Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

CONLANG Digest - 5 Jun 2000 to 6 Jun 2000 (#2000-155)

From:Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
Date:Wednesday, June 7, 2000, 6:30
> From: James Campbell <james@...> > Subject: Re: Arthropoda > > > The usual word for 'insect', _nasekomoye_, formerly a scientific term > > calquing L. _insectum_ and Gr. _entomon_, can be applied colloquially > > to any non-aquatic arthropod (a spider, a millipede, etc.), which is > > considered incorrect... by too few people who care at all ;) > > Ah, usage just like English 'insect' then. I'm interested to know how > _insectum_ and _entomon_ could get combined into _nasekomoye_ though. I
> see them both in there, but what's the mechanism by which that word was > formed?
I'm tempted to read that as "inséctomon" (gotta squash 'em all!)... um.
> From: Christophe Grandsire <Christophe.Grandsire@...> > Subject: Re: A'stou part III: the Personal System and the Verb (LONG) > > >> - "vos": this person refers to a group to which the listener belongs,
> >> to which the speaker wants to be excluded from. It never refers to a
> >> of listeners (the "non-ego" is used instead) but to the general group
> >> belong to. > > > >The gloss "them" seems impossible for this one too. > > To understand the "vos", you must take it as a "them" "tainted" with "you" > (something that is impossible in English, I know).
Is it like where an English speaker _wouldn't_ use the phrase "present company excepted"? MAN (to wealthy colleagues): All rich people are lunatics.
> From: Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...> > Subject: Syllabic resonants, > was Re: Gweinic Description: Phonology and Roots (Corrections) > > >On a similar note, I once designed an alien language (Klln [kl<syl>:n] or > >some such name) that used syllabics much as other vowels, including > >[a]+[l<syl>] as a diphthong <...> > > A natlang parallel is provided by Lithuanian. It has no syllabic > resonants, but combinations 'short vowel + [r], [l], [n] or [m]' > function like diphthongs (and are termed 'diphthongic combinations'): > they can carry two different accents, like ordinary diphthongs and > long vowels, and unlike combinations with obstruents.
Hmm, maybe daimyo language is something like that--[r] and [l] are written (and perceived, I'd guess, because of the phonotactics) as a diacritic to the vowels, just like i/y/hightone/lowtone/long are.
> From: John Mietus <sirchuck@...> > Subject: Brainstorming a Fantasy Language > > Since I want something of a pseudo-Celtic/Druidic feel, I've already
> on magic being a balance of forces, especially the four classical Elements > (Earth, Fire, Air, Water), with Spirit thrown in as well. And it occurred
> me that these five Forces of Magic could also be the five Genders used in > the Faerie language. And perhaps they're also used in verb conjugation. > > So my definitions for each Gender are: > > Earth = Static, or Stable. Nouns. Things in the physical world. Passive, > rather than active. > > Air = Active, Chaos, Verbs. Things in motion. Use these two to define > Verb/Noun deviations and physical world. > > Fire = Destruction/reduction. Violent emotion. Use to describe decreasing > quantity, negative comparison/connotations, etc. > > Water = Creative. Positive comparisons, pleasant connotations. Use these
> for adjectivial deviations and emotions. > > Spirit = Abstract/Mental/Conceptual.
Hmm, daimyo language has something like this, but not part of the gender system [it's more like in the phonosemantics]. Earth is /d/, air is /g/, fire is /b/, water is /d`/, and what you call 'spirit' (/m/) _is_ a gender (with the added sense of 'personal' and 'family'). [The other actual genders are /n/ for inanimate/sensible, /n`/ for female, /N/ for male...]
> From: Robert Hailman <robert@...> > Subject: Re: "organic/non-organicintelligencegender"<wasRe:Ladanandwoman's > speak> > > > But rare is not the same as impossible! There's no reason to make your > > language be average. Developing on its own is far more plausible, I > > think, than being borrowed from an artificial language. Besides, I have > > a hard time imagining the designers of an auxlang deliberately putting > > in gender. > > I don't think it would be likely for them to put in the male/female > systems that we have in the European languages, but a system whereby > everything is modified due to the whether it is technology related or > not isn't like the male/female system, in that the gender that words > should be put in is very clear from the topic itself. It's easier to > decide if a computer, for example, uses or technology or not, then > whether it's male or female.
Well, not necessarily. If you have a _very_ technologically advanced society [advanced enough that a techno-gender had time to form] ;) then it might not be so clear-cut. One might contrast _dmaba_ 'man' with _dmab._ 'android/cyborg' for example. "Nr eckco imab. a ne" ,rgne x. go.ugn yr dak. cbw cu rbnf yr .ncmcbay. yd. b..e urp yd. lprxcmayck.zrxkcayck. lprbrgbovvv
> Of course, for them to intentionally put it in, there would have to be > some confusion about it in the already existing language, which could be > a problem. Maybe certain words about the natural world were reused with > a different meaning in the electronic world.
Hehe, maybe like _dprooa_ 'horse', and _dproo._ 'iron horse, railroad'... *Mgt.!