Archive for the ‘grammar’ Category

Buried Treasure

Friday, August 28th, 2015

I found a cache of early Pseudoglyph treasures. Some things have changed a lot but are still beautiful. The meanings have changed or been lost but the work is still worth showing

Maps

Here is where they speak ‘Umu. I’ve not named anything and I’ve lost the original file. It’s now a relic of the past.

pasted-graphic_12

the planet

the map

Early Unsimplified Glyphs

Looking back it’s really amazing how things evolve. The current version looks boring by comparison.

the shift


proverb


pen syllabary


mo bhrón ar an nhfarraige


droppedImage_22     droppedImage_21     droppedImage_20     droppedImage_19     droppedImage_18     droppedImage_17     droppedImage_16     droppedImage_15     droppedImage_14     droppedImage_13     droppedImage_12     droppedImage_11     droppedImage_10     droppedImage_9     droppedImage_8     droppedImage_7     droppedImage_6     droppedImage_5     droppedImage_4     droppedImage_3     droppedImage_2     droppedImage_1     droppedImage


fast


Pasted Graphic 15          pen morph one


fm5


basic prepositions


ž     č&c     s     h/r/l     v     m     dh     t&d     n
j     k&g     p/b     'a 'i 'ö 'u


mosquito storm

banana shorthand


powhiri


Pasted Graphic 38


good morning short


under construction


the known planets


'umu đine
‘umu đine

a child fell in the street


Untitled Image 2


sa  mu  ra  jö
sa mu ra jö

stone glyphs


'umu

Detail #198: Some Uses for a Case Restricted to Certain Possessums

Friday, August 28th, 2015
Consider the following statement:
I have a book
 We could consider having a special case that appears in this, giving us instead a clause of the structure
I am book-POS
Translating this into English as 'I am book-having' could make sense, to some extent. In fact, English almost permits this with a few particular nouns:
she is armed
he is tender-hearted
they are all peg-legged
etc
In English, suffixing -having, or using the past participle(!) of a noun tends to either parse as indefinite or somewhat inalienable possession. In the language we're now creating, we ignore definiteness. We might even exclude -POS from being used with inalienable possession altogether.

However, having a case that is specifically restricted to forming ways of saying 'have' might seem a tad wasteful, so let's extend its use a bit. We might use it whenever possession is changed in some way or other.
I gave you-ACC?/DAT? house-POS
The possession of the house has changed, and thus we mark the house with -POS. If the possession per se doesn't change, we use the accusative instead:
I gave you-DAT key-POS
In this circumstance, the case on the object distinguishes "lend" from "give", or "borrow" from "take". This case could of course also be used with specific verbs like 'marry' (maybe the subjects both are marked by -POS?), and maybe that's the one exception where the -POS case can go on subjects? Maybe subjects can be in the -POS case under a number of circumstances?

Daedalus et Icarus, 4

Thursday, August 27th, 2015

Pater filium sic monuit, “Tene viam mediam, Icare. Si ibis prope mare, unda pennas gravabit. Si prope solem ibis, ignis pennas vastabit. Te viam mediam tenere iubeo. Vola inter utrumque, mare et solem. Me duce, carpe viam.”

semme jatasēña ke masōwa mo mīsa ien ñi riēn rā jaþīña jāña, λi īkarus. hi ñi riēn rā anālhāri nō hi ñi jatīāni jatūmi tō jatāoni; hi ñi riēn rā malō nō hi ñi jatīāni annōri tō annāoli; selre ien ñi riēn rā jaþīña jāña; ñi riēn matū rā jēnne ē anālhāri ē malō āñ kā; nīkanle mahālien ñi riēn rā jaþīña kā;

ke masōwa mo mīsa pater filium
jatasēña (monuit)
ñi riēn rā jaþīña jāña tene viam mediam
λi īkarus Icare
hi ñi riēn rā anālhāri nō si ibis prope mare
hi ñi jatīāni jatūmi tō jatāoni unda pennas gravabit
hi ñi riēn rā malō nō si prope solem ibis
hi ñi jatīāni annōri tō annāoli ignis pennas vastabit
selre ien ñi riēn rā jaþīña jāña te viam mediam tenere iubeo
ñi riēn matū (vola)
rā jēnne ē anālhāri ē malō āñ kā inter utrumque, mare et solem
nīkanle mahālien me duce
ñi riēn rā jaþīña kā carpe viam

sword is mekata (revisited)

Thursday, August 27th, 2015
mekata = sword (noun) (Some things Google found for "mekata": an uncommon term; a unusual last name; Yoriko Mekata is a Japanese TV announcer; Old Mekata Family's House of a Samurai family in Iwakuni, Japan; name of a couple anime characters; means weight in Japanese (Romanized); name of a place in Botswana)

Word derivation for "sword" :
Basque = ezpata, Finnish = miekka
Miresua = mekata

My previous Miresua conlang word for sword was mezaka. I think my new word better resembles the Basque and Finnish source words. The Basque word appears to be derived from the Spanish word for sword, espada.

This blog almost always keeps to a regular posting schedule. On the 22nd, four days ago, I skipped a post. I was on vacation and unfortunately didn't prepare a word in advance.

The word sword doesn't occur in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but it occurs twice in Through the Looking-Glass. This quote is a stanza from the Jabberwocky poem.
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

Detail #196: Pronouns pertaining to Contrary Interests

Wednesday, August 26th, 2015
Consider situations where people together do something, all in order to safeguard their own interest – in opposition to each others' interests. Although it seems unlikely that nouns would have such forms - except maybe a few specific nouns - plural pronouns could imaginably have forms for this, especially subject forms. 'We negotiated a truce' could then have two different meanings depending on which form is used:
weregular negotiated a truce → we had negotiations with them that concluded with them and us reaching a truce
wecontrary negotiated a truce → we1 and 2 negotiated a truce between us1 and 2
This could extend to more collaborative verbs as well:
weregular got married → both of us found spouses whom we married
wecontrary got married → we married each other
Basically the name of the pronoun type could be something like 'preemptively reflexive/reciprocal pronoun' or something. However, since the type of reflexivity/reciprocality is not specified – i.e. there's no, for lack of a better, more specific term, pseudo-resumptive pronoun to tell us the actual role that the subjects take with regards to one another – this creates some nice ambiguity while also dissolving some ambiguity.

Detail #195: Contrastive Pronouns for Enumeration

Wednesday, August 26th, 2015
Consider a fishmonger asking a customer which fish the customer wants:
"this one? or this one? how about this one?"
There could easily develop a slightly productive way of marking listed pronouns:
this, or this, this then, even this, ... → this, oris, thsen, evnis
The same morphemes could affect personal pronouns when ordering several different people, for instance:
you do this, oryou do this, youn do this, evnyou do this
Same goes with third persons. With first person pronouns, however, it can be used to mark sequences of events:
I went to town, ori found a sweet girl, Ithn bought her a drink, evni never heard of her again
After 'evn-', that form is repeated (or maybe the sequence restarts at or-). Derive the pronouns from adverbs, conjunctions and pronouns in your own language, of course. One possible source could also be intensifiers and comparatives, even superlatives.

Detail #194B: Contrastive Dummy

Monday, August 24th, 2015
A dummy pronoun with the contrastive case mentioned in the previous post could be a pretty intriguing thing: instead of saying "but X verbs" you'd have "X verbs dummy.CONTR". Which particular syntactic position - subject, object, indirect object, more general adverb - that the dummy takes depends on the argument structure of the verb itself.

Detail #194: Contrastive Marking

Monday, August 24th, 2015
Let's consider differential object marking (DOM) along the Baltic Finnic type, i.e. one of the cases is universally used with negative verbs, and also quite often with affirmative verbs - basically, the other possible case marks a combination of things, of which affirmativeness only is one. Now, imagine constructions with contrastive gapping:
I don't eat pork but venison
Let's further assume that the DOM over time is weakened, and the more general case - the one used both with negatives and many affirmatives - turns into a more general accusative. The other case remains, but is used for whatever usages there might be.

However, we return to the form above: the case might have been used to contrast the two objects even when not enough of the usual requirements were fulfilled. So, one usage that gets tied up with it is contrast.
I don't eat pork.ACC venison.CONTR

This might extent to other roles: contrasting with subjects, locations, etc. Contrast might go even beyond negative-affirmative:
I solve problems.ACC and also cause them.CONTR
even beyond that, you can get subjects:
I solve problems.ACC and he.CONTR creates them.ACC
in both of these examples, 'and' could be more idiomatically translated into English as 'but'. However, in the language we're dealing with, 'and' might not even necessarily be marked. In a way, CONTR marks the central argument of a coordinated, contrasting VP.

It might even develop further, to get things like:
I got 99 problems.ACC a bitch.CONTR
 where the first construction we saw also has an affirmative structure - i.e. we're not just contrasting verb phrases with each other, or a negative verb phrase with a contrasting object coordination, we're also doing the same for affirmative verbs.

Daedalus et Icarus, 3

Monday, August 24th, 2015

Puer Icarus, filius Daedali, ad patrem stat spectatque dum pater laborat. Nescit se sua pericula tangere dum pennas tenet et ceram digito mollit et ludo suo mirabile opus patris impedit. Denique postquam ultima penna in loco posita est, artifex, duabus alis apertis et motis, in aere pependit.

ē la īkarus mīsa taetalus mamōīñēma sū masōwa nū ē sema sakēwīke mo sarōña; wā sema jaxiēna ien il ñamma sāka rā ansēña āñ il ñamma sāka rā jatīāni āñ il ñamma anmēpi anmēxi; samma japāsre mo masōwa sakēwīke jamārwakie ānen jajēra; il antielen ñi jatīān japēxena rā jasōþa il ñi makēlanen ānen jañānte ēnne jakōrja jarēspe melūr;

īkarus mīsa taetalus mamōīñēma puer Icarus, filius Daedali
sū masōwa nū ad patrem stat
sema sakēwīke mo sarōña spectatque dum pater laborat
wā sema jaxiēna nescit
il ñamma sāka rā ansēña āñ se sua pericula tangere
il ñamma sāka rā jatīāni āñ dum pennas tenet
il ñamma anmēpi anmēxi et ceram mollit
samma japāsre impedit
mo masōwa sakēwīke jamārwakie mirabile opus patris
ānen jajēra ludo
il antielen postquam
ñi jatīān japēxena rā jasōþa ultima penna in loco posita est
makēlanen artifex
ānen jañānte ēnne jakōrja jarēspe duabus alis apertis et motis
melūr (pependit)

#424

Monday, August 24th, 2015

A language where there is no word for “they” or “them”. Instead, it is represented by saying a sentence with one pronoun, followed by the other. Have a grammar, such that in order to say, for example, “you do it for them”, you would say, “you do it for her, that is to say, you do it for him.”