Re: describing names

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Leigh <thomas@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: describing names


> Hej igen, Majken!
>
> > In preparation for a page about my languages I made a
> > subdirectory called "language". The system responded:
> > "Successfully created language". I thought that was my
> > job!
>
> LOL! I wish it were than simple! :-)
>
> > 1. Her name is Mary
> > 2. Her name is beautiful
> > The first sentence tells me her name, while the second
> > only describes it. But the only difference is the last
> > word. There is no way to be sure that she isn't called
> > Beautiful, except that is an unusual name. How do
> > other languages solve this problem?
>
> In my experience, those which do distinguish usually do so by using
> completely different expressions for the idea "to be called" or "to have a
> name". Like Danish, for example!
>
> 1. Hun hedder (or is it heder?) Mary
> 2. Hendes navn er smuk.
>
> Or could you also say "Hendes navn er Mary"? I don't remember ever hearing
> such a thing, but I was in Denmark so many years ago that I can't
remember.
>
> Another example, French:
> 1. Elle s'appelle Marie (literally, "She calls herself Mary")
> 2. Son nom est beau
>
> Well, "son nom est beau" is a literal translation of "her name is
> beautiful", but I don't know if French speakers would say that. "Elle a un
> beau nom" ("she has a beautiful name") sounds better to my rusty,
non-native
> ears. I'll let Chistophe correct my crappy French! ;-)
(Nihil Sum, I wrote the next lines before seeing your message)

I would like to add the Spanish version, which is similar to French
1.(Ella) Se llama María (lit. "She calls herself Mary")
2. Su nombre es bonito*
*"bonito" may be the standard Spanish for "beautiful", but in Argentina, we
hardly use it. Instead, we use "lindo".

And the Russian:
1. Eë zovut Marija (lit. "They call her Mary")
2. Eë imja Marija
Note in 2. that the verb "to be" is always omitted in the present tense in
Russian, and that the "eë" in 1. is the accusative pronoun of "ona" (she),
but the "eë" in 2. is the possesive adjective, which is indeclinable. (just
as in English with "her")

>
> Scottish Gaelic:
>
> 1. 'S e Màiri an t-ainm a tha oirre (literally, "It is Mary the name which
> is on her" -- in Gaelic names are "on" a person)
> 2. Tha an t-ainm oirre (or: aice) brèagha (literally, "the name on her
[or:
> "at her", the usual way to express possession] is beautiful")
>
> Notice the difference in the verb "to be" there: Gaelic has two -- "is" is
> used to equate two things (A = B) while "tha" is used to describe, locate,
> etc.
>
> However, my own language Choba does the same as English, and the only way
to
> distinguish (in speech; in writing the capitalisation of the name shows
the
> dfference) is by context:
>
> 1. Leshä enara Mary shiga ("her name Mary is")
> 2. Leshä enara kishala shiga ("her name beautiful is")
>
> > hawaa eya aya (have a nice day)
>
> Du også!
>
> Thomas
>
Let me show you how it works in Moesteskin, my conlang:
1. Fes pelenlem Mary
2. Shlo daks lem Mary
The second example is literally as in English (Her name is Mary), but the
first one uses the verb "pelenled" which is grammatically speaking a
causative form of the verb "pelende" (to call with your voice) [pelenled and
pelende are infinitives, pelenle- and pelen- being the stems, and -d and -de
the infinitive marks]. So, "Fes pelenlem Mary" literally means "She makes
(the others) call (herself) Mary".