zompist bboard

a congress of convoluted conworldery
It is currently Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:53 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:39 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 15774
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Echobeats wrote:
So I haven't posted since, apparently, 2012, but I wanted to come back on and say how much I'm enjoying Øynduyska. I've been trying to get the beginnings of a Norse-descended conlang sorted out in my head for some time so it's good to see a Germanic conlang by someone who really knows their stuff.

(Hi everyone btw. Sorry I haven't been around much. I have three kids now.)


*faints*
Wow, I'm flattered - and, of course, glad to see you back, even if it's only temporary! Congratulations (and/or condolences) on the children...

I'm also glad (/relieved) that I've succesfully been able to create the false impression of knowing my stuff...

Good luck with the norse language, and let us see it when it's ready...


spanick: nope, not as yet. I've tended to shy away from detailing the actual lexicon, at least at this stage. [I think some detail on key prepositions may be necessary, thoguh, either as an addendum to this sketch or as a sequel to it]. There are also a couple of the less-used forms I'm not entirely sure on yet.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:40 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 15774
Location: One of the dark places of the world
While we're at it, here's the next tranche. Negation and topicalisation.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:46 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:35 am
Posts: 97
Location: California
Salmoneus wrote:
spanick: nope, not as yet. I've tended to shy away from detailing the actual lexicon, at least at this stage. [I think some detail on key prepositions may be necessary, thoguh, either as an addendum to this sketch or as a sequel to it]. There are also a couple of the less-used forms I'm not entirely sure on yet.


Ah, ok. No worries. Im working on a new germlang decended from PGmc right now and was just curious how you handled third person pronouns. They can be tricksy.

Edit: by "handled" I mean in a diachronic sound change/etymological sort of way, not their grammatical peculiarities which you have already touched upon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:42 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 15774
Location: One of the dark places of the world
spanick wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:
spanick: nope, not as yet. I've tended to shy away from detailing the actual lexicon, at least at this stage. [I think some detail on key prepositions may be necessary, thoguh, either as an addendum to this sketch or as a sequel to it]. There are also a couple of the less-used forms I'm not entirely sure on yet.


Ah, ok. No worries. Im working on a new germlang decended from PGmc right now and was just curious how you handled third person pronouns. They can be tricksy.

Edit: by "handled" I mean in a diachronic sound change/etymological sort of way, not their grammatical peculiarities which you have already touched upon.


Radically, I've gone for 'he' and 'she'. These descend from *hiz and (probably) *hijō, the latter via an irregular soundchange, paralleling English (at least, one theory in English, iirc). Neuter *hit yields epicene 'het', while the true neuter pronoun is cognate to English 'that'.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:57 am 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 15774
Location: One of the dark places of the world
No, it isn't all over yet. This time, subclauses. Not much more, though, at least at this stage.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:58 am 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 15774
Location: One of the dark places of the world
In other news: I'm thinking about adding a 'silent e' rule.

It seems pretty drastic, and indeed I cut it out from previous versions of the orthography.

The problem is, however, the aorist indicative singular of a great many verbs ends up having a long vowel, but a final consonant. This means I need to write out a lot of long vowels, some of which look quite ugly (to me) when overused. Perhaps more troublingly, it also means having to change the spelling of the root of the verb even though the pronunciation stays the same. Thus, varcweeð ech, "I promise", but varcweðað wi, "we promise" - although the vowel is long in both cases. Similarly, graąv ech, "I dig it", but grąvað wi, "we dig it."

So I have four solutions:
a) keep it like this, with orthographic (though not phonemic) alternation
b) introduce an etymologically-mostly-justified silent e: varcweðe ech, grąve ech, etc.
c) always double the vowel: varcweeðað wi, graąvað wi, etc
d) spell it as short but pronounce it as long: varcweð ech, grąv ech, etc.

a) has the advantage of orthographic simplicity, but it's an additional, wholly artificial rule in conjugation, and I'm not sure whether I like the look of the long vowels. Then again, maybe I do. It also has a historical disadvantage, since it requires a more rational spelling reform than the other options.
b) has the advantage of morphological simplicity, but it's an additional orthographic rule to learn. It makes it look a bit more English; on the other hand, is having silent final letters in a non-English language just a step too far? Can I overcome the instinct to pronounce them? It may make most sense historically.
c) has the advantage of maximum simplicity (except that in writing you have to remember to double the last vowel in verbs for no good reason). It has the distinct disadvantage of swamping the entire verbal system in double vowels throughout, and I think that's ugly.
d) has the advantage of morphological simplicity, but is an arbitrary orthographic complexity: "pronounce the last vowel of aorist indicative singular verbs as though written as long." It makes the spelling quite misleading, since there's no reminder of the rule in the spelling (at least with silent e there's a visual nudge). On the other hand, once you know that rule it's a simple thing, and it saves on letters.

I think I can rule out c). But I see the attractions of a), b), and d), so I'm not sure which way to go. Any thoughts?

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:27 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2718
Location: Brittania
I'm personally a fan of the silent e


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:40 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:35 am
Posts: 97
Location: California
Personally, I would go with either A or D. A feels very Dutch or Middle English to me, and seems fairly natural. I agree that doubling vowels can look ugly, in particular I always thought u and i look horrible doubled. D for some reason makes me think of Faroese. It's not that complicated of a rule to remember and certainly seems like something native speakers would come up with. I mean, they don't *need* to represent long vowels. They know where they are already. I also think that D suites the aesthetic you're going for better than A.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:09 pm 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:51 pm
Posts: 15
I would leave it as it is (option a). I think the alternating long and short vowels look lovely.

Also, since I haven't commented on Øynduyska before: I really enjoyed reading about the use of tense and aspect in the language. The periphrastic constructions remind me of stuff like "fara að (gera)" in Icelandic. I especially like how you've severely restricted the use of the aorist and preterite in a way I hadn't seen before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:30 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1671
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Salmoneus wrote:
I'm also glad (/relieved) that I've succesfully been able to create the false impression of knowing my stuff...
It's one of your specialities :-D. (It's also one of mine, according to my family)

Interesting work, by the way

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:34 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:17 pm
Posts: 3431
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Salmoneus wrote:
In other news: I'm thinking about adding a 'silent e' rule.

b) introduce an etymologically-mostly-justified silent e: varcweðe ech, grąve ech, etc.

b) has the advantage of morphological simplicity, but it's an additional orthographic rule to learn. It makes it look a bit more English; on the other hand, is having silent final letters in a non-English language just a step too far? Can I overcome the instinct to pronounce them? It may make most sense historically.


Does it have to be a silent e though? Why not, say, a silent y?

In your shoes I would have trouble getting past the "Englishness" of (b) but other than that it does seem like the best option. So if another vowel would make sense I'd say use that.

_________________
Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.
—Stephen R. Anderson

Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:23 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1671
Location: suburbs of Mrin
I'd go with A or B. But why silent "e"? Also, English is far from the only language with silent final letters.

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:02 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:49 am
Posts: 4368
Location: Bonn, Germany
I'd go with looking at the history of the orthography and figuring out what would be the outcome of leaving old spellings alone despite the fact that pronunciation has changed (something like D or the silent e?), and what would have been the logic of any spelling reform?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:36 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 15774
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Echobeats wrote:
Does it have to be a silent e though? Why not, say, a silent y?


I did actually consider a final y for what's currently i, but it could also be justified as a silent letter; so could i. I don't know, though, I just find that very Englishy, visually, and would find it hard to think of it as silent.

Anyway, I'll put orthography to one side for a moment. I think what i'll do is get some translations done, so that the effects can be compared side by side...

First, though, possibly the last grammar post on the language (in the current phase of roll-out)

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:50 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 15774
Location: One of the dark places of the world
I thought, rather than just dumping a bunch of translations, a teaser might be fun, if anyone would like to play along (if not, never mind)...

Two translations you might recognise. Question 1: what do they mean? Question 2: why? (i.e. have a guess at a gloss and/or etymology)

1. Vor á ði lieg ða rikji, ða mayt ay ða glǫyr, atrách ay ðruch aw tchiya.

and a slightly harder one:
2. Cwam ay ða Ab ova, ða cather ay ða clotcheches leor ta sevha, sam ða syna van Adama ðam ybyld had.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:40 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:34 am
Posts: 1030
Location: Paris
(1) is "For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever (EDIT or any of the variants: world without end, ages of ages)"
ða rikji, ða mayt ay ða glǫyr is easy. Vor á ði lieg was a bit harder, but makes more sense rereading the section on predication.
I have no idea about atrách ay ðruch aw tchiya. (something something through something of something?)

(2) is The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men / Adam had built.

It's mostly the last bit that helped me; the rest is fairly opaque. Ab could be a cognate of abba? clotcheches kinda looks like clochers maybe? I don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group