Substantial postings about constructed languages and constructed worlds in general. Good place to mention your own or evaluate someone else's. Put quick questions in C&C Quickies instead.
masako wrote:ke yani te "atsi" tayo ma nayo ipampa
Your definition of "angular" and mine differ greatly.
uame, ke hani a
Certainly, there is a spectrum...
siliyaku moya ya'eha atsimpa ke pumeya ehe ma'a atsi yema
Cyrillic is much closer to angular than Burmese, but both have angles.
Хва и ширилиска воури роунıинга доу хмахши сина? hvā i śiriliska vūri runjīga du hmaśī sīna so be.PRS.SG Cyrillic-DIR too angular-N.DIR for taste-DAT 2SG.GEN
So is Cyrillic too angular for your taste?
Native: English || Pretty decent: Ancient Greek || Alright: Ancient Hebrew || Eh: Welsh || Basic: Mandarin Chinese || Very basic: French, Latin, Nisuese, Apsish
Conlangs: Nisuese, Apsish, Kaptaran, Pseudo-Ligurian
KathTheDragon wrote:Ti inon moti Masako - motaḫ kana anəglən, inon lahatoś ceþa anəglən.
That's not what Masako said - he said that there are angles, not that it's made from angles.
totlan
Exactly!
Znex wrote:So is Cyrillic too angular for your taste?
nye ta ke omyo nayo ma'a atsim tayempe omo ka
Why do you think my opinion only concerns angles?
Din is the one that stated I have a preference for "angular" scripts, which I quickly demonstrated as inaccurate. I've posted/created/commented on dozens of scripts that were closer to Burmese than Cyrillic with regards to being "angular, yet all anyone seems to remember about me is "he's that square script dude." It's boring, really.
Rah i pgagisnei. Thaitt: «Sauthialott no gismochi câiro tgâdo». Sa thaitt: «Sauthialott no o mon ni das gismochi câiro tgâdo». Gismochi coppa î sen lauro no cogsiagi i âdamo. /ɾah i ˈpʕaʕɪsnəj | θɛat ˈsoːθjalət no ˈʕisməɕə ˈkɛaɾʊ ˈtʕɛaðʊ | sa θɛat ˈsoːθjalət no ʊ mon ni dɛs ˈʕisməɕə ˈkɛaɾʊ ˈtʕɛaðʊ | ˈʕisməɕə ˈkopːa ɪj sən ˈloʊrʊ no ˈkoʊɕaʕə i ˈɛaðamʊ/
now 2s make.wrong.assuption-2s. say-1s: think-DFC.1s COMPL like-2s script be.angular.3s. NEG.1s say-1s: think-DFC.1s COMPL ADV one and only like-2s script be.angular.3s. like-2s something COMPL NEG.3s mean.3s COMPL dislike.2s CLAS rest. Now you're the one who is making a wrong assumption. I said: I thought you liked angular scripts. I didn't say: I thought you exclusively liked angular scripts. Liking something doesn't mean you dislike everything else.
din wrote:I didn't say: I thought you exclusively liked angular scripts.
ma na ke ta'itla kalayetle kuetik
And I didn't accuse you of saying this...
1) din: "Masako, I thought you liked angular scripts. Cyrillic is pretty angular."
2) masako: "Can you show me a script without angles? My primary script for Kala is Naua...a "not-really-blocky-or-squarish-at-all" script...so I'm unsure why this opinion of my aesthetics persists."
3) din: "Of course it has angles, but it is hardly angular." (of Burmese script)
4) masako: "Your definition of "angular" and mine differ greatly. Certainly, there is a spectrum...Cyrillic is much closer to angular than Burmese, but both have angles."
5) masako: "Din is the one that stated I have a preference for "angular" scripts, which I quickly demonstrated as inaccurate. I've posted/created/commented on dozens of scripts that were closer to Burmese than Cyrillic with regards to being "angular, yet all anyone seems to remember about me is "he's that square script dude." It's boring, really."
masako wrote:"Din is the one that stated I have a preference for "angular" scripts, which I quickly demonstrated as inaccurate. I've posted/created/commented on dozens of scripts that were closer to Burmese than Cyrillic with regards to being "angular, yet all anyone seems to remember about me is "he's that square script dude." It's boring, really."
No cuân solo nor remahan. Sa thaitt no odgismochi câiro tgâdo. A sia thaitt no gismochi câiro tgâdo. /ˈno kwɪn ˈsolʊ noɹ ˈɾəmahɪn | sa θɛat no ˈodʕɪsˌmoɕə ˈcɛaɾʊ ˈtʕɛaðʊ | a ɕa θɛat no ˈʕisməɕə ˈkɛaɾʊ ˈtʕɛaðʊ/
that there however also be.wrong.3s. NEG say-1s COMPL prefer-2s script be.angular.3s. 1s simply think-1s COMPL like-2s script be.angular.3s. That's not right either, though. I didn't say that you preferred angular script. I just thought you liked them.
(This conversation is pointless, of course, but it's good practice)
eya sa uampa yoti mpa'a ina ua kala keuapa maybe SER politics sports movies food or language discuss-ABIL
Perhaps politics, sports, movies, food, or language can be discussed...
NB: I need help defining sa...is there any linguistic term for a particle that introduces a string of options, things that are all possible agents/patients?
eya sa uampa yoti mpa'a ina ua kala keuapa maybe SER politics sports movies food or language discuss-ABIL
Perhaps politics, sports, movies, food, or language can be discussed...
NB: I need help defining sa...is there any linguistic term for a particle that introduces a string of options, things that are all possible agents/patients?
In Tormiott (Rockall):
Cgai seddoi si t'a irin solo somat n' ascarhianar mie? /ʔˁɛa ˈsədːʊj si ta ˈiɾɪn ˈsolʊ ˈnɛskaˌɹjɛnaɹ mjə/
be.able-2s teach-2s Q 1p view-PL over how 3s use-3s REFL Can you tell us more about how it's used?
Your example makes it look like a preposition, but perhaps it can be used to mark a partitive construction?
Mi set fi mek [v] gon an steda yus . It a sen kos 1. swel de Jumikan [v] an a konfon, an 2. Sajiwan fonoloji nof efek kos Spanyol, an dis da swel af dway ay pon difa twin [v] an .
I decided to remove [v] and use instead. This makes sense since 1) Jamaican also confuses [v] and and 2) Sajiwan phonology is heavily influenced by Spanish, which is also indifferent towards the distinction of [v] and .
jal wrote:I decided to remove <v> and use <b> instead.
tama
Good.
na pe ke ue nomoha
I like "b" more than "v".
Mi vuppulańńa lkëśśënem këlinirëttë. I have both in my language.
Ispë teŋir svitte töörëńńë-nuń. Kalnataa molńak. Hekkinit gülülaśśa śviviśśivir. The sky is white right now. The clouds are covering it. I can hear the birds singing.
Sa nauardasta miccec tonon odair lioianta; da rah siachan scan siottônon /sa ˈnowaɹˌdɛsta ˈmikːək ˈtonən ˈoðɛaɹ ˈjʊjɪnta | da ɾah ˈɕaxɪn skɛn ˈɕotːoʊnən/
NEG.1s describe-COND.1s chain tone-PL like noise; 3p if especially be.3p melodic.3p I would not use the word 'noise' to describe a series of clear tones; especially if they are melodic.
Tînno o chan atti sius /ˈtɪjnːʊ ʊˈxɛn ˈɛtːi sʏɥs/
unless ADV really hate-2s bird Unless you really hate birds
Wan bah dem me sing byutifu song, oba oda bah dem me mek rom sem jonkwo.
Some birds may sing beautiful songs, but others may make a noise like a turkey vulture.
Iathia sidirna ma no: Tohsim morratt sius î antar aiatrerar. Sodonor. /ˈjɛθja ˈsiðɪɹna ma no | ˈtohsɪm ˈmorːɪt sʏɥs ij ˈɛntaɹ ˈɛjɪtɾəɾaɹ | ˈsoðənəɹ/
because speak-1p with that: today hear-1s bird REL make.a.sound-3s rattle-3s. Be-strange-3s Speaking of which: Today I heard a bird that made a rattling sound. It was strange.
din wrote:I would not use the word 'noise' to describe a series of clear tones; especially if they are melodic.
uama ta ke yani te 'oto' unyak
Then you don't understand the meaning of "noise."
Sei lgatt amadonnoi ‹lioianta› tior ‹anta› ˈsəj lʕɛt ˈamɪˌðonːʊj ˈjojɪnta tɕoɹ ˈɛnta
NEG-2s instead distinguish<IPFV>-2s 'noise' next.to 'a noise' No, you are not making a distinction between 'noise' and 'a noise'
(why do we always end up discussing semantics in this thread?)
din wrote:No, you are not making a distinction between 'noise' and 'a noise'
ta ke ipa omo ka
What do you think the difference is?
To me, 'noise' is necessarily unpleasant, whereas 'a noise' can just be a synonym for a (single) sound, although I suppose it's not that common to use it for nice sounds.
I could write this in my conlang, but it'd take a while, so I might come back to it later...