zompist bboard

In a couple of days, people will celebrate Remembrance Day in many countries. So I decided to back translate one of my favorite dzusuisi into Xurnese for the occasion, regarding war.

"The pagans think that war is glorious. War is nothing but misery, exhaustion, brutality, and destruction. It is no more glorious, and it is easier, to kill a man than to slit the throat of a cow. The ktuvoks once, for their sport, made Axunemi kill each other. Is it glory that we continue to do so, without any ktuvoks to order us?"

Cu jue auliri na nansú omuc. Jue (1) palači dusrosmeludo (2) li šigosudo li kuvetudo mucauč nowsudo. (3) Cu to bunjisu jes na cu to bum o naus tetivuc na dopali auliri mucauč pali andes. Andaym, (4) šudzú ga, ramasú cu ceš playnu Asuné jese na dejuc. Cu yatuc na ramasú tes tas (5) cinde dmuna šimuc na auliri jic ze?
— Nauni Čeykirc

I wonder if my usage of Xurnese is correct. I had a few problems :

(1) Translating "nothing but". I decided for "palači" because it comes from "not more".
(2) Giving the feeling of a long enumeration without sounding boring. I decided to go with "li" but end with a final "mucauč" to give a final touch.
(3) Okay, here I had both a sentential constituent (that uses "cu... na") and a comparative (that also uses "cu... na"). Since they are not related syntactically, I decided to keep both "cu".
(4) I had to build a plural for "game", but fortunately -do names are very regular.
(5) I translated "continue to do" as "doing still thus"

Need to break out the grammar; I'll check this in a day or two.

You did really well; I'd suggest these changes:

1.dusrosmeludo is miserliness, not misery. I'd try biacudo 'abasement'.

2.In the second sentence, the subject shouldn't be subordinated. (It's a nominalization, which can be used as a sentential argument.) Also the comparison should be in the infinitive and probably should be just tetiy 'cut' as it's talking about cutting the throat, not amputating.

3. Andeym, not andaym

4. For 'do' I think you'd want the subjunctive (šum), as the idea is that we are (definitely) killing each other, nothing hypothetical about it.

So:

Cu jue auliri na nansú omuc. Jue palači biacudo li šigosudo li kuvetudo mucauč nowsudo. To bunjisu jes cu to bum o naus tetiy na dopali auliri mucauč pali andes. Andeym, šudzú ga, ramasú cu ceš playnu Asuné jese na dejuc. Cu yatuc na ramasú tes tas cinde dmuna šum na auliri jic ze?

zompist wrote:You did really well; I'd suggest these changes:

1.dusrosmeludo is miserliness, not misery. I'd try biacudo 'abasement'.

Yeah, there was nothing for misery itself. I could have gone the hard way and create a word from Axunasin, but it might have been way overkill. (And it would not have been canonical).

2.In the second sentence, the subject shouldn't be subordinated. (It's a nominalization, which can be used as a sentential argument.) Also the comparison should be in the infinitive and probably should be just tetiy 'cut' as it's talking about cutting the throat, not amputating.

The usage of subordination and infinitive is unlike any other language I have learned until now, so it was a bit confusing. Thisalso confused me a little. Okay for cut.

3. Andeym, not andaym

Ups. Also, in the lexicon itself, andeym is listed as "somewhere" and amnar is listed as "sometime". Do the "some-x" refer to unique referents ("one unspecified x") or multiple referents ("a few X"), or both. It wasn't clear, but etymology suggested the former.

4. For 'do' I think you'd want the subjunctive (šum), as the idea is that we are (definitely) killing each other, nothing hypothetical about it.

Indeed, and I don't remember why I used the subjunctive there where the indicative was way more appropriate.

So:

Cu jue auliri na nansú omuc. Jue palači biacudo li šigosudo li kuvetudo mucauč nowsudo. To bunjisu jes cu to bum o naus tetiy na dopali auliri mucauč pali andes. Andeym, šudzú ga, ramasú cu ceš playnu Asuné jese na dejuc. Cu yatuc na ramasú tes tas cinde dmuna šum na auliri jic ze?

So my understanding of Xurnese isn't that bad. I'd survive in Inex or Curau.

Just for the fun of it, I might as well try the back translation of all dzusuisi. With that, I'll get a really good theoretical understanding of Xurnese (language and culture). Don't think I'll go as far as trying to write in Xurnese writing. (We don't even have all the logographs anyway, and I am sure they have tons and tons.)

This is really good to see in the original form

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:We don't even have all the logographs anyway, and I am sure they have tons and tons.

I recall reading that there are 600-700 in current use, though I can't find the page source offhand.

You probably got it from the Axunashin writing page but it seems to apply to Axunashin only. We will have to wait for the Word of Iain for any confirmation.

If I understand it correctly, are dzusuisi like the Xurnese version of Zen koans? Overall, there seems to be quite a bit of Buddhism in Endajue (and Xurnese certainly looks very Japanese to me) -- is it intentional?

Ambrisio wrote:If I understand it correctly, are dzusuisi like the Xurnese version of Zen koans? Overall, there seems to be quite a bit of Buddhism in Endajue (and Xurnese certainly looks very Japanese to me) -- is it intentional?

The dzusuisi were short, but the citations on the Endajué page are not normally complete dzusuisi, just some of the better remembered lines from them. (Except for ne-Duox, who was famous for extremely short ones.)

There's undoubtedly a lot of Buddhism and Taoism in there, though no attempt to get to the same doctrine. I like the style of the Zen Masters and Laozi, though I rarely like their commentators very much.

I see one huge difference between Buddhism and Endajue philosophy: their respective treatment of moderation. Moderation in Buddhism is the middle way, no starvation, but no glutonny. In Endajue, going the middle way that way is as much an extreme as both sides. Moderation isn't the middle way in Endajue, it is doing things in the right amount at the auspicious times, which may include some doses of extremes, and everything between. We are not on the same register at all.

As for with Taoism, the proximity in terms of solitary reflexion is easily seen. But the result, to me, is different. Taoism seems a lot more world-renouncing. In Endajue, the World is, you are a part of Its dance, and, if one runs with this idea, there isn't any preference about this. Whatever you will do, alone or with others, will make you part of the dance, whether you like it or not, so suck it up, and dance. The whole idea of Endajue is not to accept or not the World, but to always put some thought on where you are going, never stoping asking yourself about the whole oneness of this world and what my part is in it. And that makes it a lot more complicated.

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:In Endajue, going the middle way that way is as much an extreme as both sides. Moderation isn't the middle way in Endajue, it is doing things in the right amount at the auspicious times, which may include some doses of extremes, and everything between.

...

The World is, you are a part of Its dance, and, if one runs with this idea, there isn't any preference about this. Whatever you will do, alone or with others, will make you part of the dance, whether you like it or not, so suck it up, and dance. The whole idea of Endajue is not to accept or not the World, but to always put some thought on where you are going, never stoping asking yourself about the whole oneness of this world and what my part is in it. And that makes it a lot more complicated.

Great! It seems you really dig this stuff.

How would you rate your understanding of Xurnese so far? (beginner, intermediate, advanced ...) Do you think you can hold a conversation in that language? If so, syu yes izroú.

And by the way, when I first saw the word Endajué on Virtual Verduria I pronounced it like a French word (i.e. [ɑ̃daʒɥe]) -- it was really hard to think otherwise, but I eventually got used to the Xurnese pronunciation. Then I read that the Verdurian form is Andažuei. Was this intentional?

Philosophically, I am pretty much an existentialist. Sartre's saying that "Existence preceeds essence" holds much of the basis of how I think. Endajué is just that, in spades. With clever metaphors. That we are into one yet all distinct is a beautiful image of ourselves and the World. Endajué doesn't care about the why we are here. We simply are here. (Then again, Xengiman philosophy never really cared about why we are here. That we are seems to be the grounding of thought.) But, beyond all this, I have always liked the metaphor of the Dance, and the whole "you are never done thinking" business.

A scientific mind as mine cannot be done thinking; theories about how the world works are always perfectible, because a theory is a framework that awaits to be destroyed by counterarguments. You always look further, the details are always finer. It is not simple, but it is simple. It is simple, but "think" is what has to be done. But it is not simple, for the same reason. Details and details, further distinctions you will at once uncover. And yet, at the end of the day, you are still looking at One thing: the Universe (Ez), so it returns to simplicity. You think, it leads you through paths, and what you ultimately do is get rid of some illusions about the Universe, our togetherness. It's just that, and having a philosophy who just encourages that regarding your own behaviour and your place in the world makes it better.

As for the Dance, a beautiful image. Everything in movement, our positions merely relative to each other. Rythms, movements, acts, leading to other rythms, movements and acts. You go, you turn, and you shake. Every step of yours makes you part of it. You can be good, you can be bad, you can go astray, but you can also learn. One could be so bold as to say that one could even have a problem being in the dance with others for some disability regarding the Dance. It's just too good a metaphor (but also has its limits, which one must also learn).

Endajué had some appeal to me. (Though it still fails to meet all my standards. I am not a 3480-year Endajué. Perhaps a couple of centuries later Jivirc. When it will integrate the whole scientific method.)

As for Xurnese, let's just say that I have a good understanding of its grammar, but I certainly cannot hold a conversation in the language yet.

So it looks like I'm not the only one hooked on the Hermit Masters (which is why my username is Cuezi for "dancer"). Everything about it attracted me -- not just the philosophy (life as a dance, unillusion, no gods, etc.) but the names ("son of a dog"? "sad face"?) and the cute cartoons (Bodeusirc, Krosamis, the dancer) and the concise rhetoric.

Just which dzusuis makes you think of Sartre? Is Sartre's "existence" the Greater Principle, and the "essence" the Lesser Principle?
And I can't seem to remember where in Endajue does it say that "you are never done thinking".

Keep up the good work (translating dzusuisi). By the way, what does "Raumbesraic" mean?

And two little questions for Zomp: What inspired you to create Endajue and Xurnese? I find it interesting that here on the ZBB we seem to call Endajue a philosophy rather than a religion. Is Endajue considered a religion in Xurno?

Ambrisio wrote:So it looks like I'm not the only one who loves the Hermit Masters (which is why my username is Cuezi for "dancer").

Just which dzusuis makes you think of Sartre? Is Sartre's "existence" the Greater Principle, and the "essence" the Lesser Principle?
And I can't seem to remember where in Endajue does it say that "you are never done thinking".

Keep up the good work (translating dzusuisi). By the way, what does "Raumbesraic" mean?

I don't say that Endajué explicits the existence thing. It assumes it, right from the start. I know of no dzusuis that refers to the purpose (essence) of life. They are all reflexions on existence itself. The basic beliefs of the Greater and the Lesser are simply a pure reflexion on the obvious duality of existence : we are together (Greater) yet we are all distinct (Lesser). And the whole reflexion starts there. It refers to the existence of the All all the time, without asking why the All is there and, moreover, why WE are there. In effect, Dzusuisi aren't merely sayings; they are observations of the All (still full of beriludzú, but still, give it time). And the answer to "why" is not simply not part of Xengiman philosophical debates; irrelevant. At best, it follows from existence; We are One, in a Dance, following Path. And only that single last word, path, implies any direction which can be turned into a purpose. Endajué thinking plays with it (Tegendi, "pathless" for immorality), but as a second thought, after existence. Like Existentialism.

As for the you are never done thinking thing, simple enough.

If I ask ten students if they grasp the Greater Principle, six will say yes. How advanced we must be! Krosámis on his deathbed admitted that he had not yet fully done it.
—Dučisi

You are never done. Especially when you say you are; it's proof you utterly do not.

Edit : Fun fact, however. Dučisi doesn't mean we don't know it's there, but that we will never fully grasp (i.e. understand) it. We know it is there, but we will never fully understand it because it IS that deeply laid under the Lesser principle.

As for Raumbesrairc, it means the Wayfarer, litterally "Far-traveller". It's also a fair translation of Sojourner (of the Epics), which makes both our nicknames complete a huge circle around Almea. (This second meaning was not intended, but I remembered the result.) I currently live 10 megameters away from where I was born, making the epithet appropriate.

I like hearing Yiuel talk about Endajué. He really gets it.

Ambrisio wrote:And two little questions for Zomp: What inspired you to create Endajue and Xurnese? I find it interesting that here on the ZBB we seem to call Endajue a philosophy rather than a religion. Is Endajue considered a religion in Xurno?

Interesting question, though I think it ends up illustrating how culturally bound the notions of 'religion' and 'philosophy' are. They seem like separate things if you're used to the Christian tradition-- even if you're an atheist, since Western atheists can easily inherit the dichotomy without analyzing it. The distinction doesn't make much sense in Chinese civilization, though.

The Xurnese don't really have words to consider the question. Endajué is not a namaynudo (a superstition, a paganism) like Mešaism. If you asked whether it was a zenmeludo ('philosophy') or a renudo ('belief'), a dzusey would probably say both, or more likely the opposite of the answer he thought you expected.

(It's a lot more of a "philosophy" in Eretald, where many of the popular practices aren't followed, and it's considered compatible with following another religion.)

(As for the word Andažuei, ž would be the normal Verdurian attempt to represent dž.)

zompist wrote:I like hearing Yiuel talk about Endajué. He really gets it.

The one thing I was afraid, but it seems I pass the test.

I know you knew I really am a fan of Xengiman culture (I'm still waiting for that book ), but this discussion was going very deep into the canon of Endajué, of which I have no control at all. I was afraid I had gone too far or that I didn't get it much. It seems I am right on. Perhaps now I may claim the title of Beylusu instead of merely Jivirc.

zompist wrote:

Ambrisio wrote:And two little questions for Zomp: What inspired you to create Endajue and Xurnese? I find it interesting that here on the ZBB we seem to call Endajue a philosophy rather than a religion. Is Endajue considered a religion in Xurno?

Interesting question, though I think it ends up illustrating how culturally bound the notions of 'religion' and 'philosophy' are. They seem like separate things if you're used to the Christian tradition-- even if you're an atheist, since Western atheists can easily inherit the dichotomy without analyzing it. The distinction doesn't make much sense in Chinese civilization, though.

The Xurnese don't really have words to consider the question. Endajué is not a namaynudo (a superstition, a paganism) like Mešaism. If you asked whether it was a zenmeludo ('philosophy') or a renudo ('belief'), a dzusey would probably say both, or more likely the opposite of the answer he thought you expected.

As another might say, it is ende.

Perhaps the reason why we distinguish so much between religion and philosophy is because we have theology, the understanding of God and what he means. And religion is mostly the thought frame elaborated through theology, which will make you change religions if you disagree, but won't change anything else you had. Western philosophy doesn't bother much with God because of that, it assumes someone else will care about that in due time. Considering that Endajué was born out of a rejection of (a Mesaist) theology, calling Endajué a religion could be seen as a kind of insult. But Western philosophy altogether is mostly concerned with human-related affairs; it left God to theology, and, most importantly, the Universe to nascient science. But Endajué, as far as I understand, integrates all three (God, World and Man) into a package deal Europeanid eyes aren't used to, and focuses on the one thing Westerners left out of "belief systems".

For one, it never let go of theology, if only because it explicitly rejects Mesaism theology and gods without rejecting everything else. (Endajué was fiercely Atheistic, but only in the opposite way Richard Dawkins is. Dawkins rejects all gods equally, while Christians, Muslims and Judaism reject all gods but one. Endajué only rejects the Mesaist gods, and only as seen through its convoluted theologists' eyes. Suspiciously Specific Denial if there was any other one. That is, they're hardly what I would call die-hard Atheists. About the other gods, "who knows" would be the closest answer. (But in a very Endajué-like manner, all answers would eventually come out, including all obscur thoughts one can find loooking through Wikipedia.) But what all Endajué thinkers agree on would be that whatever a god is and whoever it or they could be, they or it are still part of the larger yet Ez, and are thus Lesser parts of the Greater One, All, Dance and Path.)

What really turns it into a belief system is its inclusion of, indeed its focus on, the Universe, existence, in all its reflexion. While it doesn't have much to say about gods, it has something to say about Existence. (Indeed, it's mostly concerned about the Universe and existence) It expresses conviction about the Universe itself. It reifies it in a way never seen on Earth, I daresay. It is the source, it is the whole base. There is nothing else. (The concept of something beyond the All is as absurd to them as God being created to some.) But it is philosophical because while it has something to say about the Universe, it does not know what*. Dzuséy strive hard not because they have conviction about the Universe; they have fearless faith in the All itself. They strive hard because they do not know how** the Universe is. This turns their foremost belief, The One Whole Dance, into a never ending quest for wisdom, because of their second less quoted-here belief, All Are Distinct Paths.

This contradiction (the emerging unity vs. the obvious division) in the world is what pushes them; they want to grasp that friggin' All, which ultimately, would be the Truth, ever clouded in the "delusions" of division. So, on the whole, they are a belief system or, more appropriately perhaps, a thought frame which pushes one to observe the world (and, ultimately, act accordingly). And, since uestî are part of the All, along the way it will concern itself with them (and all that is relevent to them), even though in the Great Scheme of All uestî (as are humans) are but just a tiny spec.

* Indeed, that is what makes Endajué what it is, contrasted to most belief systems, conworld or not, especially to me. It makes the contradicting claim to know something (The All), but to "know" nothing about it (understand, grasp, comprehend). (In French, I would say it thus "Je le connais mais je n'en sais rien.") Even Buddhism claims Enlightment is possible, and explicitly claims to show the way. As for Endajué, the only way to know about the Ez, is to look through its divisions, the Lesser principle, the one we witness every waking/dreaming/thinking moment. And it makes, ultimately, the claim opposite to Buddhism : neither the Beylusu, nor the Dzusey, nor the great gods-rejecting Krosamis can really guide you, and certainly not to Enlightment. They just dusted out a little part of the inherent beriludzu. So it is a call to look back at the Universe through your own eyes, and turn it into The Book of Truth, and to remove the dust from it. Those before dusted a part of it, much is still left on its pages. Maybe a fruitless quest, but certainly a fruitful journey. And an awesome time (or so do I personally think)!

** They know what the Universe is. It's the whole point of the Greater and Lesser principles. It is one because as far as two things relate to each other they become one system, so if we can assume a second one, we haven't seen the One. it is all, because if there was else, you have two, leading to the system contradiction. It is dance, because it always in movement, we relate. And it is path, because movement means direction. But while we know what, we don't know how paths are how they are, and the same thing goes for how the whole one dancing Ezis is. How does all this integrates into one awesome (nanaur) Universe? This is what Dzuséy, in their long (imagined!) meditations, are looking for. And no wonder Krosamis never found it, or so do I think.

On the West: I think the two reasons we have the distinction are that a) in ancient greece, 'religion' was almost entirely a ritual thing that didn't try to take over all aspects of intellectualism (or even any aspects of intellectualism, for that matter), and that b) we had the renaissance, in which the classical thoughts came back, and calling them 'philosophy' made it easier to investigate them without appearing heretical.

In both cases, 'philosophy' was, as it were, a rebel tradition, which distinguished itself from religion not to disparage religion, but to protect itself by trying to avoid looking like a rival to it. So the distinction is likely to be found in places where a) there is a strong existing religion, and b) there is some strong reason why an alternative intellectual tradition needs to arise.

[It's also a useful distinction for intercultural relations, because you can say that everyone has different religions but the same philosophy (eg modern liberalism), or that everyone has different philosophies but the same religion (eg to some extent Rome)]

Here's a new dzusuisi. I'll make easy; I'll go one by one through all the document, in order of appearence. This is our first dzusuis.

Sigac dzusuisi sindejú pel, ji yungecmel? Palači ceš meušogu.
- Mulayc

This one was fairly easy. However, I only have one question. Do coordinators group with the preceeding word (as in French and Japanese) or with the following word (as in English)? This would decide where any comma would go.

Wouldn't "palaci ceš meušogu am" be clearer? Had Mulayc spoken five wise dzusuisi, would he (she?) have said "palaci ceš meušogu peyk" or some such?

Ambrisio wrote:Wouldn't "palaci ceš meušogu am" be clearer? Had Mulayc spoken five wise dzusuisi, would he (she?) have said "palaci ceš meušogu peyk" or some such?

As far as I understand Xurnese, ceš implies singularity. That's why I didn't include any number.


(Indeed, if I were to translate this dzusuisi in French, I would probably translate without the one :
J'ai énoncé une centaine de dzussuisses mais, lesquelles sont sages? Peut-être seulement celle-ci.
- Legras)

I had a go at one which stood out to me because I felt like it.

Yes cu duoyo dzauliše na mridéčes xunc? Toš rešú li cu dmuna tirse tom edem na rilú-- nauziš li xale šači?
--Rúmeš

"I see him still a slave..." felt odd to me in English, and it felt like it worked best in Xurnese as a subordinate clause ("I see that he is still a slave..."). I'm a little bit uncertain about the last bit - "does he not eat and breathe" and "does he not eat or breathe" don't differ substantially in meaning in English, but I don't know if the same token holds for Xurnese li/ma.

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:However, I only have one question. Do coordinators group with the preceeding word (as in French and Japanese) or with the following word (as in English)? This would decide where any comma would go.

There really wouldn't be anything corresponding to a comma in the logography.

I normally follow English punctuation rules when transcribing Almean text, but that's because the surrounding text is in English.

zompist wrote:

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:However, I only have one question. Do coordinators group with the preceeding word (as in French and Japanese) or with the following word (as in English)? This would decide where any comma would go.

There really wouldn't be anything corresponding to a comma in the logography.

I normally follow English punctuation rules when transcribing Almean text, but that's because the surrounding text is in English.

I ask the question because coordinators don't seem to be isolated particles in sentences. Let's have three sentences, same meaning, same construction, in English, French and Japanese...

I am who I am, but I don't seem who I seem.
Je suis qui je suis mais, je ne semble pas ce que je semble être.
Watashi ga watashi de aru ga, watashi ga watasirashiku ha nai.

If I pause, I distinctively cut the first (English) sentence BEFORE but. Yet, in French or Japanese, I distinctively cut both after their equivalent (mais, ga). I've been taught to cut that way in Japanese, but I do it in my native French (so my cutting of English sentences is not a gallicism; at best, it could only be hypercorrection to contrast with French). Cutting before "mais" in French doesn't seem forbidden, but it seems off. (Probably because we are taught to place commas before them in Norm French, but it might also be dialectal.)

This would let me place the comma at the right place.

Hmm. This is deeper than I thought. I had to go back to McCawley to see how he handles conjunctions. What is the structure of a phrase like "Deru and Itep"?

a - [Deru] [and] [Itep]
b - [Deru and] [Itep]
c - [Deru] [and Itep]

Turns out Haj Ross, largely on the distinction between English and Japanese that you mention, posited that languages choose between b or c.

As Xurnese, like Japanese, is resolutely head-final, I'm going to say that it chooses b as well.

zompist wrote:Hmm. This is deeper than I thought. I had to go back to McCawley to see how he handles conjunctions. What is the structure of a phrase like "Deru and Itep"?

a - [Deru] [and] [Itep]
b - [Deru and] [Itep]
c - [Deru] [and Itep]

Turns out Haj Ross, largely on the distinction between English and Japanese that you mention, posited that languages choose between b or c.

As Xurnese, like Japanese, is resolutely head-final, I'm going to say that it chooses b as well.

Perhaps a supplementary article

Yet, Quebec French is verbally head-initial and goes Japanese-style. Does Haj Ross offer cross-linguistic references other than the small difference I also noticed? Is there any support other than that for why no language would do a? I'll turn into a thread in L&L, so you might want to answer there. Link.

At least, we now know one more point about Xurnese

Here is my humble attempt at a dzusuis:

Cauč ezdeym jusuač ze. Ez reatudo dzu ešintri reatudo rile. - Nauni čeykirc
The Dance is always in balance. Every motion has a counter-motion. - Soldier of Peace

And by the way, here it is in Estonian, since I am currently learning the language:
Tants alati on tasakaalus, sest igal liikumisel leidub vastuliikumine. - Rahusõdur

(This could very well be a statement of Newton's Third Law. I wonder if the other two Newton laws have been expressed in dzusuisi.)