Re: More on the Hermetic Language

En réponse à Paul Burgess <paul@...>:

>
> "Mna" is the article-- neither definite nor indefinite,
> just an article. The rules for its use vary with noun
> case. For instance, it always occurs before any noun in
> the nominative case, common or proper, unless its place
> is taken by a number or a demonstrative. But in the
> genitive, dative, and instrumental cases, it occurs
> before the noun only with a reflexive or emphatic sense.
>
Here again a correspondence between Maggel and Hermetic. Maggel also has a
single article, whose use has very little to do with definition. But the
resemblance stops here, as the use of the article |a(n)| (yep, borrowed it from
Irish Gaelic ;)) ) is quite different from the use of your |mna|. With a single
lone noun not completed by anything, it does have a meaning of definition, but
it's the only case when it does (and in that case it's use more like the French
article than the English one, i.e. much more often). In any other case, the
presence of the article depends on the environment of the noun, and the rules
are actually conflicting ;)) . For instance, if an adjective completes a noun,
the article must always be present (and if the adjective comes before the noun,
the article goes between the adjective and the noun!). But if a preposition is
before the noun (prepositions also go between the adjective and the noun ;)) ),
then the article cannot appear, except for some prepositions whose meaning
slightly changes depending on the presence or absence of the article!!! And a
noun in construct state (i.e. completed by another noun) can *never* have an
article, while the completing noun *must* take the article (which takes
exceptionally the form |an| even in front of a consonant). And then there's the
use or not use of the article with combined numerals which is extremely
complicated and subject to many exceptions :)) .

>
> Complicated topic. The short version: the "present" verb
> can also indicate action in the recent past, or (to a
> lesser degree) immediately impending future action.
In French, the present also indicates immediate future (just like the present
progressive in English :) ), but not the immediate past.

 And
> the present also sometimes indicates *slightly* more
> remote past action with a continuing present effect.
Like the English present perfect? In that case, it's identical to French, which
uses the present to refer to actions begun in the past but still continuing in
the present or having a present effect.

 The
> future indicative carries with it a greater sense of
> assurance that the action is going to take place. Where
> one is somewhat doubtful whether the future action is
> actually going to come off, there is a *tendency* to put
> the verb in the future optative.
>
My Romance language Reman, which has a subjunctive future, does the same: the
indicative future is used only for future actions that are certain. Doubtful
future actions are rendered with the subjunctive future.

> more or less extended or repeated action. And causative
> is, well, causative-- am trying now to remember from
> which language I purloined the idea of a causative verb.
>
There's nothing wrong in having a causative form for the verb, but it's indeed
strange to lump it together with the aspects, since causative is a voice, just
like passive is in English. Namely, it's a form that changes the variance (the
number of mandatory participants) of a verb. Like the passive takes transitive
verbs and makes them into intransitive ones, the causative on the other hand
*adds* a participant. Aspects never change verb variance.

Of course, if your causative cannot combine with aspect marks, then it may be
functionally valid to lump it together with aspects, but it stays something
quite strange...

> Aspects cannot be combined within a single verb.
> "Combining" aspects requires the use of an auxiliary
> verb, usually the verb "vaoliso," "to do." For instance:
>
> zodis, "he moves it around in a circle"
> zodliis, "he starts out moving it around in a circle"
> zodpais, "he moves it around and around in circles"
> vaolliis mna zodpaisoth, "he starts out moving it around
> and around in circles" (lit., "he starts out doing the
> moving it around and around in circles")
>
What does "mna" mean here? And the -oth suffix? Is it an infinitive form?

>
> Yes, you're on the bullseye with potential and
> permissive. Subjunctive is complicated and idiomatic--
> in Hermetic it includes everything they told you you
> could do with the subjunctive in Spanish or French
> class, plus everything they told you *not* to do with
> the subjunctive in Spanish or French, plus (probably)
> more. Will have to tackle that one in more detail some
> time when I'm more wide awake. :)
>
Please do :)) .

> As for jussive, the story behind this (and there is
> often a story associated with points of Hermetic grammar
> or vocabulary) is that I slapped these labels on the
> conjugation of the verb when I was 13 or 14, way back
> when Richard Nixon was still in the White House. I later
> (in some instances, soon afterwards) became aware that
> the label didn't really fit. But it stuck anyhow.
>
Hehe, maggelity before even the word existed ;))) . I like it. I myself often
use somewhat misleading labels to describe Maggel's grammar. It's all part of
the game ;))) .

>
> You're on target with the six forms of comparison in
> adjective and adverb-- which, yes, are also
> agglutinative. The negative form of the adjective would
> also be used to mean, e.g., "without goodness."
>
So is it different from "bad"? If so, it allows for interesting shades of
meaning.

> The equative in Hermetic is a noun case. It would occur
> as the equivalent of a predicate nominative, though it
> can also modify any which noun in a sentence:
>
> Mna pnitho, "wandering sage"
>
> Mna Cnaltho pnithom, "Cnaltho is a wandering sage"
>
> Mna Cnaltho pnithom octhil ghmonas, "Cnaltho, a
> wandering sage, was playing chess."
>
> Mn'Ikon'imoilas mna Cnalthoth pnithom ith. "Indigo
> visited Cnaltho, a wandering sage." (The word "ith"
> indicating that the equative is modifying a noun in the
> accusative case.)
>
Interesting, a special case for predicate nouns, also used for juxtaposed
nouns. I used to have such a case in my first languages :)) . I'm thinking that
my O has something like that, but I have no way to check right now :(( .

>
> There was a time, 25 or 30 years ago, when I read a lot
> of books on linguistics, as an amateur pursuing the
> hobby of tinkering with his own constructed language.
> But that was long ago, way back before my beard turned
> grey. At present, I'm just surprised I can still sling
> around a term like "allophone"! :)
>
Hehe, you'll see that what you've learned will come back quickly here :)) .

>
> Yes, sometimes multiple sounds for a single letter;
> sometimes an alphabetic letter can also serve as a
> syllabic sign (e.g., the letter "vatho" for /v/ or
> /va/). There's also a diacritical mark, "mna thopo,"
> which is lots of fun-- it indicates "vowel following,"
> and the vowel may be indicated, or if it's not
> indicated, then it's /o/. However, only certain
> characters take thopo, and under some circumstances, if
> a letter can't take thopo, then the letter immediately
> preceding takes thopo, if it can ("mna thopo
> chichoranisa," receding thopo). If thopo cannot be used
> to indicate an /o/ in either of these ways, then the
> letter "otho" is used, except in the final syllable of a
> singular noun, where if there's no thopo involved, then
> /o/ is usually simply left unindicated.
>
Interesting script ideas. Not as mad as Maggel's script, but it has interesting
ideas, like the "thopo" indeed :) .

> I can also think of a *very* few instances where
> spelling would be ambiguous from pronunciation. But most
> of the time, in Hermetic, it's pronunciation ambiguous
> from spelling.
>
Hehe, in Maggel pronunciation and spelling are basically divorced ;) (or else,
how can you explain that a particle like |jn| can be pronounced [zd(I)]? :)) ).
The Maggel script just keeps enough phonetic contents to (mis)guide people ;)) .

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.