zompist bboard

What are its most distinctive traits?

Our Boardlord needs to grow another brain in order to answer that

As far as can be discerned, its main distinguishing feature is that it's beyond the comprehension of lesser beings. So yeah.

I used to answer questions like this with "Ask me again in 10 years." However, some of those promissory notes are coming dangerously close to due.

As a treat, the print LCK contains an annotated sample of Eteodäole.

But other than that, you'll have to wait till I get around to translating the Avélan scholars' treatment of the language.

Is it me or your description in the LCK implies their use of "mentalemes", using their vision-sharing to convey semantic/morphosyntactic meaning? That's what I understood of it, and it sounds very plausible.

Yeah, pretty much. There's not much call to say "I saw a huge shark with a chunk out of his dorsal fin" if you can directly produce a mental image.

zompist wrote:Yeah, pretty much. There's not much call to say "I saw a huge shark with a chunk out of his dorsal fin" if you can directly produce a mental image.

Can they tweak their mental images, that is, if they have the vivid memory of some event, can they project it with some tweaks to include additional information? The idea that they can tell stories that way seems to make it plausible. And if so, the idea of a "mentaleme" makes even more sense.

Also, about the mental image, is it strictly visual or does it involve other senses (to the point that they could convey pain, for instance)? As you said through Beretos's experience, it would be indistinguishable from reality, so I suppose that there is at least more than "visual cues" used.

(I could also understand why their language, even if using their mental image capacity, could still include vocal components. After all, with all the writing that WE use, I haven't seen anyone physically healthy use only text messages to communicate with other people. Also, we don't all convey meaning through tones, as well, for a closer example.)

Finally, is there only one ilian language? If yes, are there dialects, or other social or regional differences?

Is it easier or harder than Ithkuil?

rotting ham wrote:Is it easier or harder than Ithkuil?

At least, I know I'd never be able to speak it. With all the image-projecting stuff.

Yiuel wrote:At least, I know I'd never be able to speak it. With all the image-projecting stuff.

Would telepathic humans be able to speak it?

The iliu can tell a story with their power— Beretos's vision felt like primary reality (he didn't feel like he was seeing a hologram or a daydream or an image), but its contents were surreal. The one thing they can't convey is your own reaction— i.e. they could conjure up a monster but they can't make you afraid. (You might be afraid of the monster, but it's your reaction, not theirs.)

They can use language to convey sense data too, just as they can draw pictures... it's just not the primary use or purpose of the language.

There are many varieties, down to the individual level; since iliu travel a lot and live for centuries, they're exposed to many of these. Rather than producing a set of phonemes, speaking Eteodäole is something like performing jazz. How you play with the medium is as important as what you say.

As for telepathic humans, it depends on how you define the telepathy.

zompist wrote:As for telepathic humans, it depends on how you define the telepathy.

Look, suppose we had whatever organs or magic the iliu use to convey mentalemes. Would our memory and intellect measure up to the challenge of tackling the rest of Eteodãole grammar in real time, or would we have to spend a decade or two secluded in a hermitage with a copy of Eteodãole for Dummies rendered in hymns? I presume that's what it'd take to get a human being to speak Ilaksh, only the poor guy would probably lose the ability to speak any other language afterwards. Would even that be enough for Eteodãole?

This a fairly straightforward question, isn't it?

I mean, ignoring technical challenges like simultaneous visualization and articulation, etc, how inhuman is the underlying idealism? How complex is the morphology? How long does it take human experts to frame simple Eteodaole sentences in it's written incarnation?

Relieved to see Eteodaole is still as impenetrable as ever: http://www.almeopedia.com/index.php/Eteod%C3%A4ole

I would've ordered the LCK, but I can't afford airmail. The only time I ordered something from Amazon, it took them over 3 months to complete the delivery. (2 months overdue) I'm waiting for the downloadable PDF.

Here's another question: from my own reading of the LCK, there don't seem to be that many vowel sounds in Eteodāole, which given the medium makes sense; the iliu appear to rely on changes in length and pitch, something that carries further in water (yes, I am copying wholesale, sorry). What I wonder, then, is what language the word Eteodāole comes from, presumably as the best possible form of transcription the folks had. From the look of it, I'd say Cuêzi, but I could be wrong.

We don't have an origin for Eteodäole: it's not Cuezi. It's been said to be a human approximation of Ilian sounds but we don't have enough information to say.

(I think this info was in the original Almeopedia article but lost during the Great Crash).

As for vowel quantities, I wouldn't say it's likely that the language has any lack of them; it seems to be quite vocalic. There's a suggestion that it doesn't have phonemic inventories in the same way a human language would though.

To be precise, the form of the word is Cuêzi, but it's not analyzable. There are a number of such terms. The ancient explanation is that they were remembered from the previous era of civilization, but this is unlikely.

Apparently, Almea's equivalent of Pelasgian.

First off, Čeykirc, I do know it's not a Cuzeian word. I just can't recall the word for "word that is as close an approximation of another word as possible in the first language".
Hmm. Personally, I'm not sure...I mean, Zompist did posit suggestions that the Count of Years was at least partially accurate in telling a coherent account of Almea's past, but not for names of languages. (I'm fairly certain the name Eteodāole wasn't mentioned in CoY, but I'd have to check.) More to the point, I'd still say it's an approximation of iliu sounds for a human tongue, but we'd need another language whose speakers actually had some real contact with them, like the Qaraus, before it can be decided.

zompist wrote:To be precise, the form of the word is Cuêzi, but it's not analyzable. There are a number of such terms. The ancient explanation is that they were remembered from the previous era of civilization, but this is unlikely.

...and in the Doylist explanation, it's a retained word from proto-Almea where Ilian was much more mundane and "Elvish"-like.

Ah. Are there any other remnants of this elvish Eteodäole elsewhere?