Re: Spoken Thoughts ( My second, better formed, non crappy Language)

First of all, thank you for commenting! ^_^

> > Needless to say, it being my first attempt, it failed miserably.
> > I had no cases,
>
>Nothing wrong with that. My current project Igassik (name to be changed
>soon) has no case distinctions. Furthermore, I've done work with a couple
>natlangs that have no case.
True, no problem in that, but I was aiming for a case inflicting language
much like Quenya at the time.


>  no distinction between verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs,
> > and what not...
>
>My conlang Telek only distinguishes verbs, nouns, and particles. No
>adjectives, adverbs, or adpositions. That isn't unheard of at all in the
>natural language sector -- some people even claim there are languages that
>only have one part of speech, ie. verbs. (I'm skeptical - I think you
>need at least verbs and nouns))
Interesting.  Maybe I could try that with a future lang...


> > So far, I have 8 or 9 cases for the noun, with 2 numbers, the aorist (
>Greek
> > form ) form of the verb, future, past, present, and perfect versions of
> > future and past.  I am working on the adjective and soon the adverb.
>
>A healthy inflectional system.
Thank you.  I got most of my ideas from Quenya, so it would be unfair if I
took credit for all of the ideas!


> > Here is where you come in ( and I thank you for your time if you have
>made
> > it thus far ).  I cannot decide what I should do about the articles, IE:
>The
> > thing, compared to A thing.
>
>There are a few things you can do.
>
>1) don't have either. Lots of languages don't have either.
>2) have the indefinite _a_ but not _the_.
>3) have both, like English.
You forgot one idea, use the definate article, but no indefinate.
Where, you would use THE, but if nothing was specified, it would be
indefinate.

Yet another idea from Quenya.  I probably won't go with that idea, because I
don't wanna feel like I am copying another language.  What are your thoughts
on this?


>From a different direction, the articles could be:
>
>1) independant words (eg. English)
>2) suffixes (eg. Scandanavian langs)
>3) prefixes (I can't think of my examples, but I've seen them)
>4) make the distinction in the cases (eg. Turkish)
In my language, I have used mainly endings, some prefixes, and like one or
two seperate words IN FRONT of the inflicted stem.

4:  You mean to make another version of all the endings altered to do show
the infliction of the indefinateness or definateness of the item.
I don't think this would be a good idea, for my language ( and the people
that speak the language ), like to keep things pretty simple, and yet like
to explore.  So, that wouldn't be the best way to keep things moderately
simple.  The ending -r is the only plural signifier, so that is one way to
show you that it keeps things simple.

For the pronoun system, I would either prefix something, suffix something,
or just use an independant word.  What do you think?


> > If I had formed some of my stems/roots, I would form a basic sentance.
> > Alas, I have yet to start forming the lexicon, and won't do so until the
> > grammar system is complete ( all my last language was just lexicon where
>it
> > was just another English clone ).
>
>I find it useful to develop the lexicon and grammar simultaneously, just
>so I can see what my grammar actually looks like. Some things look great
>written out in a paradigm, but once they are applied to real words, they
>look awful.
I agree, but I just make up roots without giving meaning to them yet to test
me endings.

Like Tul.

It is an action, so, to show that it is a verb, you could either leave it
alone, or add -ta, -tya, or -ya to it.

In my oppinion, -ta sounds best with it, so we will use -ta.
Tulta.  A verb in the language Spoken-Thoughts.

For a nominative form of a stem, lets take mikka, and make form the nom.
form ( the subject ).

Mikka + e ( it will displace a, for ae is not a diphthong and/or valid vowel
cluster ( and besides, the rule for all endings is to replace the ending
vowel if need be or add a "Softener" as I call it ( usually -en- ))).

So the result would be Mikke.

And the accusative form of the noun mikka with the acc. ending ( -o ) would
be: mikko.

To make it plural, add -r.

Mikkor.

Lets say Mikka means Cat or A Small Feline Beast...
And Tul means Hate.

To say the sentance "The Cat does not hate cats", we would need a definator,
and a negator.

I have none so far, so I will make up something for the time being.

I< definator
Rychen<Y has the English long I sound, and ch has the German ch sound.  The
Negator

_I mikke rychen tultaa mikkor_

Since this is something that is forever ( as far as we know ), we use the
aorist form of the verb ( the noun and the verb don't have to be in the same
tenses ), so we double the final vowel in the verb.

I first thought of Rych as a word, but I remebered, ch as the final cluster
is illegal in my lang ( or did I just make that up, oh well, it looks better
with something else ), so I added a softener which usually corrects this
problem.

OOps, I started rambling, but I hope it helped you understand and see my
language better.


>So let's see some details on the grammar you're developing.
Is that good enough?

On the subject of the name, it is called Spoken Thoughts, for the people who
created the language are very open minded as well, and express many
different ideas the think, hence, Spoken Thoughts.

Adjo!
Eruanno
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com