Re: A prioi vs. A posteriori ?

In a message dated 1/31/2003 2:12:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Peter.Bleackley@RD.BBC.CO.UK writes:





I sometimes use words inspired by natural languages, but often not with the>
> smae meaning. For example, the Khangathyagon is written in a runic script
> called Bukhshtav. This is based on the German "buchstabieren", to spell,
 Or Buchstabe, letter! (Also one of those pesky masculine nouns pluralizing
in -en that keeps the -n in the accusative and dative even when it's in the
singular.)


> but in Khangathyagon the roots are
> bukh - rite
> shtav - sign, mark, writing (as verb) write
 So you defined them by "back-formation" just to give sense to the compound
word, eh? Clever.

> Shtaving, as written above, means "wrote (3p)".
 I saw your "shtaving" at the top and loved the sound of it! It even has that
Kankonian word, "shta", in it that means both "to measure" and "worth!" I
guess your language is of a verb-before-subject type.

 It amused me to make>
> "-ing", such a familiar English affix for the present participle and
> continuous aspect, a past tense ("ang" for first person, "eng" for 2nd).
 When I read that, I thought of that person on this list who made an early
conlang and decided to be rebellious by decreeing that all the masculine
nouns ended in -a and all the feminine nouns ended in -o. I loved it!


> "Mag", meaning tree, is inspired by Christophe's "Maggel". I already had
> "zhel" for place, so "Magzhelyagon", forest language, was an appropriate
> name for a language with a hideously complicated phonology, which I had
> decided would be spoken by rainforest dwellers. I was also pleased by the
> resemblance to the Nihongo "moku".
 You mean, with the M at the beginning . . . and then the velar plosive? I
can see that.

Reply