Article about new conlang
|From:||Roger Mills <romilly@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 5:04|
Well, you've done a very good job of squeezing every possible drop of juice
out of a very small sample :-)
A few speculations have occurred to me--
1. the near identity of ur-anar in #1 and uranar in #3. If one or the other
is an error, and if the language is SOV, this might be _anar_ 'to have' plus
an optative/future/conditional particle ur-. #1 could then be guessed as:
ara darith uranak garak tha-ithil
I wish(n.) Opt-have ..... able/Opt-understand
2.garak _may_ be the sentence connector g...k circumfixed to ara. 'that I'
~'so that I...'
3.tha might then be the Optative form of du (#2) 'able-indicative'. It
doesn't surprise me (in #2) that the subject can be postposed in a short
4.More guessing, in #3, b'ka seems to me more likely to be 'too, also'; e
irin would then be 'sweetheart(+acc+-pl)', but it's difficult to say what
indicates accusative, what plural.
uranar here would be, again, the same optative form of 'to have' as in #1.
Perhaps instead of optative, I should be calling ur- an irrealis marker;
both examples involve events that may or may not happen
Just my 2 cents. Fun. Thanks
Roger Mills (cc to CONLANG)