Re: An incomplete, but interesting, Conlang sketch

[Sorry for sending this so late: I was in the middle of composing this
reply when the work computer crashed, causing me to lose the
connection to my session, and I forgot about this message afterwards.]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 08:38:32PM +0000, Joe wrote:
> Right.  Let me begin.  This language is currently called
> E1(temporarily).  It's not exactly naturalistic, but it's not, I think,
> too unnaturalistic.
>
> It has a bizarre system of categorising words.  Or rather, it has no
> system of categorising words.  Each word carries a 'concept' more than
> the sharp division between objects and actions that we have.  For instance:
>
> 'pfring'[PriN]:
> carries a concept of movement.  Depending on context, may mean -
> move, go, etc.
> movement
> mover, transport, etc.
> speed
> fast
> and other things.
Mmm, I like this idea. :-) Do away with verb/noun/etc. distinctions,
just stick to the concepts.


[...]
> Many  words are a combination of two roots.  Joining them is often an
> infix, such as '-pa' which suggests that the second element is a
> property of the first.  For example, 'qampapfring' means 'river, stream,
> brook'.
[...]

Cool! Now you're giving me ideas for another conlang... ;-)


> That is the first part of speech.  The other parts of speech are
> particles.  The only ones I've detailed much are the time particles.
> They come in pairs - a start particle and an end particle.  They are not
> mandatory.  In speech, they will not be used much, and in writing, they
> will not be used for instantaneous events.  They are the following:
[...]
> If only one is used, it is boundless in the direction that is missing.
> The particles are usually applied in the order written, and if written
> in the opposite order, they carry a connotation of imperfection -
> 'doing something back to front'.
Very analytical. Interesting.


[...]
> Normal word order goes in the following manner:
>
> (transitive)
> time, agent, action, patient/location/destination, patient/instrument, time
> (intransitive)
> time, subject, action, location, instrument, time
I presume actions are concepts too? So you can "verb" a nominal
concept and "noun" a verbal concept?


[...]
> kam  lot  lotpajang
> I      eat   cake
> I ate the cake
>
> Here, 'cake' is an object. (Incidentally, any noun can *actually* go in
> any of the slots.  But they mean something different in each one.)
So if only one noun is present and there are several adjacent slots it
may go into, how do you know which one is being occupied?


[...]
> Now, since we add an instrumental, it actually inhabits the same slot as
> the second patient.  So we must add a conjunction to show that the slot
> is extended to house a knife as well.  Technically, it could mean 'I ate
> the cake and a knife' or 'I ate the knife with a cake', but, using
> common sense, these are somewhat unlikely.  Generally, if unusual
> situations do occur, they are cleared up with a passive sentence later.
Ah I see.


[...]
> Now, the passive construction I suggested earlier could be used.  If you
> wanted to say 'the knife was eaten' you would use the prefix 'kri-':
OK.


> tlangk krilot
> knife   PAS-eat
> the knife was eaten (not the cake)
>
> Most people would say this in the same breath as the first sentence.
You mean they'll string the two sentences together to convey an
unambiguous meaning?


[...]
> however, what if we want to move *using the river*(ie. swimming)
>
> kam pfring sleqampapfring
> I      move  OBJ.river
> I swam in the river
>
> There is a reverse prefix, as well - turning objects into features - 'kan-'.
What about if you wanted to move the river? (I know it doesn't make
sense semantically, but what if you could transplant rivers?)


> That's all I've worked out so far.  But it seems pretty promising to me.
Very interesting indeed. I can already see how this could really make
relays very interesting. ;-)


T

--
Doubt is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Reply