Re: Lenmoct

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christophe Grandsire" <christophe.grandsire@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: 26 April, 2003 17:23
Subject: 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? :))))
It's more etabnannimous, though it doesn't seem that hard to read (at least
not to me).

> 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...
The conculture to follow will have very dominant females.  The name of the
language (originally Lenmos) came to me from the island where Sappho lived,
which is alternately Lesbos or Lemnos.  Just in the spirit of fun.
> >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! :))
I sent out the email about the digraphs.  That accounts for most of the
strangeness, I think.

> Interesting structure...
Thank you.  I try...

> >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).
Well, it's not just a suffix.  I guess I have to explain the verbal system,
which is
pretty simple.  Though you're right, feminine verbs are longer than
masculine
ones.  Maybe I should reconsider that.
It's much easier to see in the context of the infinitive.  I'll give the
example
of cualmaca, to love:
Each verb has its charactaristic consonant, which comes from the infinitive
verb form, and are used to form endings.  The present feminine has at least
two sylables and ends in the charactarisic consonant.  Because cualmaca has
three
sylables, the final a is cut off in the feminine and the present feminine
form is
cualmac (c being the charactaristic consonant).  The masculine is cualma,
one letter shorter and none the worse.  There are diferent methods for
determing
the charactaristic consonant based on the shape of the verb, all simple and
second
nature to natives.  All that said, it might be looked at that the feminine
is the
normal form and the masculine is truncated.  I say no more.
> >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?
Almost all objects and abstractions are masculine, seeing as they do not
act.
>
> >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 ;))) ).
I see the begging worked.  :)
>
> >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 :)) .
Me too, but not here.

Jake

Reply