Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Babel story (partial) in Prevli

From:ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...>
Date:Saturday, November 24, 2007, 18:47
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 scattered** >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 ***uSy�khubla*** >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&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!! ) 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.) Prevli is also turning out to be, I think, a rather ugly-sounding language--- but that's OK :-))))