Re: Babel story (partial) in Prevli

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 :-))))