Re: Lenmoct

En réponse à Jake X :

>Hi all.
>
>This is my first mention of my newest language (sketch), Lenmoct.
>The name is pronounced ['lEm:VC] and means mother-goddess.
>My goal was to create a reverse-sexist conlang with an interesting-
>looking orthography.
Hehe, did you work an etabnannimous or a maggelish orthography? :))))

>After all the endless discussion on CONLANG over ways to treat
>agent-patient relationship in Accusative, Ergative, and other systems,
>I thought it would be interesting to make a gender based system,
>where feminine nouns are assumed to be the subject, and masculine
>nouns assumed to be the object.  This was fun!
Interesting idea, with shades of animacy hierarchy which exists in many
languages in the world, except that usually females are equal or lower than
men in the hierarchy rather than higher...


>Cil cgot ci tddan.  Nanmad cg, cioa casa.
>[jIl xVt jI TraN  Na'madx j9 'kasa]
Indeed, I see the strange orthography. Like Shreyas said: I want to see
more! :))

>the-general-fem woman the-general-masc man.  hit-present-fem
>the-specific-masc, the-inverse-masc scream-masc
>There is a woman and a man.  She hits him, who (and he) screams.
Interesting structure...

>So basically, every word in the sentence declines for gender.  But in
>Lenmoct,
>this is necessary, because things change when the man hits.
>
>Dda tddan lom cgot.  Cioa nanma ciu, li casat.
>[ra TraN lVm xVt  j9 'Nama ju lI 'kasat]
>the-general-inverse-masc man the-general-inverse woman.
>the-specific-inverse-masc man hit-present-masc the-specific-inverse-fem,
>the-specific-fem scream-present-fem
>There is a man and a woman.  He hits her, who (and she) screams.
There is just one strange thing I see: your verbs get a suffix when the
subject is feminine, not when the subject is masculine. In a language where
females are naturally considered subjects, I would expect the contrary
(because languages don't mark what is presupposed, and put markings only
when things are different from usual).


>Because standard (non-inverse) sentences, filled with general (non-inverse)
>articles, seem so much more elegent to the Lenmocto, it is accepted
>to use that introductory sentence to assign your own genders to nouns.
>In other words, if you start out with "Cil tddan" (the-general-fem
>man-masc),
Interesting. So the term "man" stays masculine, but he will be referred to
with feminine pronouns only. How does it work with objects and
abstractions? Do they also have a necessary gender or does gender work only
as a marker of subjecthood/objecthood with them?


>I guess that's it for now.  What do y'all think?  (::prays::) Please let
>this email
>attract interest.  Please let it spark a discussion.  Please don't let it
>sit there
>unreplied to for weeks like G'oxajo or my other sketches...
Well, I think you managed this time :)) . You see, you just have to try
enough (and beg us for replies ;))) ).


>P.S.  Yes, I do have words with no vowels.  For example, cg [x].  If it is
>unpronouncable one can add an i to make cgi.
You could also consider that the [x] would become syllabic [x=]. I propose
that because I just love syllabic stops and fricatives :)) .

>   Also ci, though it looks
>like it has a vowel, really doesn't, because ci- is the spelling for [j].
>However,
>this article often is pronounced [jI] or [jI_0], so that i doesn't just sit
>there
>acting useless.
LOL.

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Replies