Xurnese

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

It probably depends on weither Cheiy retained a learned class. If writing was in use and well established from the beginning of colonization, even if only for a small group of learned notables, conservatism will be strong. Almost to the point of writing in the last version of normative Axunasin if still (somehow) recognizable from daily speech.

[brandrinn]

It probably depends on weither Cheiy retained a learned class. If writing was in use and well established from the beginning of colonization, even if only for a small group of learned notables, conservatism will be strong. Almost to the point of writing in the last version of normative Axunasin if still (somehow) recognizable from daily speech.

What about spelling reform? There have been literate elites writing in most European languages for centuries, and most of them have had at least some spelling reform (some more than others of course). Cheiy might have the political will to reform to distance themselves from their Xurnese neighbors. Maybe they've had a recent public literacy campaign. Maybe they're just tired of Tshuro visitors mispronouncing all their names (quite a feat, considering Tshuro speakers must have prehensile tongues to begin with).

[Shm Jay]

What might be interesting is a page with the same sample text in all the Almean languages we know of: the local equivalent of The Sheep and the Horses; and maybe also something more modern for the modern languages.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

It probably depends on weither Cheiy retained a learned class. If writing was in use and well established from the beginning of colonization, even if only for a small group of learned notables, conservatism will be strong. Almost to the point of writing in the last version of normative Axunasin if still (somehow) recognizable from daily speech.

What about spelling reform? There have been literate elites writing in most European languages for centuries, and most of them have had at least some spelling reform (some more than others of course). Cheiy might have the political will to reform to distance themselves from their Xurnese neighbors. Maybe they've had a recent public literacy campaign. Maybe they're just tired of Tshuro visitors mispronouncing all their names (quite a feat, considering Tshuro speakers must have prehensile tongues to begin with).

Well, considering that Xurno has been among the least conservative countries of Almea, we could have imagined that they would have updated their orthography. But it wasn't the case. What was Axunashin attitude towards written language? Spelling reforms are rare and minimal. Perhaps the only thing that would encourage Cheiy is their attitude toward their language : they feel is as distinct. However, would they reform towards phonemism?

[brandrinn]

It probably depends on weither Cheiy retained a learned class. If writing was in use and well established from the beginning of colonization, even if only for a small group of learned notables, conservatism will be strong. Almost to the point of writing in the last version of normative Axunasin if still (somehow) recognizable from daily speech.

What about spelling reform? There have been literate elites writing in most European languages for centuries, and most of them have had at least some spelling reform (some more than others of course). Cheiy might have the political will to reform to distance themselves from their Xurnese neighbors. Maybe they've had a recent public literacy campaign. Maybe they're just tired of Tshuro visitors mispronouncing all their names (quite a feat, considering Tshuro speakers must have prehensile tongues to begin with).

Well, considering that Xurno has been among the least conservative countries of Almea, we could have imagined that they would have updated their orthography. But it wasn't the case. What was Axunashin attitude towards written language? Spelling reforms are rare and minimal. Perhaps the only thing that would encourage Cheiy is their attitude toward their language : they feel is as distinct. However, would they reform towards phonemism?

I don't think that political liberalism means a willingness to reform orthography. After all, England was one of the most liberal and democratic countries in Europe for centuries, and look at our conservative spelling! Perhaps a conservative country, with must-be-obeyed authorities handing down reforms would be even more likely to enact spelling reform (I'm thinking of Russia and North Korea, but there are plenty of other examples).

[BGMan]

Ah, spelling reforms... it seems to me that there's little predictability on who would have spelling reforms and who doesn't. Sure, you have the Soviets in Russia, but on the other hand, the spelling reform of Portuguese... and the Portuguese aren't exactly the strictest people around.

I think the success of spelling reforms depends upon how drastic they are. If they are merely cosmetic, it's doable... but if it would necessitate a total overhaul of the language's orthography (as just about any spelling reform of English would appear to require), or if it would cause a proliferation of homonyms being spelled the same way (which is apparently why the Japanese won't get rid of kanji, even though the Koreans did), then it would seem to me to be just about impossible to implement.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

Ah, spelling reforms... it seems to me that there's little predictability on who would have spelling reforms and who doesn't. Sure, you have the Soviets in Russia, but on the other hand, the spelling reform of Portuguese... and the Portuguese aren't exactly the strictest people around.

I think the success of spelling reforms depends upon how drastic they are. If they are merely cosmetic, it's doable... but if it would necessitate a total overhaul of the language's orthography (as just about any spelling reform of English would appear to require), or if it would cause a proliferation of homonyms being spelled the same way (which is apparently why the Japanese won't get rid of kanji, even though the Koreans did), then it would seem to me to be just about impossible to implement.

Japanese Orthographic Reform has been drastic. I've read a whole chapter in a book about it (in Japanese, so its like a native perspective), and it was shocking. Then again, Japan was autoritarian back then. I think the only reason why they kept kanji is because the whole Meiji period saw a proliferation of kango, which are easily understood with kanji, and also the use of kanji to distinguish even native homonyms (like kakeru)

[C'eler]

Also, the Koreans have brought Hanja back. Seems that they found just Hangeul retarded.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

Also, the Koreans have brought Hanja back. Seems that they found just Hangeul retarded.

Not really, it has uses that I have found useful. It pretty much work like latin radicals : you can create words only using kanji (hanja) and they are easy to understand if you already know them. Example :

飲用水

I went to a barbecue once with Japanese people. I was thirsty like hell, and I just couldn't resist it the sink right in front of me when I was done with washing the vegetables for our lunch. I just took my hands and drank a whole handful of water (and repeated it a few times.) But the girl in front of me almost screamed out of fear. And then I said :

Inyousui tte kaite aru n janai?

Then she looked to where I was pointing, and she felt suprised at both how I read and understood. Yet, inyousui sounds scientific in tone. It means "water you can drink". Short and clear (three characters). And you can do a lot with them. And useful when you have people from Japan and China and Korea together. (And Non-Asian people like me who dare to learn these in depth.) いんようすい isn't as helpful.

[brandrinn]

I think you missed C'eler's point, Yiuel (see? I got it right this time). He said that just hangeul is retarded, and I agree. Does every Asian language have to have a million homophones? But I see no evidence that it's returning to common use. Hanja show up in business signs and newspapers and other places where people want to look cool or knowledgeable, but it seems that most people who haven't studied Japanese or Chinese don't know more than a couple dozen hanja at best. The only place I've consistently seen hanja used instead of hangeul is the days of the week.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

I think you missed C'eler's point, Yiuel (see? I got it right this time). He said that just hangeul is retarded, and I agree. Does every Asian language have to have a million homophones? But I see no evidence that it's returning to common use. Hanja show up in business signs and newspapers and other places where people want to look cool or knowledgeable, but it seems that most people who haven't studied Japanese or Chinese don't know more than a couple dozen hanja at best. The only place I've consistently seen hanja used instead of hangeul is the days of the week.

I think I did. (Shame on me) Well, I don't have much experience about Korea. Most things that I have seen from Korea were indeed written mostly in hangeul. In Japan, something opposite is somehow happening : kana (or even ro-maji, but they're bad at it) seems cooler. And because of computers, active knowledge of kanji is declining. I wonder if all this will disappear one day...

(see? I got it right this time)

Yéééé! (Now, if people could learn to get my RL name right... :p)

[hwhatting]

To answer Hans-Werner's question, beriludo is not an exception because the i derives from Axunashin ei, which doesn't trigger the use of -audo-.

Maybe it would be a good idea to reword that rule, in that case - at least I wouldn't expect that a diphthong consisting of two front vowels would be treated differently from a simple front vowel if I wasn't told specifically that it does...

[valinta]

I'm so glad that right before I started thinking "Hmm, I haven't wasted hours browsing through Virtual Verdúria in a while," the Xurnese grammar gets put up. This is great.

[jal]

/ks/ is listed as an affricate. Are there any natlangs that actually have a true affricate /ks/? I recently read a scientific report that debunked the believe that Greek has one.


JAL

[vec]

Zomp usually calls these stop+s clusters affricates, though technically they aren't.

[jal]

Zomp usually calls these stop+s clusters affricates, though technically they aren't.

A cluster affricate? I thought these were mutually exclusive?


JAL

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

Zomp usually calls these stop+s clusters affricates, though technically they aren't.

A cluster affricate? I thought these were mutually exclusive?


JAL

You misread. Here is the parsing intended :

(Zomp)SUB (calls)VEB (these (stop+s)ADJ clusters)OBJ (affricates)VOC though...

[jal]

You misread. Here is the parsing intended :

(Zomp)SUB (calls)VEB (these (stop+s)ADJ clusters)OBJ (affricates)VOC though...

Thanks for clearing that up, this is indeed a better parsing :).


JAL

[Niedokonany]

There is no gender agreement in Xurnese, but admittedly the plural paradigms usually correspond to the ancient gender— e.g. nouns ending in -a pluralize in -i (koma ‘house’ → komi) if they derive from the civú gender, but in -ay (rina ‘river’ → rinay) if they were goro gender. But instead of learning an arbitrary gender for many words, why not just remember the arbitrary plural?

Adjectives do not have gender, but they do form plurals—matching the noun’s plural suffix rather than having one of their own. For instance:

Aren't these statements contradictory? I think if adjectives form their plurals according to the described noun's plural inflection type, it's just a form of agreement: there are I-class nouns, AY-class nouns, Ú-class nouns, even if the system is devoid of any semantic signification.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

For one that is studying Xurnese (yes, I am trying to learn that language), I would disagree with your view.

What happens with adjectives is not that they agree in gender, but that they vocalically rime, if the plural ends in a vowel.

Adjectives do not completely agree, and also, plurals that happen to share the same form yet not having the same singular share the same adjectival ending, so gender would only be applied to plural forms. It seems weird to define a gender only for plurals, and determined only by a common phonological feature.

Simpler is the rule : the plural form of an adjective would be a common last vowel for the pair, determined by the plural form of the noun, if an only if plural have a vowel added to the form.

[zompist]

I wouldn't strongly object to calling the plural classes gender; but I think of the adjective agreement as largely morphological. The closest analogy I can think of is the use of different articles in Italian depending on the beginning of the following word, or perhaps the vowel-harmony variants of suffixes in Turkish.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

About the plural agreement of adjectives : I like it and I find it relatively easy (and it's a hundred times easier than plural itself), but have you ever seen a language that does exactly that? Except Esperanto where it agrees in pair like that (but plurality itself is always marked as /j/), I can't imagine among all languages that has been discussed here where such an original system would pop out.

Otherwise, coraus'i sinde sigri toteuse s'uc'i*. Tosaur ga xic ga zezinimú. An, reynú...

*Not sure of how you make an excessive form like "too difficult". I gave it a try.

[Niedokonany]

, but have you ever seen a language that does exactly that? Except Esperanto where it agrees in pair like that (but plurality itself is always marked as /j/), I can't imagine among all languages that has been discussed here where such an original system would pop out.

Only in the plural? Honestly, I haven't seen such a language (if the question is directed at me).

I wouldn't strongly object to calling the plural classes gender; but I think of the adjective agreement as largely morphological. The closest analogy I can think of is the use of different articles in Italian depending on the beginning of the following word, or perhaps the vowel-harmony variants of suffixes in Turkish.

Anyway, in my opinion it's somewhat weird to talk about relations between separate words, which aren't at least historically based on sandhi of some type, in terms of morphology. However, you shouldn't think that I'm that keen on leading prolonged discussions on such a slippery topic as linguistic terminology...

By the way, I heard that a similar case of copying of an ending to a previous word took place in Polish which made the preposition ku "towards" look the way it looks (PSl. *kъ should yield k or kie before a syllable with a weak yer and indeed such forms existed in Old Polish). -u is a quite frequent dative termination of adjectives and pronouns, and also some nouns take it.

Otherwise, coraus'i sinde na sigri toteuse s'uc'i*. Tosaur ga xic ga zezinimú. An, reynú...

At first look I thought it was some obscure Romance dialect Be it simply Xurnese, I won't try to guess what it means...

[jmcd]

The court forms of the pronouns are interesting.

"Xurnese has both inflected and synthetic tenses."
What do you mean by this? By being inflected, they're surely also synthetic anyway?
Later on, you say "The Xurnese verbal system consists of both inflected and analytic forms.".
Perhaps you typoed it the first time?

"it's the root from the present subjunctive (-id- / -im-)"
is it really a root, not an affix?

You've done a thorough and realistic derivational morphology.

I had to look up concatenation and atelier and my dictionary doesn't even have 'despective' in it. This hinders understanding a bit.

"The 3p Kyes kyes lajijeyc is ambiguous between They hit themselves and They hit some other people. "
Would 'they hit each other' also be a possible interpretation?

I like the examples of negation.

"I was fixin' to keep reading that book, but it's boring. "
Is this a normal colloquial American thing to use fix like this?

"As we know no other intelligent species, we are using to thinking of human beings as their own category, or as primates. "
I doubt intelligence is that important. I'd say it's simply because we are human.

I don't see how 'All ravens are black' and 'All non-ravens are non-black' are logically equivalent. The latter only says something about non-ravens. Ravens could be black or non-black or a mixture; we don't know just from that sentence.

I learnt some from the bits about previous linguists especially the bit about language acquisition.

How does one use 'damn me!' in English? Sorry to ask about English usage stuff but I can't find it elsewhere.

The bits with 'What about me?' seem so calqued from English.

[zompist]

Later on, you say "The Xurnese verbal system consists of both inflected and analytic forms.".
Perhaps you typoed it the first time?

Yep.

"it's the root from the present subjunctive (-id- / -im-)"
is it really a root, not an affix?

Should be 'affix'.

"The 3p Kyes kyes lajijeyc is ambiguous between They hit themselves and They hit some other people. "
Would 'they hit each other' also be a possible interpretation?

Yep.

"I was fixin' to keep reading that book, but it's boring. "
Is this a normal colloquial American thing to use fix like this?

No, it's dialectal-- Southern, if I recall correctly. The nonstandard gloss suggests the feeling of the Xurnese.

I don't see how 'All ravens are black' and 'All non-ravens are non-black' are logically equivalent.

I messed up the contrapositive. It should be "All non-black things are non-ravens."

As for "damn me", try Googling, but skip all the Guns n Roses lyrics...

Thanks for the comments!