zompist bboard

I tried to make this fit the form of the kh?sh, without as much attention to the difficulty. It might be rather easy, and I'm putting it up partly to find out.

Bb?th rij xomaj phimqebat, p-t?t-j?nat p?m.
Onat qurd q?l-t?t-barsh p-q?l-t?t-shun, p-q?l-nddar.
Pakhdat xib rij, p-onat q?lat.

Some linguistic notes:

-I'm using nddar for "weapon" (="harmer"); this seems to work.
-Is it bad grammar to say t?t-shun rather than sh?n? For purposes of parallelism I want to say "not heavy" rather than "light."

I'm still thinking about what it is...

Ihano wrote:I'm using nddar for "weapon" (="harmer"); this seems to work.
-Is it bad grammar to say t?t-shun rather than sh?n? For purposes of parallelism I want to say "not heavy" rather than "light."

I like nddar for 'weapon'; consider it offically adopted.

T?t-shun is fine; it could also be tshun (the difference is parallel to 'not heavy' vs. 'unheavy').

zompist wrote:I'm still thinking about what it is...

Ihano wrote:I'm using nddar for "weapon" (="harmer"); this seems to work.
-Is it bad grammar to say t?t-shun rather than sh?n? For purposes of parallelism I want to say "not heavy" rather than "light."

I like nddar for 'weapon'; consider it offically adopted.

T?t-shun is fine; it could also be tshun (the difference is parallel to 'not heavy' vs. 'unheavy').

Thanks. And here's a hint: don't get hung up on nddar; that's just one of the things it can be.

I've just realised:
While most people here are vehemently anti-prescriptivist with regards to natlangs, when it comes to (their own) conlangs they're not hesistant in saying "that's right" and "that's wrong" and so on.

Just a thought. Feel free to rip it out of me.

Rory wrote:While most people here are vehemently anti-prescriptivist with regards to natlangs, when it comes to (their own) conlangs they're not hesistant in saying "that's right" and "that's wrong" and so on.

Actually I'd be exactly the same about a natlang. Allow me to explain.

There's two main reasons people get something wrong when trying to use a particular variety of a language:

1. They're importing a rule or word from another variety of the language. This is where prescriptive/descriptive debates come in: "I ain't done nothin'" is not standard English, but it's perfectly valid in many dialects. This sort of error is hard to commit in conlangs... not many people would even be able to produce a Viminianism in Verdurian.

2. They're getting the rules of the language wrong, or importing rules or words from another language entirely (perhaps their own). This can happen in a natlang as well as a conlang: if you write j'ai arriver in French, that's just wrong.

There are also spurious rules, such as "don't end a sentence with a preposition"-- which are cases where the grammarian, not the victim of his corrections, has got his grammar wrong.

I basically agree with Mark's comments above.

zompist wrote:not many people would even be able to produce a Viminianism in Verdurian.

Interestingly enough, the only person other than Mark that I know has done so is...Ihano, our Elkaril riddle-master above , in his masterful translation of T.S. Eliot's poem "The Hollow Men" into Verdurian, back in 2001 (on the old Virtual Verduria board).

p@,
Glenn

Glenn Kempf wrote:

zompist wrote:not many people would even be able to produce a Viminianism in Verdurian.

Interestingly enough, the only person other than Mark that I know has done so is...Ihano, our Elkaril riddle-master above , in his masterful translation of T.S. Eliot's poem "The Hollow Men" into Verdurian, back in 2001 (on the old Virtual Verduria board).

Very true! Though you also have to add Philip Newton, who created a 404 page for his site in Viminian.

(Man, I really should go back to my project of creating sound changes for a passel of Verdurian dialects. Though I should really learn some more dialectology first.)

404 page in Viminian? I thought Viminian's would've been suckered into using AOL.

Though you also have to add Philip Newton, who created a 404 page for his site in Viminian.

Sounds interesting. Can you give a link?

Forgive mine ignorance, but what's Viminian?

IIRC, Viminia is a rural area of Verduria that lots of Verdurian people make fun of (with Viminian being their dialect, of course).

pharazon wrote:IIRC, Viminia is a rural area of Verduria that lots of Verdurian people make fun of (with Viminian being their dialect, of course).

Basically correct; Viminia is an independent kingdom that borders Verduria to the southeast (you can see it on the map of the Cadhinorian Plain); the population, like Verduria's, is largely of Cadhinorian origin, although they spent time under the rule of an outside people (the Caizurians, I believe). They tend to be "Southern" in appearance--lighter of skin and hair than most Verdurians (remember that Almea is in the southern hemisphere). In Mitushek's tale, a Viminian is described as blond.

Viminia is indeed largely rural, and the Viminians are the much-ridiculed "hillbillies" of the Verdurian world (see the Verdurian Culture Test for an example of a Viminian joke or two). They speak a very distinctive dialect of Verdurian, which is likewise considered a sign of "backwardness". In Mark's page on Verdurian dialects, this is reflected in the sample of Viminian he provides (actually, I enjoy all of his humorous "dialect samples"):

(Viminian):
Ceyui so ern yazhe swa sura, ceyui so mot e debec de wef?n, ot?l se fsurai pro dimon de tizhdapaye.

(standard Verdurian (Mazhtane):
[Com so ?rn yage soa sura, com so mot e devec lefei, oz? ai im fsur?n pro oshoran tizhapazhi?.]

(English):
As the eagle hunts the mouse, as the sheep is prey to the wolf, so am I hungry for a mess o' catfish.

Probably more info than you needed , but I like to plug Mark's more obscure pages.

p@,
Glenn

Ah, so the Viminians are the Alm?an version of the Canadians

zompist wrote:

Rory wrote:While most people here are vehemently anti-prescriptivist with regards to natlangs, when it comes to (their own) conlangs they're not hesistant in saying "that's right" and "that's wrong" and so on.

Actually I'd be exactly the same about a natlang. Allow me to explain.

There's two main reasons people get something wrong when trying to use a particular variety of a language:

1. They're importing a rule or word from another variety of the language. This is where prescriptive/descriptive debates come in: "I ain't done nothin'" is not standard English, but it's perfectly valid in many dialects. This sort of error is hard to commit in conlangs... not many people would even be able to produce a Viminianism in Verdurian.

2. They're getting the rules of the language wrong, or importing rules or words from another language entirely (perhaps their own). This can happen in a natlang as well as a conlang: if you write j'ai arriver in French, that's just wrong.

There are also spurious rules, such as "don't end a sentence with a preposition"-- which are cases where the grammarian, not the victim of his corrections, has got his grammar wrong.

Ah right, thank you.

Well, since nobody besides zomp has chimed in on the riddle yet, I'll proceed with the English version. Being the original, this should be clearer.

I speak to you, but I have no voice.
I am not sharp or heavy, but I am a weapon.
You open me up, but there is only me inside.
What am I?

Rory wrote:Ah, so the Viminians are the Alm?an version of the Canadians

More like southerners I would think.

Rory wrote:Ah, so the Viminians are the Alm?an version of the Canadians

Hey. I resemble that remark.

This actually makes me wonder what jokes the Viminians make about the Verdurians, and how they see Verduria. In Canada, it's fairly common to look on the cultural entity of "America" in one of two ways:

1) A big, exciting, glamorous-but-dirty place to the south which is neat to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there; or

2) (Politically speaking) a big and friendly but fairly dumb dog that's really nice to be around, so long as you don't let it crap on your lawn.

I'd be curious to see if Viminian attitudes paralleled this pattern at all.

The Canadian counterpart of the Viminians would undoubtedly be Maritimers, especially Newfoundlanders. But it's affectionate ribbing...

And all that inspired me to attempt a kh?sh of my own:

On t?l-xur d?p put j?ggt?q rum
Pung t?l-xur thurj?xuq t?qq
Put q?l-thurj?xuqur d?pkh j?ggt?q
Puuuuukh rij?j
??ldth ph?bqajephlush b-?unuq lusher

Hint: lately no one can avoid it when I bring up this subject, not even if they take refuge in Elkar?l grammar

I had to compound a lot of words from the vocabulary. It probably doesn?t make any grammatical sense. I just can?t figure out Elkar?l syntax! Help! Oh, well, this kh?sh would probably be said by someone who?s been at the forge too long.

P.S. If my Elkar?l is too ungrammatical, I will parse what I was trying to say.

[the Elkar?l later edited so as not to sound quite so like something from an Elkar bachelor?s party]

Ihano wrote:Well, since nobody besides zomp has chimed in on the riddle yet, I'll proceed with the English version.

On nal-p?m t-nandu?

T?t, t?t-j?nat p?m, p-tonat p?m.

(t-nandu -- took me awhile to figure that out. If elcar are so big on riddles, they probably ought to have a word for "answer." But failing that, onat nal-p?m would probably be clearer.)

Shm Jay wrote:P.S. If my Elkar?l is too ungrammatical, I will parse what I was trying to say.

Since you're making new compound nouns, apparently for foods and other strange things, might you first tell us what your intended meanings are for those in particular?

j?ggt?q - tart-root?
thurjixuq - if this is thurj?xuq, snack-rye-substance? rye bread?
ph?bqajephlush - somethings-animal-water?

At the last line, I think you mean ??ldth instead of ?eldth.

Looking forward to piecing it together tho'!

Ihano wrote: j?ggt?q - tart-root?
thurjixuq - if this is thurj?xuq, snack-rye-substance? rye bread?
ph?bqajephlush - somethings-animal-water?

At the last line, I think you mean ??ldth instead of ?eldth.

I edited the last line, and found I forgot a word after j?ggt?q which should make it perfectly clear when you think about what?s the favourite j?gg here.

thurj?xuq is right, though it would work better if I had a word for ?wheat?. Maybe t?qq should be t-tuq. Are the -?- adjectives the opposite of the -u- adjectives?

As for ph?b-, I tried to derive it from m?b-. What would be the fricative for a word beginning with m-?

A guess on Ihano's riddle: ??muq?

Jay's is too strange for me...

As for the Viminians, they would have some complex reactions. They were briefly ruled by Verduria during some periods in their history; though they don't look back at this with either horror or longing, there are dynastic links-- in effect Verduria is a source of legitimacy, as well as a possible bulwark against barbarians, such as the Caizurans. It's also the richest and most advanced state on the Plain, which generates both admiration and resentment.

The Verdurians that Viminians are most likely to meet are traders, adventurers, and schemers... fast-talking city slickers who are as likely to be plotting a scam as to be proposing a mutually beneficial deal. Viminian jokes about Verdurians tend to be stories of canny old farmers outsmarting rude travelers, rather like the old jokes about Vermonters. (E.g. a lost New Yorker asks an old gentleman, "Does this road go to Boston?" and is told that it's not going anywhere, and so on, till the exasperated city slicker comments "You're pretty stupid, aren't you?" and the old man comments "Maybe so, but I ain't the one who's lost.")

zompist wrote: Jay's is too strange for me...

I think what I made up is a murtany?s equivalent of a kh?sh. Or rather, the kind of thing they come up with when they?re satirically imitating the elcars? penchant for riddles. But it does have an answer in the Elkar?l vocabulary.

My next guess for Ihano?s riddle is buph?j.

zompist wrote:A guess on Ihano's riddle: ??muq?

?t!

Bb?th ihanoqebit kh?shoj k?n jel.

(??mit rijxom elkar?l.)

Ihano! the answer to my khash was ndoph. I forgot to post it.