Re: Names of chess pieces in (con)langs

Could go back to original names of the pieces and then go for
the conlang name?

Pawns = ?
Knights = ?
Rook = castle or
Queen = Raj or what?
King = Raj or ..
Bishops = priests or ..

They do sort of say how the pieces was seen as.

Knights = jump around, showing up in wierd places, like cavalry
of old..

Rooks = move straight and such, sort of like either a
castle/fortification or an army that has limited mobility.

Queen = everyone at once.

King = stuck in the past, much like the Japanese Emperor, with
no real power, other than the game?

Pawn = move slow and in mass (or could move that way, but alone
they are more obstacles to all.. or can be shields when
together?

Bishop = always sidestepping the issues, and they strike from
the less than straight angles..

Mike



Conlang - constructed language(s), for linguists who like to see
how things are.. Language, fun to play with.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Bennett" <paul-bennett@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Names of chess pieces in (con)langs


> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Simon Clarkstone <simon.clarkstone@...>
> >
> >On 2006-04-20, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> >> On 3/25/06, Carsten Becker <carbeck@...> wrote:
> >> > How likely would it be for a culture not located on earth
to
> >> > come up with exactly the same game?
> >>
> >> Exactly my dilemma.  My culture is alien, so I need to
design alien games.
> >
> >There are a few games you could have them plausibly
independantly
> >inventing.  Go is the first to come to mind:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28board_game%29
> >The Kigdatsi (my con-species) play it, though they can reach
the
> >super-human level of 15-20 dan  (the human limit is 9 dan).
(Some of
> >their programming languages are suspiciously familiar, too.
I really
> >would like to be more inventive.)
>
> If I ever get around to devising my 4D conworld, I'll need to
start thinking about games that can be played on a 3D board. 3D
Go has been on my mind a little from time to time.
>
> Heck, *we* have 3D games, and there are a small number of 4D
games for which we have computer simulations; I reckon my 4D
folk could have some 4D games and simulated 5D (or even 6D?)
games too. Gah! I can barely even start to think in 4D, so how
the dickens am I going to design 5D games???
>
>
>
>
> Paul