32:43 -0800
> From: zyx...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Although, if 'who' were being treated as a third person pronoun,
> wouldn't it be "Who is you?" and "Who is I?", which it obviously
> isn't?
Questions without the inversion, like "Who's been eating my porridge?" or "Who
goes there?" make me feel that the interrogative pronoun is a third person sort
of thing. As for the relative pronoun, I would say "It is I who has been the
fool.", also third person. But in French, that's "C'est moi qui *suis*..."
which threw me for a loop back in my early days. "Our Father, who art...", by
mere dint of "art" makes it an archaism for me, and in the song version of the
Lord's Prayer, it's "...Father, which art...", making it even more poetic
licence-y and of a bygone era. Though I wouldn't be at all surprised if there
are those for whom "It is I who am the fool." is acceptable modern usage. As
for "Who are you?" and the like, I think Roger hits it on the head by
suggesting that something "transformational" is going on (base structure "I am
who" gets flipped in an inversion transformation, etc. etc.).
But to Ian's question and Padraic's point of go forth and conlang. One could
image a set of "who"s in a conlang (although it's probably been done), where it
agrees with "you" or "I', like "ésta es una mesa".
Kou彄
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "J. Snow" sonarsn...@live.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:27 pm ((PST))
In Sironu I use the accusative case as the predicate noun.
Jonu u geto ben. "John is a man.", with -Jonu- being in the nominative and -
geto- being accusative. Is that grammatically acceptable?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:33:14 -0800, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>--- On Sat, 1/28/12, Charles W Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Does the verb "to be" take a direct object?
>
>No. It shows equation between what's on either side. The sentence "Charlie
is a conlanger" demonstrates the fundamental identity of "Charlie" with
>the actions of a conlanger. Be establishes facts and shows the relationship
>between a fact and the thing about which the fact is said.
>
>When "be" is used in a question, the fact is unknown, but the same identity
>and relationships are expressed. In this case, the asker is simply querying
>about this relationship. So, "who is Charlie" simply asks to connect a
>known piece of information with an unknown. "Charlie" is a known name, but
>"who" expresses an unknown person about whom the name is applied.
>
>So far these sentences all express "third person" -- two people are talking
>about a third person who is (in all likelihood) not present at the time.
>Now we change the mode of address so that two people talking are now
asking
>questions about each other: "who are you?" The equation is still the same,
>but now the person has changed. The grammatical person is now "second"
>and so the unknown quantity "who" shifts with it, because of its identity
>with the subject. "Who is he" = third person; "Who are you" = second
>person; "Who am I" = first person.
>
>If you use a different verb -- one that can take a direct object -- *then*
>you find "whom". "Whom do you want?" "To whom did you give the book?" "I
>just don't know whom to trust" In all these cases, the verbs are taking
>an interrogative pronoun as their direct or indirect objects. The objects
>are thus marked (in elevated speech) with -m.
>
>This is what you get when your language doesn't have distinct 1st, 2nd and
>3rd person interrogative / relative / demonstrative pronouns. In English,
>and I suspect many other languages as well, we just have the one form.
>
>Now go forth and conlang!
>
>Padraic
>
>> Charlie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
>> On Behalf Of George Corley
>> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:41 AM
>> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
>> Subject: Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
>>
>> Oh, wait, nevermind. In "Who are you?" -- "Who" is the
>> direct object -- "you" the subject. Normally "who"
>> takes third person singular.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:39 AM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "Are" can be third person -- it just so happens to be
>> first and second
>> > as well. We still say "this is" and "that is".
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Luke Fleischman
>> <zyx...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Although, if 'who' were being treated as a third
>> person pronoun,
>> >> wouldn't it be "Who is you?" and "Who is I?", which
>> it obviously
>> >> isn't?
>> >>
>> >> --Loki
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 20:39, MorphemeAddict
>> <lytl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > No, those examples are no different from "he
>> is you" or "Are you my
>> >> mother?"
>> >> >
>> >> > The person of the predicate noun has nothing
>> to do with the person
>> >> > of
>> >> the
>> >> > subject or verb.
>> >> >
>> >> > stevo (JMO=just my opinion)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Charlie
>> Brickner <
>> >> > caeruleancent...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:30:17 -0500,
>> MorphemeAddict
>> >> >> <lytl...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >...interrogative pronouns (who/what)
>> are third person.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wouldn't questions like "Who are you?" and
>> "Who am I?" show that "who"
>> >> can
>> >> >> also be first and second person?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Charlie
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ȝyxw59
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:31 pm ((PST))
>
> In Sironu I use the accusative case as the predicate noun.
> Is that grammatically acceptable?
>
arabic does just that -- not in sentences with the zero-copula present, but
when using the verb *k**āna* "(he) was" and a small class of other
"helping" verbs.
yaḥyā rajulun
John man-NOM
"John is a man"
but:
kāna yaḥyā rajulan
was.3ms John man-ACC
"John was a man"
and
ʔinna yaḥyā rajulan
is.indeed.3s John man-ACC
"John is indeed a man."
also cf. the preposition *m* in middle egyptian that precedes
nominal(though not adverbial) predicates. (egyptian does not mark
case here, but
if it did you would not expect to find a nominative following the
preposition.)
*nsx m sš*
Naskh is [as] a scribe.
no need to formulate your case rules according to indo-european precedence;
if you can dream it, you can 'lang it.
matt
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM, J. Snow <sonarsn...@live.com> wrote:
> In Sironu I use the accusative case as the predicate noun.
>
> Jonu u geto ben. "John is a man.", with -Jonu- being in the nominative and
> -
> geto- being accusative. Is that grammatically acceptable?
>
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:33:14 -0800, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >--- On Sat, 1/28/12, Charles W Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Does the verb "to be" take a direct object?
> >
> >No. It shows equation between what's on either side. The sentence "Charlie
> is a conlanger" demonstrates the fundamental identity of "Charlie" with
> >the actions of a conlanger. Be establishes facts and shows the
> relationship
> >between a fact and the thing about which the fact is said.
> >
> >When "be" is used in a question, the fact is unknown, but the same
> identity
> >and relationships are expressed. In this case, the asker is simply
> querying
> >about this relationship. So, "who is Charlie" simply asks to connect a
> >known piece of information with an unknown. "Charlie" is a known name, but
> >"who" expresses an unknown person about whom the name is applied.
> >
> >So far these sentences all express "third person" -- two people are
> talking
> >about a third person who is (in all likelihood) not present at the time.
> >Now we change the mode of address so that two people talking are now
> asking
> >questions about each other: "who are you?" The equation is still the same,
> >but now the person has changed. The grammatical person is now "second"
> >and so the unknown quantity "who" shifts with it, because of its identity
> >with the subject. "Who is he" = third person; "Who are you" = second
> >person; "Who am I" = first person.
> >
> >If you use a different verb -- one that can take a direct object -- *then*
> >you find "whom". "Whom do you want?" "To whom did you give the book?" "I
> >just don't know whom to trust" In all these cases, the verbs are taking
> >an interrogative pronoun as their direct or indirect objects. The objects
> >are thus marked (in elevated speech) with -m.
> >
> >This is what you get when your language doesn't have distinct 1st, 2nd and
> >3rd person interrogative / relative / demonstrative pronouns. In English,
> >and I suspect many other languages as well, we just have the one form.
> >
> >Now go forth and conlang!
> >
> >Padraic
> >
> >> Charlie
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> >> On Behalf Of George Corley
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:41 AM
> >> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> >> Subject: Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
> >>
> >> Oh, wait, nevermind. In "Who are you?" -- "Who" is the
> >> direct object -- "you" the subject. Normally "who"
> >> takes third person singular.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:39 AM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Are" can be third person -- it just so happens to be
> >> first and second
> >> > as well. We still say "this is" and "that is".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Luke Fleischman
> >> <zyx...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Although, if 'who' were being treated as a third
> >> person pronoun,
> >> >> wouldn't it be "Who is you?" and "Who is I?", which
> >> it obviously
> >> >> isn't?
> >> >>
> >> >> --Loki
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 20:39, MorphemeAddict
> >> <lytl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > No, those examples are no different from "he
> >> is you" or "Are you my
> >> >> mother?"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The person of the predicate noun has nothing
> >> to do with the person
> >> >> > of
> >> >> the
> >> >> > subject or verb.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > stevo (JMO=just my opinion)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Charlie
> >> Brickner <
> >> >> > caeruleancent...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:30:17 -0500,
> >> MorphemeAddict
> >> >> >> <lytl...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >...interrogative pronouns (who/what)
> >> are third person.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wouldn't questions like "Who are you?" and
> >> "Who am I?" show that "who"
> >> >> can
> >> >> >> also be first and second person?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Charlie
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> È yxw59
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: Pronouns (Was: Curious verb construction)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:17 pm ((PST))
--- On Sat, 1/28/12, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Our Father who art in heaven. "Who" is not third person.
> >
>
> "Who" here is a relative pronoun, and it assumes the person
> of its referent.
Exactly. I think you said it better -- the relative pronoun assumes the
person of its referent.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Happy New Year
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:45 am ((PST))
It's not tricky at all. My glosses for those three characters are:
和，跟，与
harmony, and
heel, follow
with/s, &/s
The glosses are only intended to be unique identifiers (names) with strong
hints of meaning. The uniqueness is more important than the hint of
meaning. I use a dictionary for a true definition and compounds.
stevo
2012/1/28 George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>
> That can be tricky. 和，跟，与 can all be used to mean "and" -- varying only in
> register. Of course, the first two have other meanings.
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:35 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2012/1/27 George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Ok. Well, I don't really know how to break down 万事如意, then. As a
> unit,
> > > it's something like "may all your wishes come true", but none of the
> > > indiviual meanings seems to make sense in that definition.
> >
> >
> > The glosses don't have to make sense, although it's nice when they do,
> and
> > I try to make sure they do. After all, they're just names for characters,
> > not translations.
> > The only real requirement I impose on my glosses is that no two different
> > characters have the same gloss. OTOH, a single character can have several
> > glosses.
> >
> > stevo
> >
> >
> > > Only thing I
> > > can say is that 万, in addition to meaning "ten thousand, a myriad", can
> > > also refer to an uncountably large number (in a sense, you could say it
> > > means both the old and new senses of "myriad").
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> Okay, it was Monday, but there's still time... 恭禧發財，萬事如意！gong1
> xi3
> > > fa1
> > > > > >> cai2, wan4 shi4 ru2 yi4! Kou
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >respect congratulations issue wealth, 10000 affair as idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Funny. I suppose it should be explained to a few people that 恭喜发财
> > and
> > > > 万事如意
> > > > > are pretty much idioms (chengyu, which are a class of abbreviated
> > > idioms
> > > > > that are often ungrammatical or nearly so). 恭喜 by itself means
> > > > > "congratulations" and 恭喜发财 means "congratulations on your good
> > > fortune",
> > > > a
> > > > > wish that you will gain wealth in the new year.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am aware that individual characters often are actually part of
> > larger
> > > > lexical items, as you have described. However, I gloss by character,
> > > since
> > > > a native also has to combine the characters to get the full meaning.
> In
> > > > fact, I tend to think of my glosses as names of the characters,
> albeit
> > > > names that hopefully provide a strong hint of the meaning of the
> > > individual
> > > > character. Indeed, comparing the characters I glossed with your
> > comment,
> > > I
> > > > must alter my glosses to reflect the traditional vs. simplified
> > versions
> > > of
> > > > the characters. So the gloss of the original eight characters is now:
> > > > respect congratulations/t issue/t wealth/t, 10000 affair as idea
> > > > and the characters you used later are
> > > > respect congratulations/s issue/s wealth/s.
> > > >
> > > > stevo
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (61)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Happy New Year
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" douglaskol...@hotmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:34 pm ((PST))
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:16:14 -0500
> From: gacor...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Happy New Year
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> That can be tricky. 和，跟，与 can all be used to mean "and" -- varying only in
> register. Of course, the first two have other meanings.
與 has the meaning of "give", which also emerges in Japanese 与える
Really, George, 簡體? ;) Man up, it's going to be a 龍 year.
And stevo, does "intent(ion)" work as a better gloss for 意, as opposed to
"idea"?
Kou
Messages in this topic (61)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Happy New Year
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:46 pm ((PST))
简体 is what I learned, and there is nothing wrong with it. I will probably
learn traditional eventually, since my 嫂子 (sister-in-law, specifically my
older brother's wife) is from Taiwan, but I don't hold one over the other.
Traditional is not the "original" or any such thing, it simply hews closer
to kaishu forms, whereas simplified draws from some of the more cursive
calligraphy styles. Both are print forms that are not much adhered to in
adult handwriting.
2012/1/28 Douglas Koller <douglaskol...@hotmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:16:14 -0500
> > From: gacor...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: Happy New Year
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
>
> > That can be tricky. 和，跟，与 can all be used to mean "and" -- varying only
> in
> > register. Of course, the first two have other meanings.
>
> �c has the meaning of "give", which also emerges in Japanese 与える
>
> Really, George, ���w? ;) Man up, it's going to be a 龍 year.
>
> And stevo, does "intent(ion)" work as a better gloss for 意, as opposed to
> "idea"?
>
> Kou
>
Messages in this topic (61)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: Happy New Year
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" douglaskol...@hotmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:59 pm ((PST))
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:46:15 -0500
> From: gacor...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Happy New Year
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> 简体 is what I learned, and there is nothing wrong with it. I will probably
> learn traditional eventually, since my 嫂子 (sister-in-law, specifically my
> older brother's wife) is from Taiwan, but I don't hold one over the other.
In the grand scheme of things, neither do I. I simply enjoy busting people's
chops about the ���w. Though I must admit, having teethed on the traditional in
university (and having lived seven years in Taiwan as opposed to my four on the
mainland (and loving Hong Kong galore)), I still do find reading whole swathes
of ���w kind of Mao-y and a little aesthetically pooh-pooh. But, �����F�a.
彄 Kou
Messages in this topic (61)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: Happy New Year
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:02 pm ((PST))
2012/1/28 Douglas Koller <douglaskol...@hotmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:16:14 -0500
> > From: gacor...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: Happy New Year
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
>
> > That can be tricky. 和，跟，与 can all be used to mean "and" -- varying only
> in
> > register. Of course, the first two have other meanings.
>
> 與 has the meaning of "give", which also emerges in Japanese 与える
>
> Really, George, 簡體? ;) Man up, it's going to be a 龍 year.
>
> And stevo, does "intent(ion)" work as a better gloss for 意, as opposed to
> "idea"?
>
In general it would, but I already use "intention" as a gloss for 志. I
could use "intent" for 意, as an alternate gloss, if the meaning is
appropriate. In fact, since you suggested it as a gloss, I just added it.
Kou
Messages in this topic (61)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: Happy New Year
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:11 pm ((PST))
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:02:14 -0500, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In fact, since you suggested it as a gloss, I just added it.
You've actually compiled a sizable list of these glosses, then, I take it.
Is it something you could show us?
Alex
Messages in this topic (61)
________________________________________________________________________
2.7. Re: Happy New Year
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:15 am ((PST))
I have glosses for 3290 of 21803 characters, or 15%. It's a long term
(several years) project that I don't work on as much as I'd like.
I wouldn't mind sharing, but it's all in a spreadsheet, and I don't know a
good way to share it.
stevo
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:02:14 -0500, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In fact, since you suggested it as a gloss, I just added it.
>
> You've actually compiled a sizable list of these glosses, then, I take it.
> Is it something you could show us?
>
> Alex
>
Messages in this topic (61)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: OT:Shameless self-promotion
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:20 pm ((PST))
On 1/26/12, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This message includes no conlang-rlated material, only the injunction that
> you go buy a copy of the March issue of Asimov's and celebrate with me the
> contents of p. 79, my first published fiction.
Congratulations!
I had glanced over the contents page when the issue arrived, but I
hadn't started reading the issue until after seeing your post here.
(I usually read _Asimov's SF_ about three or four months behind
schedule.) I hadn't connected the byline "A. Walker Scott" with you.
I just read "Sonnet I", and I think it's well above average for the
poetry published in Asimov's.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Introduction and A Question for the Group
Posted by: "J. M. DeSantis" j...@jmdesantis.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:31 pm ((PST))
Hello Conlang List,
My name is J. M. DeSantis, and I am a writer and an illustrator of
(typically) fantasy and horror.
I recently joined the List in pursuit of more information about
linguistics, specifically with regards to conlanging. Currently, I am
re-attempting to create languages for my invented fantasy world. I made
an attempt years ago which was a mildly successful naming language, but
abandoned the task, feeling it was too overwhelming, especially having
so little information to go by. At the time, I was merely looking at
other natlangs (I had, by then, at least taken four years of Italian in
HS--making me at least familiar with a language besides my own) and
Tolkien's (one of my inspirations) Elvish languages to get an idea of
how creating a language might work. Know that I'm not a linguist by
trade or study; it's merely an area of interest at more of a hobby level.
Somewhat recently, I read through Mark Rosenfelder's "Language
Construction Kit" (both the book and the online article), Pablo Flores's
"How to Create a Language" and began creating a second conlang for my
world based on Swahili and other Bantu languages. However, after
e-mailing Mr. Rosenfelder (who was immensely helpful with his
suggestions and insights) for more information I wasn't quite clear on,
I had to re-think my approach, to some degree. I also then read further,
finding articles by various linguists and conlangers, including David
Peterson and Rick Morneau.
That all said, I feel, though I am by no means an expert on the subject,
I have enough information to go on and at least begin creating my
languages (as naming languages first and developing the rest of the
grammar over time). Currently, I have two projects related to this
invented world that I've put on hold (one for a year and the other for a
few months) whilst I research and build even a little of these languages
to begin forming names and even some sentences. The trouble is, I really
cannot afford to put them on hold any longer for this task--hence the
decision, at Mr. Rosenfelder's suggestion, to create them as naming
languages first. The total number of languages is around 11, though Mr.
Rosenfelder suggested I break them into languages families to make
things easier and "more natural," which I am going to do. That will
bring me down to 3 or 4 proto-languages, as I figure it, to derive the
others from. However, I am still stuck on two points, and I thought you
all could help with some feedback before I at last move on with things:
1. The creation of words. Obviously now, I am looking into using roots
(something I overlooked in the past), however, how do I form these
roots? In the past I created words in a very sloppy fashion. (Note: I am
attempting to make my languages sound reminiscent of many natlangs, many
of them, you may have guessed, European, but also some Middle Eastern
and African.) For instance, I might look up the OE word for "grave"
(byrgen) and, without any rhyme or reason, change the word so that it
still sounds like OE, but is different (thigen or perhaps diargun). The
trouble is, I am quickly realising this is a poor way of developing
roots, and I'm not always pleased with the words I get from such an ad
hoc approach. I know Tolkien, at times, used the idea of onomatopoeia
to create some of his words (which I could still use a little
clarification on), but what other "scientific," "acceptable" or "more
common" methods are there for soundly creating roots and words for
conlangs--artlangs, specifically, in this case--especially (though not
necessarily) when you want them to be reminiscent of existing natlangs.
2. Directly related, I've heard it said both ways: Which is the
preferable method? Create verbs from nouns and adjectives from verbs? Or
create both nouns and adjectives from verbs?
Anyway, I do apologise about the length of this e-mail, as I am sure you
all have much better things to do that listen to me ramble on. (I have a
tendency toward wordiness, I'm afraid, though I do feel the more
information you all have, the better you can help me solve the problem.)
Though I would appreciate any further insights on creating root words
(even in the form of recommended, short reading--I've already read so
much, and do not want to hold things up for even a month more). Thank
you all, in advance, for taking the time to read this message. All the best.
**
--
Sincerely,
J. M. DeSantis
Writer - Illustrator
Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
Figmunds: figmunds.com <http://www.figmunds.com>
Game-Flush (A Humorous Video Game Site): game-flush.com
<http://www.game-flush.com>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Introduction and A Question for the Group
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:51 pm ((PST))
To the first, I would suggest looking up awkwords. It is a random word
generator with customizable phonology. It isn't the easiest program to
learn to use, but it helps. You'll also have to take into account that you
are generating roots.
Though all told, I find nothing wrong with incorporating words from
natlangs -- but you should adapt them phonologically. Also, I would limit
my use of real words and supplement it with randomly generated roots or
roots you think up yourself (making up roots itself is fun, but can cause
some unintended effects).
To the second, mix it up! I don't know if there is any preferred direction
in this case -- English has both verbing and nouning, and derives
adjectives from both. I say figure out ways to make these derivations
happen in any direction.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM, J. M. DeSantis <j...@jmdesantis.com> wrote:
> Hello Conlang List,
>
> My name is J. M. DeSantis, and I am a writer and an illustrator of
> (typically) fantasy and horror.
>
> I recently joined the List in pursuit of more information about
> linguistics, specifically with regards to conlanging. Currently, I am
> re-attempting to create languages for my invented fantasy world. I made an
> attempt years ago which was a mildly successful naming language, but
> abandoned the task, feeling it was too overwhelming, especially having so
> little information to go by. At the time, I was merely looking at other
> natlangs (I had, by then, at least taken four years of Italian in
> HS--making me at least familiar with a language besides my own) and
> Tolkien's (one of my inspirations) Elvish languages to get an idea of how
> creating a language might work. Know that I'm not a linguist by trade or
> study; it's merely an area of interest at more of a hobby level.
>
> Somewhat recently, I read through Mark Rosenfelder's "Language
> Construction Kit" (both the book and the online article), Pablo Flores's
> "How to Create a Language" and began creating a second conlang for my world
> based on Swahili and other Bantu languages. However, after e-mailing Mr.
> Rosenfelder (who was immensely helpful with his suggestions and insights)
> for more information I wasn't quite clear on, I had to re-think my
> approach, to some degree. I also then read further, finding articles by
> various linguists and conlangers, including David Peterson and Rick Morneau.
>
> That all said, I feel, though I am by no means an expert on the subject, I
> have enough information to go on and at least begin creating my languages
> (as naming languages first and developing the rest of the grammar over
> time). Currently, I have two projects related to this invented world that
> I've put on hold (one for a year and the other for a few months) whilst I
> research and build even a little of these languages to begin forming names
> and even some sentences. The trouble is, I really cannot afford to put them
> on hold any longer for this task--hence the decision, at Mr. Rosenfelder's
> suggestion, to create them as naming languages first. The total number of
> languages is around 11, though Mr. Rosenfelder suggested I break them into
> languages families to make things easier and "more natural," which I am
> going to do. That will bring me down to 3 or 4 proto-languages, as I figure
> it, to derive the others from. However, I am still stuck on two points, and
> I thought you all could help with some feedback before I at last move on
> with things:
>
> 1. The creation of words. Obviously now, I am looking into using roots
> (something I overlooked in the past), however, how do I form these roots?
> In the past I created words in a very sloppy fashion. (Note: I am
> attempting to make my languages sound reminiscent of many natlangs, many of
> them, you may have guessed, European, but also some Middle Eastern and
> African.) For instance, I might look up the OE word for "grave" (byrgen)
> and, without any rhyme or reason, change the word so that it still sounds
> like OE, but is different (thigen or perhaps diargun). The trouble is, I am
> quickly realising this is a poor way of developing roots, and I'm not
> always pleased with the words I get from such an ad hoc approach. I know
> Tolkien, at times, used the idea of onomatopoeia to create some of his
> words (which I could still use a little clarification on), but what other
> "scientific," "acceptable" or "more common" methods are there for soundly
> creating roots and words for conlangs--artlangs, specifically, in this
> case--especially (though not necessarily) when you want them to be
> reminiscent of existing natlangs.
>
> 2. Directly related, I've heard it said both ways: Which is the preferable
> method? Create verbs from nouns and adjectives from verbs? Or create both
> nouns and adjectives from verbs?
>
> Anyway, I do apologise about the length of this e-mail, as I am sure you
> all have much better things to do that listen to me ramble on. (I have a
> tendency toward wordiness, I'm afraid, though I do feel the more
> information you all have, the better you can help me solve the problem.)
> Though I would appreciate any further insights on creating root words (even
> in the form of recommended, short reading--I've already read so much, and
> do not want to hold things up for even a month more). Thank you all, in
> advance, for taking the time to read this message. All the best.
> **
> --
> Sincerely,
> J. M. DeSantis
> Writer - Illustrator
>
> Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
> Figmunds: figmunds.com <http://www.figmunds.com>
> Game-Flush (A Humorous Video Game Site): game-flush.com <
> http://www.game-flush.com>
>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Introduction and A Question for the Group
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:55 pm ((PST))
I have an ebook called Create A Language Clinic, which I'm using to create
my language. It contains worksheets.
The website to buy the book is shop.holylisle.com Sorry, the book is
lengthy, but there's my recommendation.
Nicole Andrews
Pen name Mellissa Green
Budding novelist
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. M. DeSantis" <j...@jmdesantis.com>
To: <conl...@listserv.brown.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:20 AM
Subject: Introduction and A Question for the Group
> Hello Conlang List,
>
> My name is J. M. DeSantis, and I am a writer and an illustrator of
> (typically) fantasy and horror.
>
> I recently joined the List in pursuit of more information about
> linguistics, specifically with regards to conlanging. Currently, I am
> re-attempting to create languages for my invented fantasy world. I made an
> attempt years ago which was a mildly successful naming language, but
> abandoned the task, feeling it was too overwhelming, especially having so
> little information to go by. At the time, I was merely looking at other
> natlangs (I had, by then, at least taken four years of Italian in
> HS--making me at least familiar with a language besides my own) and
> Tolkien's (one of my inspirations) Elvish languages to get an idea of how
> creating a language might work. Know that I'm not a linguist by trade or
> study; it's merely an area of interest at more of a hobby level.
>
> Somewhat recently, I read through Mark Rosenfelder's "Language
> Construction Kit" (both the book and the online article), Pablo Flores's
> "How to Create a Language" and began creating a second conlang for my
> world based on Swahili and other Bantu languages. However, after e-mailing
> Mr. Rosenfelder (who was immensely helpful with his suggestions and
> insights) for more information I wasn't quite clear on, I had to re-think
> my approach, to some degree. I also then read further, finding articles by
> various linguists and conlangers, including David Peterson and Rick
> Morneau.
>
> That all said, I feel, though I am by no means an expert on the subject, I
> have enough information to go on and at least begin creating my languages
> (as naming languages first and developing the rest of the grammar over
> time). Currently, I have two projects related to this invented world that
> I've put on hold (one for a year and the other for a few months) whilst I
> research and build even a little of these languages to begin forming names
> and even some sentences. The trouble is, I really cannot afford to put
> them on hold any longer for this task--hence the decision, at Mr.
> Rosenfelder's suggestion, to create them as naming languages first. The
> total number of languages is around 11, though Mr. Rosenfelder suggested I
> break them into languages families to make things easier and "more
> natural," which I am going to do. That will bring me down to 3 or 4
> proto-languages, as I figure it, to derive the others from. However, I am
> still stuck on two points, and I thought you all could help with some
> feedback before I at last move on with things:
>
> 1. The creation of words. Obviously now, I am looking into using roots
> (something I overlooked in the past), however, how do I form these roots?
> In the past I created words in a very sloppy fashion. (Note: I am
> attempting to make my languages sound reminiscent of many natlangs, many
> of them, you may have guessed, European, but also some Middle Eastern and
> African.) For instance, I might look up the OE word for "grave" (byrgen)
> and, without any rhyme or reason, change the word so that it still sounds
> like OE, but is different (thigen or perhaps diargun). The trouble is, I
> am quickly realising this is a poor way of developing roots, and I'm not
> always pleased with the words I get from such an ad hoc approach. I know
> Tolkien, at times, used the idea of onomatopoeia to create some of his
> words (which I could still use a little clarification on), but what other
> "scientific," "acceptable" or "more common" methods are there for soundly
> creating roots and words for conlangs--artlangs, specifically, in this
> case--especially (though not necessarily) when you want them to be
> reminiscent of existing natlangs.
>
> 2. Directly related, I've heard it said both ways: Which is the preferable
> method? Create verbs from nouns and adjectives from verbs? Or create both
> nouns and adjectives from verbs?
>
> Anyway, I do apologise about the length of this e-mail, as I am sure you
> all have much better things to do that listen to me ramble on. (I have a
> tendency toward wordiness, I'm afraid, though I do feel the more
> information you all have, the better you can help me solve the problem.)
> Though I would appreciate any further insights on creating root words
> (even in the form of recommended, short reading--I've already read so
> much, and do not want to hold things up for even a month more). Thank you
> all, in advance, for taking the time to read this message. All the best.
> **
> --
> Sincerely,
> J. M. DeSantis
> Writer - Illustrator
>
> Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
> Figmunds: figmunds.com <http://www.figmunds.com>
> Game-Flush (A Humorous Video Game Site): game-flush.com
> <http://www.game-flush.com>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Introduction and A Question for the Group
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:57 am ((PST))
Greetings JM!
Both Lisle and Rosenfelder are good resources, though I think a lot depends
on the purpose of your conlanging. Lisle specifically markets her approach
to writers who need languages for their worlds but who feel they aren't
competent to create one on their own. I think Rosenfelder casts a wider
net. My only caveat would be to accept neither resource as a set of rules
writ in stone: don't slavishly follow anyone's recipe! Art isn't about
which way to do something right -- that's what paint by numbers is for.
I have both and use neither, but have perused both and think there is
considerable worth in them. I think for a writer, Lisle's almost anal
approach to note-keeping and filing is smart aspect that perhaps many
artlangers don't require. Point being to create and maintain a consistent
description of the secondary world -- it doesn't help your writing if
your character starts out having three eyes and sounding like French at the
start of your novel, only to lose one of the eyes and start sounding
like Chinese towards the end! Barring surgery, loss in battle or moving to
a different country!
I certainly couldn't keep track of the World if so much information about
it weren't in a wikifile. There's still quite a lot of paper that I've been
procrastinatorily putting off for a good decade now -- kinglists,
genealogical information, old histories, images. Oy!
Padraic
--- On Sun, 1/29/12, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Introduction and A Question for the Group
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Date: Sunday, January 29, 2012, 12:55 AM
> I have an ebook called Create A
> Language Clinic, which I'm using to create my language. It
> contains worksheets.
>
> The website to buy the book is shop.holylisle.com Sorry, the
> book is lengthy, but there's my recommendation.
> Nicole Andrews
>
> Pen name Mellissa Green
> Budding novelist
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. M. DeSantis" <j...@jmdesantis.com>
> To: <conl...@listserv.brown.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:20 AM
> Subject: Introduction and A Question for the Group
>
>
> > Hello Conlang List,
> >
> > My name is J. M. DeSantis, and I am a writer and an
> illustrator of (typically) fantasy and horror.
> >
> > I recently joined the List in pursuit of more
> information about linguistics, specifically with regards to
> conlanging. Currently, I am re-attempting to create
> languages for my invented fantasy world. I made an attempt
> years ago which was a mildly successful naming language, but
> abandoned the task, feeling it was too overwhelming,
> especially having so little information to go by. At the
> time, I was merely looking at other natlangs (I had, by
> then, at least taken four years of Italian in HS--making me
> at least familiar with a language besides my own) and
> Tolkien's (one of my inspirations) Elvish languages to get
> an idea of how creating a language might work. Know that I'm
> not a linguist by trade or study; it's merely an area of
> interest at more of a hobby level.
> >
> > Somewhat recently, I read through Mark Rosenfelder's
> "Language Construction Kit" (both the book and the online
> article), Pablo Flores's "How to Create a Language" and
> began creating a second conlang for my world based on
> Swahili and other Bantu languages. However, after e-mailing
> Mr. Rosenfelder (who was immensely helpful with his
> suggestions and insights) for more information I wasn't
> quite clear on, I had to re-think my approach, to some
> degree. I also then read further, finding articles by
> various linguists and conlangers, including David Peterson
> and Rick Morneau.
> >
> > That all said, I feel, though I am by no means an
> expert on the subject, I have enough information to go on
> and at least begin creating my languages (as naming
> languages first and developing the rest of the grammar over
> time). Currently, I have two projects related to this
> invented world that I've put on hold (one for a year and the
> other for a few months) whilst I research and build even a
> little of these languages to begin forming names and even
> some sentences. The trouble is, I really cannot afford to
> put them on hold any longer for this task--hence the
> decision, at Mr. Rosenfelder's suggestion, to create them as
> naming languages first. The total number of languages is
> around 11, though Mr. Rosenfelder suggested I break them
> into languages families to make things easier and "more
> natural," which I am going to do. That will bring me down to
> 3 or 4 proto-languages, as I figure it, to derive the others
> from. However, I am still stuck on two points, and I thought
> you all could help with some feedback before I at last move
> on with things:
> >
> > 1. The creation of words. Obviously now, I am looking
> into using roots (something I overlooked in the past),
> however, how do I form these roots? In the past I created
> words in a very sloppy fashion. (Note: I am attempting to
> make my languages sound reminiscent of many natlangs, many
> of them, you may have guessed, European, but also some
> Middle Eastern and African.) For instance, I might look up
> the OE word for "grave" (byrgen) and, without any rhyme or
> reason, change the word so that it still sounds like OE, but
> is different (thigen or perhaps diargun). The trouble is, I
> am quickly realising this is a poor way of developing roots,
> and I'm not always pleased with the words I get from such an
> ad hoc approach. I know Tolkien, at times, used the idea
> of onomatopoeia to create some of his words (which I
> could still use a little clarification on), but what other
> "scientific," "acceptable" or "more common" methods are
> there for soundly creating roots and words for
> conlangs--artlangs, specifically, in this case--especially
> (though not necessarily) when you want them to be
> reminiscent of existing natlangs.
> >
> > 2. Directly related, I've heard it said both ways:
> Which is the preferable method? Create verbs from nouns and
> adjectives from verbs? Or create both nouns and adjectives
> from verbs?
> >
> > Anyway, I do apologise about the length of this e-mail,
> as I am sure you all have much better things to do that
> listen to me ramble on. (I have a tendency toward wordiness,
> I'm afraid, though I do feel the more information you all
> have, the better you can help me solve the problem.) Though
> I would appreciate any further insights on creating root
> words (even in the form of recommended, short reading--I've
> already read so much, and do not want to hold things up for
> even a month more). Thank you all, in advance, for taking
> the time to read this message. All the best.
> > **
> > -- Sincerely,
> > J. M. DeSantis
> > Writer - Illustrator
> >
> > Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
> > Figmunds: figmunds.com <http://www.figmunds.com>
> > Game-Flush (A Humorous Video Game Site): game-flush.com
> <http://www.game-flush.com>
Messages in this topic (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
