OK, I think I'm done. I spent the weekend adding words-- there are over 1200-- and though I could easily add another thousand, that's of lower priority. I also read through the whole thing, made various corrections, and added some minor points (e.g. the elcari can name numbers either duodecimally or decimally).
Next step is to create the html version, which will take me a day or two.
Elkar?l grammar
Whee! It's up! Enjoy.
Indeed, this is a lot to think about! I can't wait until someone tries to post in Elkarîl...
One thing that caught my eye is the ability to assign referents to variables. As I'm sure you know, this is done in sign language, and I'm using it in a conlang that I'm developing right now too.
In Amíu, I have four grammatical "persons", which can be thought of as first-person, second-person, third-person-proximate, and third-person-obviative. That's how they're often used in speech. But actually the "first person" is used for the most important entity in the discourse at hand, which is not always the speaker. The others indicate diminishing degrees of importance to the narrative.
If you tell an anecdote about yourself, you explicitly assign [your name] to the first person, and then go on. If you're writing a factual book about a historical figure, say, you assign [Akhenaten] to the first person, and [wife Nefertiti] to the second person, and go on. Or if you're writing from a different perspective, you could make [son-in-law Tutankhamen] the second person and [mother-in-law Nefertiti] the third-proxmiate, or however you want to do it.
This can be used for interesting effects in novelistic writing. If you read something that starts out discussing [a character] in the first person, and [another character] in the third-proximate, it generates a sense of suspense -- there must be another important character coming that the author has reserved the second person for.
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that we had such similar ideas at the same time.
One thing that caught my eye is the ability to assign referents to variables. As I'm sure you know, this is done in sign language, and I'm using it in a conlang that I'm developing right now too.
In Amíu, I have four grammatical "persons", which can be thought of as first-person, second-person, third-person-proximate, and third-person-obviative. That's how they're often used in speech. But actually the "first person" is used for the most important entity in the discourse at hand, which is not always the speaker. The others indicate diminishing degrees of importance to the narrative.
If you tell an anecdote about yourself, you explicitly assign [your name] to the first person, and then go on. If you're writing a factual book about a historical figure, say, you assign [Akhenaten] to the first person, and [wife Nefertiti] to the second person, and go on. Or if you're writing from a different perspective, you could make [son-in-law Tutankhamen] the second person and [mother-in-law Nefertiti] the third-proxmiate, or however you want to do it.
This can be used for interesting effects in novelistic writing. If you read something that starts out discussing [a character] in the first person, and [another character] in the third-proximate, it generates a sense of suspense -- there must be another important character coming that the author has reserved the second person for.
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that we had such similar ideas at the same time.
Okay, here are a couple of things which look like errors, or maybe I just don't understand.
exist human `(` receive Stormcloud canoe gift `)'
and
exist Stormcloud `(` receive canoe gift human `)'
?
It appears that this is in fact giving only the source, rather than the destination.To indicate movement, two prepositional phrases can be adjoined, source then destination: put q?l-ggud tul-geth `walk from inside the forest to the top of the mountain'. If it's desired to give only the destination, append -ban `counter-' to the preposition: put q?l-ban-ggud `walk out of the forest'.
Shouldn't the interlinears readHopefully, context will make it clear that the human, not Stormcloud or the boat, is dead. If not, the noun can be moved before dda, and the subordinate verb inflected with -?t:
On dduch dda mox Tarkhum phan lyat?t add.
exist `(` receive Stormcloud canoe gift human `)'
The human that gave Stormcloud the boat is here.
On Tarkhum dda mox?t phan lyat dduch add.
exist `(` receive Stormcloud canoe gift human `)'
Stormcloud, who was given a boat by the human, is here.
exist human `(` receive Stormcloud canoe gift `)'
and
exist Stormcloud `(` receive canoe gift human `)'
?
-
Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Grammar
I found a typo! WUUHUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!. Sorry.
In the /adjectivizers/ section, you list r?ntur bloody. This is supposed to be ?, right? Or am I stupid?
(PS: WUUHUUUUUUU was not intended to follow the Elkar?l method of emphasis by length, just to indicate the general pronounciation)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!. Sorry.
In the /adjectivizers/ section, you list r?ntur bloody. This is supposed to be ?, right? Or am I stupid?
(PS: WUUHUUUUUUU was not intended to follow the Elkar?l method of emphasis by length, just to indicate the general pronounciation)
-
Guest
Wonderfully bizarre language. The romanisation looks a bit freakish, but I guess that's the point. One nitpick: "no vowels are rounded. E.g., u is the same as the Russian bI or Japanese u, IPA y."
I think only the Japanese u is the sound you mean here. Russian bI is a central vowel like the elcari i-with-accent, and IPA y is a close rounded front vowel like the German u-umlaut.
Gareth Wilson
I think only the Japanese u is the sound you mean here. Russian bI is a central vowel like the elcari i-with-accent, and IPA y is a close rounded front vowel like the German u-umlaut.
Gareth Wilson
I agree with all of the folks above--quite an accomplishment! I particularly like the action/purpose and experiencer/causer/intender separation, and what it means in terms of indicating the purpose or intent of an action, even if grasping the structure means rewiring my brain a bit. (I also find the lack of verbal and noun inflections (case/tense/aspect) hard to get used to; I guess I'm just too accustomed to them...)
Other neat features include the use of the phoneme continua for spatial coordinates and the assignment of referents to variables. I was recently introduced by an acquaintance to the use of spatial referents in American Sign Language; using a modern metaphor, he compared them to a computer mouse's "click-and-drag" feature. (I indicate a person and then put him/her over there, and for the rest of the conversation, that's what that place stands for.)
I note that the lexicon adds some extra cultural notes: i.e., there is a distinction between boyfriend/girlfriend ("dater") and spouse ("resider"), but is seems to be a difference in degree rather than kind.
A couple of random questions:
1. How is the repeated use of the prefix q- pronounced? After all, it's a stop; it can't really be drawn out. Is the sound "clicked" several times, with a brief vowel sound or breath between each one? (On the other hand, the length system seems to work well for vowels, fricatives, nasals, and liquids, I particularly like the example kilkhkhkhkh for "really, really ugly red".)
2. The repeatedly-discussed word ebdunmak ("excavation-stealer") is glossed as "troll." What kind of critter is this? An actual creature, a mythological being, or a metaphorical expression? It hasn't been listed among the Thinking Kinds, to be sure, but the word "troll" calls up a wide range of associations (as, to be sure, does "dwarf"--depite a number of well-thought-out differences the elcari turned out to be a bit more dwarvish than I had expected (especially the drinking part)
).
p@,
Glenn
Other neat features include the use of the phoneme continua for spatial coordinates and the assignment of referents to variables. I was recently introduced by an acquaintance to the use of spatial referents in American Sign Language; using a modern metaphor, he compared them to a computer mouse's "click-and-drag" feature. (I indicate a person and then put him/her over there, and for the rest of the conversation, that's what that place stands for.)
I note that the lexicon adds some extra cultural notes: i.e., there is a distinction between boyfriend/girlfriend ("dater") and spouse ("resider"), but is seems to be a difference in degree rather than kind.
A couple of random questions:
1. How is the repeated use of the prefix q- pronounced? After all, it's a stop; it can't really be drawn out. Is the sound "clicked" several times, with a brief vowel sound or breath between each one? (On the other hand, the length system seems to work well for vowels, fricatives, nasals, and liquids, I particularly like the example kilkhkhkhkh for "really, really ugly red".)
2. The repeatedly-discussed word ebdunmak ("excavation-stealer") is glossed as "troll." What kind of critter is this? An actual creature, a mythological being, or a metaphorical expression? It hasn't been listed among the Thinking Kinds, to be sure, but the word "troll" calls up a wide range of associations (as, to be sure, does "dwarf"--depite a number of well-thought-out differences the elcari turned out to be a bit more dwarvish than I had expected (especially the drinking part)
).p@,
Glenn
-
Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
The Twisting Nether
I think that Zomp was in 'Living Dead' mode when he wrote about u's pronounciation, or else he has succumbed to the vyo?is' energies. (I won't get into a discussion of Russian phonemes here-that goes somewhere else, like
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away......
(If anyone can name where I got the Subject, Kudos and bloody battle axes to them. & a free copy of illegal legalities!(surcharge applies))
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away......
(If anyone can name where I got the Subject, Kudos and bloody battle axes to them. & a free copy of illegal legalities!(surcharge applies))
Russian letters and Elcarin fashion models
...On the other hand, while the Russian bI is indeed a central vowel (albeit a bit different from the English short i or the Elcarin i-with-an-accent), the Kazakh and Kyrgyz bI is more of a back unrounded vowel, the equivalent of the Turkish i-without-a-dot, and closer (I think) to the Japanese unrounded u. Just a tidbit...
A couple of elcari-related questions, not necessarily linguistic:
1. Z mentioned on the old board that the elcari have been consistently ahead of the uesti technologically; how about the murtani? Given what we know about them, I would expect them to be significantly more "primitive" (although they probably borrow whatever they can grab).
2. This may be getting a bit ahead, but do the murtani languages share the elcarin action/purpose and related distinctions? I know they're quite a bit different... I can see the "purpose" category being used by the murtani to express all sorts of attitudes: greed, contempt, scorn...although I'm sure that there are good ones as well. (As has been said, Almea is not meant to have exclusive categories of "good" or "evil"; the earlier comparison of the murtani to rebellion teenagers or youth gangs is a good one--wild emotion without control, group loyalty (and inter-group enmity) without organization...hmm...what would a story from a murtani point of view be like?
3. In discussing elcarin society, you mentioned that the elcari have no servants or employees; on the other hand, we know that their coinage is used and valued on the Plain. Is the elcari coinage minted mostly for dealing with humans, or do they have a cash economy among themselves? (I suppose they do, as it would make transactions easier; on the other hand, community bartering in goods and services can be taken to a fairly sophisticated level.)
3. The comments about elcarin creation (art, architecture, music) reminded me of how interested I am in the visual side of Almea as well: building styles, clothing fashions, etc. I know that Z has said that he's not primarily visually-oriented, but it's still fascinating (and the materials that exist do provide some hints). Basically I'm interested in all of it--human and non-human cultures, lifestyles and beliefs, stories...can't wait!
(Sheesh--this is a long post! Oh, well... I may have some more strictly language-oriented questions eventually, but I think I need to digest Elcarin more fully first.)
p@,
Glenn
A couple of elcari-related questions, not necessarily linguistic:
1. Z mentioned on the old board that the elcari have been consistently ahead of the uesti technologically; how about the murtani? Given what we know about them, I would expect them to be significantly more "primitive" (although they probably borrow whatever they can grab).
2. This may be getting a bit ahead, but do the murtani languages share the elcarin action/purpose and related distinctions? I know they're quite a bit different... I can see the "purpose" category being used by the murtani to express all sorts of attitudes: greed, contempt, scorn...although I'm sure that there are good ones as well. (As has been said, Almea is not meant to have exclusive categories of "good" or "evil"; the earlier comparison of the murtani to rebellion teenagers or youth gangs is a good one--wild emotion without control, group loyalty (and inter-group enmity) without organization...hmm...what would a story from a murtani point of view be like?
3. In discussing elcarin society, you mentioned that the elcari have no servants or employees; on the other hand, we know that their coinage is used and valued on the Plain. Is the elcari coinage minted mostly for dealing with humans, or do they have a cash economy among themselves? (I suppose they do, as it would make transactions easier; on the other hand, community bartering in goods and services can be taken to a fairly sophisticated level.)
3. The comments about elcarin creation (art, architecture, music) reminded me of how interested I am in the visual side of Almea as well: building styles, clothing fashions, etc. I know that Z has said that he's not primarily visually-oriented, but it's still fascinating (and the materials that exist do provide some hints). Basically I'm interested in all of it--human and non-human cultures, lifestyles and beliefs, stories...can't wait!
(Sheesh--this is a long post! Oh, well... I may have some more strictly language-oriented questions eventually, but I think I need to digest Elcarin more fully first.)
p@,
Glenn
Another fershluggin' post! 
But...
I've been reading and rereading (q-reading? readingth?) Iscun's message in Elcarin above:
??m bb?thuqaju ?J?ph?n shobd.
read languages-all of-Almea learn
"I read all the languages of Almea in order to learn them."
(Or is that "You should read all of the languages of Almea to learn them"?)
My question is this: the word order in Elcarin is
Action (experiencer causer) Purpose (intender)
The sentence above, at first glance, seems to read to an English-speaker as follows:
??m = action, bb?thuqaju ?J?ph?n = experiencer (equivalent to Eng. object), (causer absent), shobd = purpose
So where's the intender? Or is "I" implied if no intender is given?
(But Z wrote that if a purpose is given, an intender must be also, unless the experiencer and the intender are the same.)
On the other hand, the lexicon defines shobd as "learn" if oneself is the experiencer, and "teach" if another is the experiencer (presumably the teacher would be the intender). This changes the explanation above; it would appear that bb?thuqaju ?J?ph?n is the causer, not the experiencer (the means of learning, so to speak; this matches the format used with sensory verbs). In that case, the learner him/herself is both experiencer and intender, and the suffix -?t can be used for the latter, but the learner still needs to be indicated:
??m Iscun bb?thuqaju ?J?ph?n shobd?t.
Or can the speaker identify him/herself without naming (i.e., by a definite form indicating "this person" tagged with an anaphoric reference?) Or is the identification simply skipped? Z seems to imply this in the case of intenders (i.e., "impersonal" judgements are assumed to be the speaker's if no intender is given, and in the example T?m miphuq lemth nr?l li chnq?t q?ch, chnq?t q?ch ("Mother wants") gives "Mother" as the experiencer of want, without any intender), but it's hard to see how an experiencer could be skipped in the same way...
Or am I making any sense?
In general, I'm less certain how Elcarin works with forms that we would call "first person" and "second person," unless (as in another line on this board), the person is first identified with a noun and tagged.
Just a few thoughts...
p@,
Glenn
But...I've been reading and rereading (q-reading? readingth?) Iscun's message in Elcarin above:
??m bb?thuqaju ?J?ph?n shobd.
read languages-all of-Almea learn
"I read all the languages of Almea in order to learn them."
(Or is that "You should read all of the languages of Almea to learn them"?)
My question is this: the word order in Elcarin is
Action (experiencer causer) Purpose (intender)
The sentence above, at first glance, seems to read to an English-speaker as follows:
??m = action, bb?thuqaju ?J?ph?n = experiencer (equivalent to Eng. object), (causer absent), shobd = purpose
So where's the intender? Or is "I" implied if no intender is given?
(But Z wrote that if a purpose is given, an intender must be also, unless the experiencer and the intender are the same.)
On the other hand, the lexicon defines shobd as "learn" if oneself is the experiencer, and "teach" if another is the experiencer (presumably the teacher would be the intender). This changes the explanation above; it would appear that bb?thuqaju ?J?ph?n is the causer, not the experiencer (the means of learning, so to speak; this matches the format used with sensory verbs). In that case, the learner him/herself is both experiencer and intender, and the suffix -?t can be used for the latter, but the learner still needs to be indicated:
??m Iscun bb?thuqaju ?J?ph?n shobd?t.
Or can the speaker identify him/herself without naming (i.e., by a definite form indicating "this person" tagged with an anaphoric reference?) Or is the identification simply skipped? Z seems to imply this in the case of intenders (i.e., "impersonal" judgements are assumed to be the speaker's if no intender is given, and in the example T?m miphuq lemth nr?l li chnq?t q?ch, chnq?t q?ch ("Mother wants") gives "Mother" as the experiencer of want, without any intender), but it's hard to see how an experiencer could be skipped in the same way...
Or am I making any sense?
In general, I'm less certain how Elcarin works with forms that we would call "first person" and "second person," unless (as in another line on this board), the person is first identified with a noun and tagged.
Just a few thoughts...
p@,
Glenn
Hm. Sentence function marked by order.
Channeling loglan/lojban now, are we?
Anyway, looks like a real challenge, very fun. Before I was able to just scan the grammars and get a decent idea of what I was up against.
As I said, a challenge. Wish I'd learned how to pronounce implosives in linguistics.
Channeling loglan/lojban now, are we?
Anyway, looks like a real challenge, very fun. Before I was able to just scan the grammars and get a decent idea of what I was up against.
As I said, a challenge. Wish I'd learned how to pronounce implosives in linguistics.
So voy sur so?n otr?n cot?n ci-min?i e fsiy.
Bad html-ization in the latter case: the IPA character in the original Word document got lost. As for the Russian, blame my Russian prof, who told me it was an unrounded u!Gareth Wilson wrote:Wonderfully bizarre language. The romanisation looks a bit freakish, but I guess that's the point. One nitpick: "no vowels are rounded. E.g., u is the same as the Russian bI or Japanese u, IPA y."
I think only the Japanese u is the sound you mean here. Russian bI is a central vowel like the elcari i-with-accent, and IPA y is a close rounded front vowel like the German u-umlaut.
And drydic_guy, you're right about r?ntur.
And speaking of Russian…
The Elcarin q?ch (“want, desire”), especially in its “reflexive” or anaphora-tagged forms (q?ch?t, q?chet, etc.), looks an awful lot like the Russian хочет (khochet, “want”). Was this intentional? Or am I reading too much into it…kind of like the Chinese-English Pseudo-Cognate List?
Всего доброго,
Glenn
The Elcarin q?ch (“want, desire”), especially in its “reflexive” or anaphora-tagged forms (q?ch?t, q?chet, etc.), looks an awful lot like the Russian хочет (khochet, “want”). Was this intentional? Or am I reading too much into it…kind of like the Chinese-English Pseudo-Cognate List?
Всего доброго,
Glenn
Thanks... it took some thinking to come up with that... it's harder than it might sound to find something that's different from human languages, but also makes sense on its own terms.Glenn Kempf wrote:I agree with all of the folks above--quite an accomplishment! I particularly like the action/purpose and experiencer/causer/intender separation, and what it means in terms of indicating the purpose or intent of an action, even if grasping the structure means rewiring my brain a bit.
The variable idea is indeed similar to Sign, and also Lojban, though neither of these took the idea to its logical extreme and got rid of the personal pronouns!
You have to make the occlusion and relax it multiple times. There's no voicing, so it doesn't really sound like there's a vowel in between, though phonetically I suppose there's a brief unvoiced approximant. It sounds like you're stuttering the q.Glenn Kempf wrote:1. How is the repeated use of the prefix q- pronounced? After all, it's a stop; it can't really be drawn out. Is the sound "clicked" several times, with a brief vowel sound or breath between each one?
Fair enough, tho' once the basic similarities are there (short stature, mountain homes, love of making things, long lives) it's hard to escape Durin's shadow. There's some stories about the elcari in the Count of Years; you can judge more how they turned out from that...Glenn Kempf wrote:2. The repeatedly-discussed word ebdunmak ("excavation-stealer") is glossed as "troll." What kind of critter is this? An actual creature, a mythological being, or a metaphorical expression? It hasn't been listed among the Thinking Kinds, to be sure, but the word "troll" calls up a wide range of associations (as, to be sure, does "dwarf"--depite a number of well-thought-out differences the elcari turned out to be a bit more dwarvish than I had expected (especially the drinking part)
Speaking of the Count of Years, it also tells about the trolls-- briefly, they were an attempt of Amna:s to counter the humans. They were nearly eliminated, but a few still survive in hidden places, where they can still harrass a protagonist or two.
Re: Russian letters and Elcarin fashion models
True: they're not very innovative, except when stealing what they want becomes too ineffective. (For instance, they had to figure out iron refining after the elcari did: they couldn't steal enough iron weapons.)Glenn Kempf wrote:1. Z mentioned on the old board that the elcari have been consistently ahead of the uesti technologically; how about the murtani? Given what we know about them, I would expect them to be significantly more "primitive" (although they probably borrow whatever they can grab).
I can't really say at this point... it's unclear whether worshipping demons relaxes your grammar as much as it does your morals.Glenn Kempf wrote:2. This may be getting a bit ahead, but do the murtani languages share the elcarin action/purpose and related distinctions? I know they're quite a bit different... I can see the "purpose" category being used by the murtani to express all sorts of attitudes: greed, contempt, scorn...although I'm sure that there are good ones as well. (As has been said, Almea is not meant to have exclusive categories of "good" or "evil"; the earlier comparison of the murtani to rebellion teenagers or youth gangs is a good one--wild emotion without control, group loyalty (and inter-group enmity) without organization...hmm...what would a story from a murtani point of view be like?
They use both; there can be longstanding barter arrangements ("I'll give you some obsidian every month while you supply us with goat milk"), but elcarin cities are large enough that the simplicity of a cash economy is appreciated.Glenn Kempf wrote:3. In discussing elcarin society, you mentioned that the elcari have no servants or employees; on the other hand, we know that their coinage is used and valued on the Plain. Is the elcari coinage minted mostly for dealing with humans, or do they have a cash economy among themselves? (I suppose they do, as it would make transactions easier; on the other hand, community bartering in goods and services can be taken to a fairly sophisticated level.)
Heh, thanks! I have some ideas for elcar-related pictures... I hope I can actually produce them.Glenn Kempf wrote:3. The comments about elcarin creation (art, architecture, music) reminded me of how interested I am in the visual side of Almea as well: building styles, clothing fashions, etc. I know that Z has said that he's not primarily visually-oriented, but it's still fascinating (and the materials that exist do provide some hints). Basically I'm interested in all of it--human and non-human cultures, lifestyles and beliefs, stories...can't wait!
Oh, one addition to the previous post: as tribute, I borrowed one word from Tolkien's dwarves... has anyone found it?
Not quite: q?ch is a purpose, so Mother is the intender here. Or more precisely, that sentence isGlenn Kempf wrote:Or can the speaker identify him/herself without naming (i.e., by a definite form indicating "this person" tagged with an anaphoric reference?) Or is the identification simply skipped? Z seems to imply this in the case of intenders (i.e., "impersonal" judgements are assumed to be the speaker's if no intender is given, and in the example T?m miphuq lemth nr?l li chnq?t q?ch, chnq?t q?ch ("Mother wants") gives "Mother" as the experiencer of want, without any intender),
Mother wants ( child reflects on ( breaking of window ) )
where mother is the intender of the outermost verb, and child is the intender of 'reflects on'. (If it's any consolation, it took me some time to learn to think like an elcar!)
Iscun's sentence does lack an intender, but since I'm not quite sure what he meant to say, I'm not sure how to correct it!
-
Guest
Re: Well,
?t. Come to think of it, I borrowed the other part of the phrase too-- see khath.Ihano wrote:Is it "baruq"?zompist wrote:Oh, one addition to the previous post: as tribute, I borrowed one word from Tolkien's dwarves... has anyone found it?
(oops. forgot to log in. this is zompist)