Re: Here we go loup-garou

On 7/9/07, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> A little translation/interlinear would be helpful, although I think I've
> figuried it out. Mostly.

Uza         zi      moruld      or
father(VOC) we(GEN) sky(LOC) be(ATTR PROG)

Limzar    don       nudir
name(NOM) thou(GEN) sanctify(PASV IMP PROG)

Markiar              don       maid
rule(PASV AGENT NOM) thou(GEN) come(IMP)

M'ziar               don       ed
want(PASV AGENT NOM) thou(GEN) occur(IMP)

Maizim      ram moruld
ground(LOC) AS  sky(LOC)

Lokand    m'lor   zøn     zyrkom     zi       rork
day(LOC) now(GEN) we(DAT) bread(ACC) we(GEN)  give(IMP)

Uz  lymkiard                    zi       dolk
AND transgress(PASV AGENT ACC)  we(GEN)  forgive(IMP)

Ram zø      lymkard                     zi      dolkraz.
AS  we(NOM) transgress(ACTV AGENT ACC)  we(GEN) dolkraz(ACT INDIC PROG).

Uz  kondziark             zim     lolz      zik
AND tempt(PASV AGENT ALL) we(ACC) lead(IMP) NOT

L'ro m'kun     zim     lolz
BUT  evil(ABL) we(ACC) lead(IMP)

Ziin       dan       ømkraz               markiard
that(CAUS) thou(NOM) own(ACT INDIC PROG)  kingdom(ACC)

Uz  k'ndard
AND power(ACC)

Uz  køkald
AND glory(ACC)

Ruzurd.
all(LOC).

> An inconsistency? "maid" [ma'id], but "maizim" [ma'jizim]-- whence the [j]?
Phonemically absent in either case, just an inconsistency in my
phonetic rendering.  Good catch.


> More info on word structure and phonotactics needed.........
> What's with all the /r/s and /z/s? And where do /2/, /E/ and /y/ come from,
> they're not in your inventory. Odd that the text doesn't contain a single
> /s/.
OK, let me back up a bit.  The proper names were the starting point.
From them I derived the language as it currently stands, with some
phonological features that aren't obvious from those names.

1. No phonemic voice.  Tysor is phonemically Dyzor.  Hence the lack of
<s>es (and <t>s, for that matter) in the text.   I kept <k> as the
phonemic representation for [k]/[g], which is a little inconsistent,
but with <g> not even showing up at all in the names, I felt adopting
it would be going too far.

2. I added umlaut as part of the inflectional system, hence y and ø.

> the language does seem too r-ful for my taste.
Yes, I agree.  One of the things I don't like about it.

As for the Americanisms - I was either 6 or 8 when I devised the
names.  When I became more linguistically astute I played with
Spanishizing them to /zan/ (instead of /z&n/) and /tisor/ or even
/tysor/ and found the change unsatisfactory.  I then abbreviated Tysor
to T'sor  /t@sor/.  (In the current transliteration, <'> == /@/).

> Do "a`r\" et al. represent retroflexed vowels?
Boring American "ar" sound.  Rhot[ai]cized /a/ followed by /r/...

> Is "ma- ~m'-" a prefix or classifier of some sort? What if anything governs
> 0 vowel? "k'ndard" vs. "køkald"??
As I said, <'> = /@/.  Apart from the pre-r variation in /a/ =
[&],[a`] and /o/ = [o],[O`], the vowels are all phonemic, just not all
present in the name list.

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>