Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: On conlang discoveries

From:Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2003, 22:16
I wrote:
> >When conjuring up suitably beaurocratic examples for the Steienzh >infinitive >(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: staks "kills" staksez "is killed" staksess "will kill" staksezess "will be killed" staksez "killing" staksezh "killed" plus some inflected infinite forms like _staksezens_, accusative of "to be killed". Andreas
>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. > > Andreas > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. >
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.