Re: On conlang discoveries
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, February 22, 2003, 22:16|
>When conjuring up suitably beaurocratic examples for the Steienzh
>(which is dead in more normal speech), I made the dreadful discovery that
>the short and everydayish word _krazenezener_ ['krazn@zn=r] can mean either
>"in order to be nationalized" or "to/for nationalizing ones" (with "X-ing
>ones" being a common replacement for agental formations in the language).
Damn. I just realized that another rule forces _krazenejezener_ for the
former meaning. However, you'd still get things like _staksezener_ meaning
both "in order to be killed" and "to/for killing ones"="to/for killers",
since the stem _staks-_ "to kill", unlike _krazene-_ "to nationalize,
doesn't end in a vowel.
And there really are too many sibilants in Steienzh's verbal system:
staksez "is killed"
staksess "will kill"
staksezess "will be killed"
plus some inflected infinite forms like _staksezens_, accusative of "to be
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
>The weird thing at the root of this is that _-ez_ doubles as the passive
>ending and as the active participle ending. Perhaps this's worthy of a new
>essentialist observation; Steienzh is essentially what you got if you mark
>the passive present and the active participle the same.
>Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.