Archive for December, 2011

High Eolic word of the day: lurcávam

Friday, December 30th, 2011

lurcá- (transitive verb), imperfective lurcávam: to talk, converse, sit with (someone).

lurcá-m mál surát cúrcur-cándaremec
speak.with-TRANS he/she.ACC earlier year.GEN-three.INESS
“I last spoke with him/her three years ago”

Misunderstanding Láadan

Friday, December 30th, 2011

With the help of a Christmas gift card, I got myself a copy of From Elvish to Klingon: Exploring Invented Languages, which was released in November of this year, from Oxford University Press (emic review). It's a collection of academic papers about various language invention topics. See the review for more details.

After I read the introduction, the first thing I did was go to the index to look for languages I know about. Láadan gets two mentions (in the index it is misspelled Láaden, but the page numbers point to the right place). In chapter 8, Suzanne Romaine's Revitalized Languages as Invented Languages, page 215, we get this lengthy paragraph,

A similarity of purpose and motivation drives inventors of all new languages, whether in the real or fictional world. The perceived need for them arises from dissatisfaction with the current linguistic state of affairs. Recognition that language can be used for promoting or changing the social, cultural, and political order leads to conscious intervention and manipulation of the form of language, its status and its uses. In this sense then, the idea of a modern standard Hebrew as the language of a secular Jewish state sprang from the mind of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, no less than Klingon did from the imagination of its inventor Marc Okrand. Hence the planners of Néo-breton, Modern Hebrew, and other revitalized languages are no less inventors than are authors of speculative fiction like George Orwell or Suzette Haden Elgin, who conceive new languages consonant with their vision of a brave new world. The task is to invent and spread a language to encode it. The project of imagining a world without gender differentiation and inequality gave birth to Elgin's Láadan, invented by women for women, just as much as Modern Hebrew would be conceived as a vehicle for modern Jewish statehood and nationality in the creation of a new land by pioneers, and of a new Jew who would escape the confines of the shtetl. Speaking or narrating in a feminist woman-made language in Elgin's Native Tongue (1984) becomes a liberating force for women dominated by a patriarchal society in the twenty-thrid century, just as Irish became and continues to be a language of resistance in the struggle against British rule.

Ok. Seeing language revivification as an example of language creation should not be new to practiced conlangers who are likely to read this. I look forward to reading the rest of the chapter later.

What drives me ever so slightly bonkers is that this paragraph contains two deep misunderstandings about what Elgin attempted with Láadan. First, Láadan is not "invented by women for women." It is indeed invented by women, and intended to express the perceptions of women better, and is "for women" in the sense that it aims at this goal. But at no point has she said that it is for women only. In fact, she goes out of her way, in both the books and in interviews about Láadan, to explicitly deny this. It is for women and men to use. Romaine's account rather makes it seem like Láadan would not be open to use by men.

Second, "imagining a world without gender differentiation" is not part of Láadan's goals either. In A First Dictionary and Grammar of Láadan (Second Edition, 1988), Elgin lays out the inspirations for Láadan in the first chapter, The Construction of Láadan. The fourth item is,

I focused my Guest of Honor speech for WisCon on the question of why women portraying new realities in science fiction had, so far as I knew, dealt only with Matriarchy and Androgyny, and never with the third alternative based on the hypothesis that women were not superior to men (Matriarchy) or interchangeable with and equal to men (Androgyny) but rather entirely different from men. I proposed that it was at least possible that this was because the only language available to women excluded the third reality. Either because it was unlexicalized and thus no words existed with which to write about it, or it was lexicalized in so cumbersome a manner that it was useless for the writing of fiction, or the lack of lexical resources literally made it impossible to imagine such a reality.

Láadan, like Esperanto, is a kind of conlang Rorschach ink-blot test. Whatever they might actually mean, they are primarily the vehicles for people's preconceptions about what they are. Here, Láadan has been shoehorned into a thesis about language revitalization. I don't think the misunderstanding of it undermines the argument, but it is astonishing to see it so badly misinterpreted in an academic context, especially when material directly from Elgin is so readily available.

Misunderstanding Láadan

Friday, December 30th, 2011

With the help of a Christmas gift card, I got myself a copy of From Elvish to Klingon: Exploring Invented Languages, which was released in November of this year, from Oxford University Press (emic review). It's a collection of academic papers about various language invention topics. See the review for more details.

After I read the introduction, the first thing I did was go to the index to look for languages I know about. Láadan gets two mentions (in the index it is misspelled Láaden, but the page numbers point to the right place). In chapter 8, Suzanne Romaine's Revitalized Languages as Invented Languages, page 215, we get this lengthy paragraph,

A similarity of purpose and motivation drives inventors of all new languages, whether in the real or fictional world. The perceived need for them arises from dissatisfaction with the current linguistic state of affairs. Recognition that language can be used for promoting or changing the social, cultural, and political order leads to conscious intervention and manipulation of the form of language, its status and its uses. In this sense then, the idea of a modern standard Hebrew as the language of a secular Jewish state sprang from the mind of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, no less than Klingon did from the imagination of its inventor Marc Okrand. Hence the planners of Néo-breton, Modern Hebrew, and other revitalized languages are no less inventors than are authors of speculative fiction like George Orwell or Suzette Haden Elgin, who conceive new languages consonant with their vision of a brave new world. The task is to invent and spread a language to encode it. The project of imagining a world without gender differentiation and inequality gave birth to Elgin's Láadan, invented by women for women, just as much as Modern Hebrew would be conceived as a vehicle for modern Jewish statehood and nationality in the creation of a new land by pioneers, and of a new Jew who would escape the confines of the shtetl. Speaking or narrating in a feminist woman-made language in Elgin's Native Tongue (1984) becomes a liberating force for women dominated by a patriarchal society in the twenty-thrid century, just as Irish became and continues to be a language of resistance in the struggle against British rule.

Ok. Seeing language revivification as an example of language creation should not be new to practiced conlangers who are likely to read this. I look forward to reading the rest of the chapter later.

What drives me ever so slightly bonkers is that this paragraph contains two deep misunderstandings about what Elgin attempted with Láadan. First, Láadan is not "invented by women for women." It is indeed invented by women, and intended to express the perceptions of women better, and is "for women" in the sense that it aims at this goal. But at no point has she said that it is for women only. In fact, she goes out of her way, in both the books and in interviews about Láadan, to explicitly deny this. It is for women and men to use. Romaine's account rather makes it seem like Láadan would not be open to use by men.

Second, "imagining a world without gender differentiation" is not part of Láadan's goals either. In A First Dictionary and Grammar of Láadan (Second Edition, 1988), Elgin lays out the inspirations for Láadan in the first chapter, The Construction of Láadan. The fourth item is,

I focused my Guest of Honor speech for WisCon on the question of why women portraying new realities in science fiction had, so far as I knew, dealt only with Matriarchy and Androgyny, and never with the third alternative based on the hypothesis that women were not superior to men (Matriarchy) or interchangeable with and equal to men (Androgyny) but rather entirely different from men. I proposed that it was at least possible that this was because the only language available to women excluded the third reality. Either because it was unlexicalized and thus no words existed with which to write about it, or it was lexicalized in so cumbersome a manner that it was useless for the writing of fiction, or the lack of lexical resources literally made it impossible to imagine such a reality.

Láadan, like Esperanto, is a kind of conlang Rorschach ink-blot test. Whatever they might actually mean, they are primarily the vehicles for people's preconceptions about what they are. Here, Láadan has been shoehorned into a thesis about language revitalization. I don't think the misunderstanding of it undermines the argument, but it is astonishing to see it so badly misinterpreted in an academic context, especially when material directly from Elgin is so readily available.

Misunderstanding Láadan

Friday, December 30th, 2011

With the help of a Christmas gift card, I got myself a copy of From Elvish to Klingon: Exploring Invented Languages, which was released in November of this year, from Oxford University Press (emic review). It's a collection of academic papers about various language invention topics. See the review for more details.

After I read the introduction, the first thing I did was go to the index to look for languages I know about. Láadan gets two mentions (in the index it is misspelled Láaden, but the page numbers point to the right place). In chapter 8, Suzanne Romaine's Revitalized Languages as Invented Languages, page 215, we get this lengthy paragraph,

A similarity of purpose and motivation drives inventors of all new languages, whether in the real or fictional world. The perceived need for them arises from dissatisfaction with the current linguistic state of affairs. Recognition that language can be used for promoting or changing the social, cultural, and political order leads to conscious intervention and manipulation of the form of language, its status and its uses. In this sense then, the idea of a modern standard Hebrew as the language of a secular Jewish state sprang from the mind of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, no less than Klingon did from the imagination of its inventor Marc Okrand. Hence the planners of Néo-breton, Modern Hebrew, and other revitalized languages are no less inventors than are authors of speculative fiction like George Orwell or Suzette Haden Elgin, who conceive new languages consonant with their vision of a brave new world. The task is to invent and spread a language to encode it. The project of imagining a world without gender differentiation and inequality gave birth to Elgin's Láadan, invented by women for women, just as much as Modern Hebrew would be conceived as a vehicle for modern Jewish statehood and nationality in the creation of a new land by pioneers, and of a new Jew who would escape the confines of the shtetl. Speaking or narrating in a feminist woman-made language in Elgin's Native Tongue (1984) becomes a liberating force for women dominated by a patriarchal society in the twenty-thrid century, just as Irish became and continues to be a language of resistance in the struggle against British rule.

Ok. Seeing language revivification as an example of language creation should not be new to practiced conlangers who are likely to read this. I look forward to reading the rest of the chapter later.

What drives me ever so slightly bonkers is that this paragraph contains two deep misunderstandings about what Elgin attempted with Láadan. First, Láadan is not "invented by women for women." It is indeed invented by women, and intended to express the perceptions of women better, and is "for women" in the sense that it aims at this goal. But at no point has she said that it is for women only. In fact, she goes out of her way, in both the books and in interviews about Láadan, to explicitly deny this. It is for women and men to use. Romaine's account rather makes it seem like Láadan would not be open to use by men.

Second, "imagining a world without gender differentiation" is not part of Láadan's goals either. In A First Dictionary and Grammar of Láadan (Second Edition, 1988), Elgin lays out the inspirations for Láadan in the first chapter, The Construction of Láadan. The fourth item is,

I focused my Guest of Honor speech for WisCon on the question of why women portraying new realities in science fiction had, so far as I knew, dealt only with Matriarchy and Androgyny, and never with the third alternative based on the hypothesis that women were not superior to men (Matriarchy) or interchangeable with and equal to men (Androgyny) but rather entirely different from men. I proposed that it was at least possible that this was because the only language available to women excluded the third reality. Either because it was unlexicalized and thus no words existed with which to write about it, or it was lexicalized in so cumbersome a manner that it was useless for the writing of fiction, or the lack of lexical resources literally made it impossible to imagine such a reality.

Láadan, like Esperanto, is a kind of conlang Rorschach ink-blot test. Whatever they might actually mean, they are primarily the vehicles for people's preconceptions about what they are. Here, Láadan has been shoehorned into a thesis about language revitalization. I don't think the misunderstanding of it undermines the argument, but it is astonishing to see it so badly misinterpreted in an academic context, especially when material directly from Elgin is so readily available.

Animals

Thursday, December 29th, 2011
paca noun, neutral
horse, of any realm

pwce noun, fairy
fairy horse

baku noun, human
horse

bago noun, demon
hell horse, night mare

dasu noun, human
mouse, rat

daru noun, human
wolf

makhu noun, human
cow

uryk noun, human
pig


Verbs derived from the above:

mukhi verb, human
to moo, like a cow

iruk verb, human
to grunt, like a pig


And a couple adjectives, before I forget:

ybwn adjective, neutral
small, little

agan adjective, neutral
big, large

Lolota

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Glyph of the word 'lolota'.

lolota

  • (v.) to sew
  • (n.) sewing

Lolota, he fupone! Lolota takeke e hevaka!
“Sew, old woman! Sew like the wind!”

Notes: From one of my old favorites: ¡Three Amigos! Today is the aforewarnedabout word for “to sew”. I learned basic sewing as a kid, so I guess I know what I’m doing if I have to something to something else (or to itself). I’m no seamster, of course. Seamsters are lame. All their skinny hemmed jeans, saying things like, “Yeah, I don’t use needle threaders”, and, “Yeah, I use the model of sewing machine invented by Walter Hunt. You’ve probably never heard of him…”

Defusing a verb

Thursday, December 29th, 2011
Another very important aspect of Tulvan grammar is the 'defusing' of verbs. Such is the term used in Tulvan for the creation of gerunds and gerundives, or verbal nouns, such as thinking, eating, resting, or even "to be or not to be". Some verbs can be used as nouns, but some must undergo a subtle transformation which Tulvan acknowledges as 'nullifying sounds'.

This process implies that all 'v's revert to 'u's, all dotted letters such as 'ë' and 'ä' rever to their non-dotted versions. Also all final dentals fall back to 's', all final velars to 'z' and all final labials to 'm'. Some examples are as follow:

the verb tulv- 'to think', becomes tulu when defused.
Such as; cur kwam tulu, I want to think.

the verb ëv- 'to be', becomes eu when defused.
Such as; eu ë eu vu, to be or not to be.

Other examples are ëvpak/eupaz, to listen; and also ëvud/euus, to know.

This construction suits perfectly the place of the gerund, as in;

Ëv tulu itrum, it is good to think, or, thinking is good.

Defusing a verb

Thursday, December 29th, 2011
Another very important aspect of Tulvan grammar is the 'defusing' of verbs. Such is the term used in Tulvan for the creation of gerunds and gerundives, or verbal nouns, such as thinking, eating, resting, or even "to be or not to be". Some verbs can be used as nouns, but some must undergo a subtle transformation which Tulvan acknowledges as 'nullifying sounds'.

This process implies that all 'v's revert to 'u's, all dotted letters such as 'ë' and 'ä' rever to their non-dotted versions. Also all final dentals fall back to 's', all final velars to 'z' and all final labials to 'm'. Some examples are as follow:

the verb tulv- 'to think', becomes tulu when defused.
Such as; cur kwam tulu, I want to think.

the verb ëv- 'to be', becomes eu when defused.
Such as; eu ë eu vu, to be or not to be.

Other examples are ëvpak/eupaz, to listen; and also ëvud/euus, to know.

This construction suits perfectly the place of the gerund, as in;

Ëv tulu itrum, it is good to think, or, thinking is good.

I Think My Problems Are Solved!

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011
By not using tables, I think I can continue to post materials here on my conlangs.  The problem with the strange characters seems to have gone away.  Nothing has turned into a "D" today! 

I will put general materials in regular posts and make special pages for conjugations, lists, and text. I just finished completing the page containing the Shshi conjugations of a regular verb (example is gano|, to speak) and of the only really irregular verb in the language (sho|, to be).  I made it so screwy and complicated that I couldn't face making any more really irregular ones!  "To have" is also slightly irregular but in a much simpler way.  Other posts will follow soon detailing pronouns, formation of interrogative sentences, word-forming determinatives, and modal auxiliaries.

General Remarks on Shshi Verbs

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

The verb structure of Shshi is simple and clean. There are six basic tenses: present, past, and future, and three perfect tenses.

There is no familiar form of 2nd person.

There is no passive voice.

There is indicative, imperative, and subjunctive mood.

There are no participles. Adjectives and nouns are made from verbs in other ways. E.g., da’bao| ("defeated").

The infinitive is used for imperative; the verb is initial and is bracketed by ¡ _!

The infinitive determinative is -o. There are no exceptions. The infinitive is the base word for many constructions. For example, isto| means “to hurt or to give pain”; ist’zi| means “pain” (noun); da’ist| means “hurt, pained, hurting” (adj.); ist’il| means “in pain or pained” (adv.)

The perfect infinitive, to have + root, begins o’.

All verbs are regular, except “to be” and “to have.” In all cases except “to be” the pronoun is voiced in a combined form with the verb, separated from the true verb by an apostrophe. This pronominal determinative is retained in the third person when the sentence contains a nominal subject, except in certain forms of “to be.” There are four third person forms (this will be discussed further in the Conjugation of To Be and in the Pronoun section).

There is no progressive form of verbs, e.g., “I am speaking to you” or “The Warrior is running” are expressed simply as “I speak to you” (sho’gano| ya| bei’a| || ) or “The Warrior runs” (pai’zei|D fa’thapo| ||)

There is no true emphatic form of verbs as such in English, “I do speak.” Sometimes an inversion is used for emphasis, e.g., “I do speak” might be expressed: gano’sho| || (“Speak I”)

Auxiliary verbs: Future and perfect tenses are formed by inserting determinatives into the infinitive rather than by using auxiliary verbs. But other modal auxiliaries exist, i.e., must, ought, may, might, etc. These will be dealt with in a separate section.

Summary of Regular Verbs in 1st Person Singular

Present                                         I speak, I am speaking                            sho’gano
Past                                              I spoke                                                    sho’ganot
Future                                          I will speak                                             sho’u’gano
Present perfect                             I have spoken                                         sho’o’gano
Past perfect                                  I had spoken                                           sho’o’ganot
Future perfect                              I will have spoken                                  sho’o’u’gano
Past future                                   I would speak                                         sho’i’u’gano
Past future perfect                       I would have spoken                              sho’i’o’gano
Subjunctive
(present and past)                       [If] I speak, Were I to speak                  sho’ei’gano
Subjunctive
(past perfect)                              [If] I had spoken, Had I spoken             sho’ei’o’ganot
Imperative                                 Speak!                                                     ¡ gano!