Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Babel story (partial) in Prevli

From:Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
Date:Wednesday, November 28, 2007, 7:41
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:47:52 -0500, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> >Jeffrey Jones wrote: >>On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:34:21 -0500, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...> >>wrote: >> > >> >Here's a bit of it-- using I hope an email-friendly orthography. Still >> >somewhat tentative; there may be mistakes :-((( Basically the KJV >>version. >> > >> >bavel diez l�:ra ['bavEl djEz 'l&:ra] >> >/babil dia-z layar/ >> >B. poss. tower >> >(snip) >> >3. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and ***burn >>them >> >thoroughly.*** >> >et semir eSte namyaner, harali, ar� nigni zekn�t garot, ar� >>***sasantar*** zekn�t. >> >and say-past REFLEX one-another, Come, let's make/create we-them >>brick-pl, >> >let's ***REDUP-bake***we-them. >> > >> >4. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top >>**may >> >reach** unto heaven, and let us **make a name**, lest we **be
>>abroad >> >upon the face of the whole earth. >> >nehe semir zet, harali, ar� nigni zekn�t enze et l�:ra, >>***iniNkatla*** o diez TOP >> >ivri ot linot, et ar� ***y�pZakme*** naronta, untu
>>kant ivri o tambin >> >diez sentit olta >> >"and" said they, Come, let's make we-them city and tower, >>**INCH-IRR-rise-fut** >> >it poss TOP into def-pl sky-pl, and let's **pass-CAUS-Redup-know** >>name-our, >> >so.that **not-pass-IRR-scatter-fut** we into def earth poss. corner-pl >>all-pl. >> >Reactions????? >> >> Have you mentioned what the reduplication does? I also don't remember >> what IRR is. > >BTW another correction: lino-t 'heavens' should be linu-t > >Redup., mainly, intensifies the meaning: >santar 'to fire ceramics' > sasantar 'thoroughly fire...'--- >/yakim/ yakme 'know (things)' redup /y-yakim/ Zakme 'know thoroughly, well' >then /i-ap-Zakme/ pass-caus-Zakme y&pZakme 'cause to be well-known'. >I see I've used two different types of redup-- full-syllable with santar, >initial-C with yakme.....hmmm, let's just say that /y/ behaves strangely in >the language. > >IRR is irrealis mood, 'may, probably VB' or simply indicates uncertainty >about the action's occurrence. >/níkat/ nikt& 'rise, ascend' irrealis /inkát/ iNkát , Future -l(a) and >Inchoative in- > in/iNkát/la 'may come to rise'.... Actually I see now, >there's no real need for the inchoative here. >/hákum/ hakmo is 'scatter' irr. /ah'kum/ [a'k_hum] 'may scatter' passive >/i-ahkúm/ y&hkúm 'may be scattered', negative us+ > uSy&amp;khúm. Come to >think of it, this form could have been redup. too, /ha-hakum/ realis >hahakmo, irreal. ?? /ah-ahkúm/, passive /i-ah-ahkúm/ yähahkúm > >> >>It looks like you've accomplished a lot already. It takes me quite a while >>before I can translate actual texts. > >Your reply is timely. Last night I started a message, but inadvertently >deleted it. Now I can discuss some specifics..... > >The phonology and morphology are reasonably well settled, though still >tentative in places....I've gotten involved in a lot of vocab creation >(because I'm finding the culture so interesting), and only just started >working out sentences. The Babel text was a good ready-made place to start, >and sort of fits in with their mythology. > >The sentences I'm working on are turning out to be a bit of a nightmare >;-))) -- one self-created problem is that passive voice is required in lots >of places (like relative clauses-- in certain cases the rel.pron. MUST be >the subject of the clause, inspired by Malay/Indonesian). Examples: > >Active/declarative: zizer hen o taro aple >/ziza + da hen o tadu apil/ >eat+past he-it the man [a fruit] >The man ate an apel. ===> > >...o taro or zizer hen aple (/odi/ ore ~or = relative marker) >the man REL=who(SUBJ) ate an apel > >...o aple or Zi:izer ni o taro (pass. /z-i-ize/ Zi:ze 'be eaten', ni 'by') >the apel REL(SUBJ) was-eaten by the man = the apel that the man ate > >...o taro or diez aple Zi:zer (ni ...) (/dia+ poss./ die- marks alienable >possession) >the man REL(SUBJ) POSS-3sg apel be-eaten-past (by...) >the man whose apel was eaten (by...) >(I haven't decided yet whether a resumptive SUBJ. pron.suffix is required in >the passive-- ...or Zi:zer/za REL was-eaten-it aack! all those z's!! )
I'm glad I didn't put that limitation into MNCL5. The only restriction on relative clauses is that the relative pronominal must come first. It can even take any case or non-case ending. Your examples are clear, but I'd have to see more context before having an opinion on the resumptive. It may not be necessary, although in MNCL5 I played it safe by including a terminator pronoun (which also indicates the clauses syntactical function) in every subordinate clause.
>and so on...........(and we haven't totally taken elisiion into account >:-((( ) > >One problem is, how to do an _orderly description_ of the language, since >phonology and morphology are so inter-connected (and how many phonetic >changes should be indicated in the written forms?) (As if one decided to >write "legs" for Latin lex.)
That's what you get for making an interesting and naturalistic phonology! I had enough trouble figuring out how to explain the MNCL5 orthography without referring to the morphology, and MNCL5 was designed to _avoid_ phonetic alternations (except for the unwritten vowels). You said that the phonology is reasonably well settled. Have you tried a formal phonemic (or other phonological) analysis? But I guess you're trying to decide whether or not to use a phonemic-type orthography in the first place.
>Prevli is also turning out to be, I think, a rather ugly-sounding >language--- but that's OK :-))))
Yes, that's OK. I haven't really aimed at sounding any particular way, except for Vallés, Rubaga, and maybe Naisek.