zompist bboard

zompist wrote:Thanks for finding the typos; they should be corrected now.

One's left:
Chôpam chukno pmôtil (inwi).
hug.past.D physician know-act.part (child)
I hugged the physician who healed (the child).

zompist wrote:I think I'd say Jarul pelkho gogotálh dhedhlêkno..., i.e. there are no herdsmen without the ktuvoks. (Chal is existential ‘be’. As the subject is the herdsmen, it’s demoted to E.)

Thanks.

Don't referents inherit rank? BTW, was tending to the nampálh's sub-herds a prestigious profession in Munkhash? I considered pelkho, but I thought that might end up meaning something else. (herdsmen for me exist only because of ktuvoks)

It's creepy how many religions use herd animal metaphors to characterize the faithful. Christian flock, Zen bull/cowherd, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, tantric traditions compare them to powerful demonic (in might, not in conduct) entities chained to whatever standards of reason, virtue, etc. the religion aspires to.

zompist wrote:metsil (as this is a verb).

Oops.

Is the usage of "named" as in Shunshrakhalh acceptable in Munkhashi?

Maybe I should actually read the grammars before posting translations from now on, instead of just Ctrl+Fing through them. /idle_dream

PS. Um... The very first sentence in the Uyse7 grammar is still missing a word (must) in the gloss.

cedh audmanh wrote:I suppose Ervëa and Attafei could have used the E form legitimately, but of course they wouldn't have used the language of their enemies. BTW, which language did they use to communicate with each other?

They had to use interpreters. (At the beginning they had to go through Axunašin. But the war was long enough that there was plenty of time to train direct Caďinor-Tžuro interpreter.)

I think I've spotted a problem with the singular conjugation of "want". From E-A it runs

grit, krit, krit, krith, krith

But following the consonant mutation rules, shouldn't that be "gdit, ktit, kthit, kthith, kthrith" as in kthith engel alh? And shouldn't "khrithi" (A dual) be "kthrithi" and the A plural "kthrithu"?

Mornche Geddick wrote:I think I've spotted a problem with the singular conjugation of "want". From E-A it runs

grit, krit, krit, krith, krith

But following the consonant mutation rules, shouldn't that be "gdit, ktit, kthit, kthith, kthrith" as in kthith engel alh? And shouldn't "khrithi" (A dual) be "kthrithi" and the A plural "kthrithu"?

No, krit begins with a cluster, so it follows the second mutation path. (And as the second sound is r, nothing much happens to it.)

rotting ham wrote:Don't referents inherit rank?

No; in the absence of personal pronouns this would be inviting chaos.

BTW, was tending to the nampálh's sub-herds a prestigious profession in Munkhash?

No... remember everything belonged to the nampálh.

Is the usage of "named" as in Shunshrakhalh acceptable in Munkhashi?

It's odd to conjugate it in a derivation, so I'd just use Shunchakálh.

Then shouldn't the dual be griti, kriti, kriti, krithi, krithi and the plural gritu, kritu, kritu, krithu, krithu? Is krit irregular?

Yes, it's fixed now.

One question to start, do you think a would be [a] or [A]?

FWIW, I have fond memories of both Oxford and Cambridge. I had lunch in the Inklings' favorite pub, I went punting on both the Cam and the Isis (and was proud of myself for not falling in), and had a nice tea somewhere at the riverside near Cambridge.

In Dhekhnami, zh and wa both cliticize to the next word; it's fair to assume that this was true of Munkhâshi as well. (Dhekhnami zh also assimilates in voicing, but this may not have happened with Munkhâshi.)

According to the phonotactics, only sh can appear before consonants at the beginning of a word. What implications does that have?

An error:
Under Interrogatives in the Syntax:
Since the identify of the person is unknown, their rank is too.
should be
Since the identity of the person is unknown, their rank is too.
I saw something similar earlier but I didn't jot it down and now I can't find it.

Lot's of interesting ideas in there. I barely need to say this but the rank system is especially pleasing. I wonder, is there a way to seize control over a rank in a conversation? Say, two soldiers are talking and the first to speak starts using B but the opposing one, being of the same rank doesn't feel like following etiquette and wants to refer to himself as B, is there any way for him to use the B-form and indicate that it does not refer to the other one?

I am also a huge fan of your somewhat minimalistic coordination/subordination system. Very nice.

So does Dhekhnami have a more conventional three-person pronoun system?

Yes-- sound change ruined the five-rank system, so something else was needed to distinguish reference.

So I've read the grammar this morning; overall, it's well-done, but the little errors caught me off guard.

There are two such that I've found in one reading: In the section labeled "Direction", you write "showing the direction prefix in red", yet the text is in blue. In Numbers, you write "Other two-digit numbers follow the formula zh , thus", which implies more was to go there.

I'm impressed. Just damn impressed otherwise. I'm still feeling as though the rank structure needs more description. Just a taste, and I feel a little confused. Maybe providing just glosses of how a conversation would run to show it work better?

I appreciate that the culture and mentality bleeds through so well. I would expect that the Munkâsh were a hard-working, very cynical and sarcastic group of individuals. And I'm also glad to see that the ktuvoks aren't in any way redeemed by this; they cannot be romanticized, nor can they justified in their actions. A cold, scientific façade helps dehumanize the situation, but that's the closest we can get to comprehending their treatment of human: We are as cattle to them, and that is just how they treat us.

I will say this, because I want to read a little more indepth on the grammar: I think this would be far better were it written like a native grammar, such as the Cadhinorian grammar, if only because I know it would be rather humorous.

The link for 'Ktuvok empire' goes to 'aleopedia', not to almeopedia.

When is Dhekhnami coming? What about Obenzayet?

More errors fixed, thanks.

vecfaranti wrote:I barely need to say this but the rank system is especially pleasing. I wonder, is there a way to seize control over a rank in a conversation? Say, two soldiers are talking and the first to speak starts using B but the opposing one, being of the same rank doesn't feel like following etiquette and wants to refer to himself as B, is there any way for him to use the B-form and indicate that it does not refer to the other one?

Sure— issue a formal challenge (gdêkmu). If you want a different rank, you have to be willing to fight for it. (After all, you can't become a king just by calling yourself "My Majesty".)

The protocol for challenges, and Munkhâshi society in general, make it very clear what everyone's relative status is. After a fight it's evident to everyone who lost (and there should be witnesses).

Neek wrote:I'm still feeling as though the rank structure needs more description. Just a taste, and I feel a little confused.

You're in luck, to the tune of one paragraph—the very last paragraph of the Rank section was chopped up, due to a missing ">". (The first sample text, by the way, is an example of the use of rank, including a change.)

(The "thus" in the Numbers section referred to the following table. I added a colon to make it read better.)

zompist wrote:Sure— issue a formal challenge (gdêkmu). If you want a different rank, you have to be willing to fight for it. (After all, you can't become a king just by calling yourself "My Majesty".)

Can Munkashis issue a challenge by using a higher rank form than their counterpart if they're actually lower rank? Can you use lower-rank forms as insult, like you can do using informal pronouns instead of the applicable formal pronoun in languages like German or Russian?
What forms do Munkashis use when rank is not established, e.g. when strangers of about the same age and without other clear indications of status meet in a city or on the road or another setting where they don't immediately know the other's rank? Do they have to challenge a stranger first in order to establish rank before asking the way to the local Gelalh shrine, or are there some default options, like, say, the one asking the question assumes to be of lower rank out of politeness?

It is noted in the grammar that if two people meet, and are uncertain of their rank, then the one who firsts start talking uses the B rank, and the other uses the D rank.

Neek wrote:It is noted in the grammar that if two people meet, and are uncertain of their rank, then the one who firsts start talking uses the B rank, and the other uses the D rank.

Seems I overlooked that - so the correct behaviour is assertiveness, not humility.

hwhatting wrote:

Neek wrote:It is noted in the grammar that if two people meet, and are uncertain of their rank, then the one who firsts start talking uses the B rank, and the other uses the D rank.

Seems I overlooked that - so the correct behaviour is assertiveness, not humility.

In a culture where respect is earned by proving oneself worth it, I would not expect less about Munkhashi behaviour.

I would. The natural course is humility simply for reasons of self-preservation: if you start out too humble you can correct yourself once you know the facts, but if you start out too presumptious and then find out you're outmatched, you've seriously pissed-off somebody more powerful than you.

Salmoneus wrote:I would. The natural course is humility simply for reasons of self-preservation: if you start out too humble you can correct yourself once you know the facts, but if you start out too presumptious and then find out you're outmatched, you've seriously pissed-off somebody more powerful than you.

As far as I understood, a Munkhashi will defer to any acknowledged superior. Among equals, however, it would seem that he does not, for reasons that I do understand, since it's pretty much the modus operandi of my own society.

Salmoneus wrote:I would. The natural course is humility simply for reasons of self-preservation: if you start out too humble you can correct yourself once you know the facts, but if you start out too presumptious and then find out you're outmatched, you've seriously pissed-off somebody more powerful than you.

so long as you haven't pissed off a ktuvok, its recoverable.

hwhatting wrote:Can Munkashis issue a challenge by using a higher rank form than their counterpart if they're actually lower rank?

Yes, though it's bad form. You're not supposed to be subtle about it... if you think you can take someone, you should go for it. (A subordinate may resent his rank, of course. But it would be rather ridiculous to verbally claim a higher rank without being willing to fight.)

Can you use lower-rank forms as insult, like you can do using informal pronouns instead of the applicable formal pronoun in languages like German or Russian?

Yes, within the limitations of the five-rank system. E.g. where a D form is expected you could use E. (But this could cause some confusion if you have to refer to a third party.)

Zompist, I was wondering if you could answer one of the questions in the original post, since I find it really fascinating. Is the rank system native to Munkhashi, and extent in some form or another in the related langs, or is it something that the ktuvoks created to control their subjects? Or partially both? For example, the other Eynleyni langs (or Proto-Eynleyni) had some kind of additional rank system, but it wasn't as fundamentally integrated into the language as in Munkhashi, the ktuvoks enlarged it, etc.

If the rank system is not an indigenous Eynleyni feature in either way, I have to ask who implemented it? The ktuvoks don't really seem like entities which would spend much time on conlanging, philology, etc. Maybe one of their human subjects created/modified the system? Or maybe one of those unsuccessful ktuvoks mentioned in the almeopedia article on ktuvok empires, a "nerdy" one with nothing else to do with their time?

Yes! Just noticed the page was up.

Rather interesting language, even if a bit dark in some respects. As far as terrestrial politics go, I could easily imagine the Dhekhnami instinctively treating the Spaniards more deferentially than the Italians, and the Icelanders most deferentially of all, and getting the wrong idea on the origin of "High German" vs. "Low German".

I also think Tolkien would be quite fascinated by this language, as it would probably look to him like a seamless blend of Sindarin and Black Speech

I understand that Dhekhnami lost one of the ranks... Almeopedia seems to be down, so which is it?

One thing I found rather odd was the lack of "f" (or "ph"), while "th", "dh", "kh" are present. It is my impression that "f" is by far the most common of the voiceless fricatives, borne out by the fact we have a single letter for it, that we still use.

BGMan wrote: It is my impression that "f" is by far the most common of the voiceless fricatives, borne out by the fact we have a single letter for it, that we still use.

Not quite - there's also s - which Munkhâshi also lacks.