I can eat glass, it does not hurt me....Almea style

[insumaro]

I've seen the following sentance on a few sites, translated into various conlangs.

I can eat glass, it does not hurt me.

I've tried to translate the above sentance into Wede:i and Kebreni. Here goes:

Go:źingju ngol-zaukaming; go:źur koksazeno.

Go:ź-ing-ju ngol-zau-ka-ming; go:ź-ur koksa-ze-no.

Eat-I-can fire-sand-and-substance; eat-ing kills-not-me.


H'em lecu bautte lyh' thah' es'u thona.

H'em lecu bautte lyh' thah' es'u thona.

I can eat-subordinate glass it not hurt-antibenefactive


I figured I'd put Zomp's new Wede:i grammar to work, though I think I butchered the languages.

[Ghost]

Se ebeza creja ly, si syre nizic es.

(Ismain)

Wahoo! My first Almean translation! (hope it's right )

Oh, and...

Jhov rvn e" sam / el a'nem sam je

(Jaueqao myys)

(not really on-topic, but I'm sure it doesn't matter too much, considering the time and effort I put into the Ismain translation! )

Ghost

[insumaro]

Hehe, if you noticed, I avoided Zomp's langs with gender, case, etc.

How'd we do, Zomp?

[zompist]

OK, since you ask...

Wede:i

1. Unmarked word order is SOV... you can depart from this, but I don't see a good reason to here.
2. I rather like ngolzau for 'glass'. It should get the accusative marker though.

So:

Ngolzauwo go:z?ingju; go:z?ur koksazeno.

Next, Kebreni

1. The subordinating form should precede the finite verb.
2. There should really be some conjunction... the best I can think of that fits is just eh'c 'and'.
3. Negatives are formed using a subordinator, and as they are the main verb they take the antibenefactive: os'a 'not-antib.'

So:

H'em bautte lecu lyh' eh'c thaunte os'a.

Finally, Isma?n:

1. Ebezn is irregular (see the irregular verbs section), 'I can' is yza.
2. 'Eat' should be in the infinitive.

So:

Se yza crejn ly, si syre es.

Don't be discouraged; these aren't easy languages; I think you did well.

[Ghost]

Don't be discouraged; these aren't easy languages; I think you did well.

Melnida!

Ghost

[Neek]

And for Comparison, why not (of course, I'm pretty sure someone's already done it) in Verdurian and Barakhinei.

Verdurian:
So steklo, ilet epai crezhen, rho et vashe[1].

[1] I wasn't sure whether a conjunction was necessary, since it isn't in English (but I trust such logic should never work...). I had tried looking for a equivalent to English for, or perhaps with lesser force the Latin nam, however, the terms I found were either not too close or archaic.

Barakhinei:
?z? krech? l?, s?k dh?br?-s?th[2].

[2] I wasn't sure whether the pronoun still preceded a negated verb, so I cliticized the pronoun at the end with the negative out front. Again, I wasn't sure which conjunctive to use...

[insumaro]

I just tried the Flaidish.

7ok sachno porrt; neva 7emvon mauk troomen.

7ok sach-no porr-t; ne-va 7en-von mauk troom-en.

I eat-definate-irrealis glass-acc; it(sub.)-me(acc.) habit-not can hurt-infinitive

A little more complicated then Wede:i syntax, I must say. (Not sure if syntax is the right word to describe the situation, but whatever.)

[zompist]

I just tried the Flaidish.

7ok sachno porrt; neva 7emvon mauk troomen.

7ok sach-no porr-t; ne-va 7en-von mauk troom-en.

I eat-definate-irrealis glass-acc; it(sub.)-me(acc.) habit-not can hurt-infinitive

Irrealis isn't quite right here; it'd mean "I might eat glass". You can use mauk 'can' here. And 'mauk' isn't needed in the second sentence. So:

7ok 7enmauk sachen porrt; neva 7emvon troomen.

Porr actually means 'a glass'-- I need a separate word for the substance. I'll have to look at that at home.

[zompist]

And for Comparison, why not (of course, I'm pretty sure someone's already done it) in Verdurian and Barakhinei.

Verdurian:
So steklo, ilet epai crezhen, rho et vashe[1].

[1] I wasn't sure whether a conjunction was necessary, since it isn't in English (but I trust such logic should never work...). I had tried looking for a equivalent to English for, or perhaps with lesser force the Latin nam, however, the terms I found were either not too close or archaic.

In Verdurian, if you don't see a conjunction or preposition, you can assume it doesn't exist. Prokena 'because' would work, but leaving it out sounds fine to me.

Barakhinei:
?z? krech? l?, s?k dh?br?-s?th[2].

[2] I wasn't sure whether the pronoun still preceded a negated verb, so I cliticized the pronoun at the end with the negative out front. Again, I wasn't sure which conjunctive to use...

Looks like I didn't say... my feeling however is that it should be negative - object pron. - verb:

?z? krech? l?, s?k s?th dh?br?.

(The underline in ?z? is just to indicate the irregular stress.)

[Shm Jay]

Let me try it in Elkar?l:

T?mth ly?d p?m b?th mbb?thqebat; t?t-ddar jumat t?mth.