How many aspects do you have?Eddy the Great wrote: I've added a new aspect
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
How many aspects do you have?Eddy the Great wrote: I've added a new aspect
I have the perfect, imperfect, inchoative, cessative, habitual, iterative, and the tendency, so it has a lot of aspects, but it needs them to express what natlangs do, so I can't get rid of any.How many aspects do you have?
Is there any reason for only allowing /q/ + /t/ and vice versa? Such oddly restrictive rules don't generally come about, except after certain long periods of phonological change, probably portending the impending loss of even those clusters.DarkFantasy wrote:Here's a sample of my new polylang, just so you can get a feel on it. I won't post much grammatical things yet, but here's a few things. The only consanant clusters allowed are 'qt' and 'tq', or a continuation of those ('qtq', which is uncommon). No more than two consecutive vowels are allowed.
The phonology is rather small; only eight consanants, but a rather large number of vowels when compared (9, including the glottal stop).
Here's a couple sample words. Q?sie:t?qtqonqitla:?ne:, 'He Who Walks on Air' (the name for the prophet of a currently-nameless religion), and q?siqe:t?m?iser?, 'He Who Always Sleeps' (a name I dubbed to myself).
The writing system is syllabic, and is written vertically.
Noyatukah has two moods, the manifest and unmanifest, and three aspects: the perfective, imperfective and continuative. Notions like habituality aren't properly aspects.Maknas wrote:N?yanla gets along with only perfective, imperfective, inchoative, and cessative, as well as subjunctive mood and a few evidentials.Eddy the Great wrote:I have the perfect, imperfect, inchoative, cessative, habitual, iterative, and the tendency, so it has a lot of aspects, but it needs them to express what natlangs do, so I can't get rid of any.How many aspects do you have?
That's why diachronic work is so important; you can choose at random which clusters are allowed and which aren't, or you can choose them historically. Noyatukah, e.g., allows about 35 of a possible 196 clusters; but at earlier stages of the language, many more were legal. These cluster-related changes gave birth to the language's complex sandhi interactions.Is there any reason for only allowing /q/ + /t/ and vice versa? Such oddly restrictive rules don't generally come about, except after certain long periods of phonological change, probably portending the impending loss of even those clusters.
I would tend to agree; but do realize that a Mohawk nominal can, with no morphological change, serve just as well as a relative. E.g., iekareni?:tha 'shovel' means 'it-carries,' but can also mean 'it-which-carries'.Also, I would caution against translating your words in the form "he who...," unless they literally contain a relative clause. If they don't, this betrays their verbal nature and renders them in a different perspective from that which is most precise and in tune with the native language.
You're wandering into the territory of metaphor here, which various languages handle in very different ways.Eddy(NLI) wrote:How would you handle something like "Theft is foolish."?
I realize it takes a while to get out English nominal thought, but in "love is blind" you have two nouns when you could express the same thing with the verb 'love-blinds-one'. As for Yoda's "Hate leads to suffering," try 'when-one-hates, they-suffer'.Eddy the Great wrote:I'm try to figure out how I'd translate "Love is blind." I can express something similar to "Hate leads to suffering." like this:
K?tka'ik?t?mi @ik?kl?s?mi.
K?-tka-'ik?-t?-mi @i-k?-kl?s?-mi.
pain-create-3SOS-3SSA when/if-habitual-hate-3SSA
When one hates, they create pain.
Don't do metaphors yet... by default, they differ between languages. Instead, do everyday sentences like "it's raining a lot these days" and "why don't we go get some pizza?". How much these "normal" sentences change through translation is a true test of ambiguity and realism.Eddy the Great wrote:I'm try to figure out how I'd translate "Love is blind." I can express something similar to "Hate leads to suffering." like this:
K?tka'ik?t?mi @ik?kl?s?mi.
K?-tka-'ik?-t?-mi @i-k?-kl?s?-mi.
pain-create-3SOS-3SSA when/if-habitual-hate-3SSA
When one hates, they create pain.
I see. I did more or less what you suggest for "Hate leads to suffering." I see your points about this being metaphor. It just doesn't translate. I think I can get the essential meaning of "Love is blind" byt saying basically one-falls-in-love-randomly or something to that effect.I realize it takes a while to get out English nominal thought, but in "love is blind" you have two nouns when you could express the same thing with the verb 'love-blinds-one'. As for Yoda's "Hate leads to suffering," try 'when-one-hates, they-suffer'.
I think I've seen that in natlangs, so I don't see a problem.Eddy the Great wrote:Is this a good idea?
|Xatskatq?|x'?ama.
|Xa-tska-tq?-|x'?-a-ma.
road-to.right.of-motion.to-walk-past-3SSA
I walked to the right of the road.
I use an affix to turn a stationary locative into one that indicates motion to that place.
I wonder what kinds. I also wonder how Mohawk and Cheyenne do it.I think I've seen that in natlangs, so I don't see a problem.
There are ways of expressing those notions, sure.The Cheyenne equivalent of your sentence you translate like: 'I-righted-(the)-road-by.walking', with 'righted' as the root.Eddy the Great wrote:I wonder what kinds. I also wonder how Mohawk and Cheyenne do it.I think I've seen that in natlangs, so I don't see a problem.
Is there some equivalent to "greater than", "smaller than", etc. in the langs you'vce studied, Jburke?
So it means more literally: he-is-great but he-is-great and in that language, that indicates comparision?No, the above is just two normal expressions joined by naa, 'but' (it can also mean 'and'.)
-haahp- 'great' and -hahpe- 'greater' are two different (but related) roots. The former is used in the first expression, the latter in the second.Eddy the Great wrote:So it means more literally: he-is-great but he-is-great and in that language, that indicates comparision?No, the above is just two normal expressions joined by naa, 'but' (it can also mean 'and'.)
So Cheyene uses different words?-haahp- 'great' and -hahpe- 'greater' are two different (but related) roots. The former is used in the first expression, the latter in the second.