Re: Jases Lalal: New Word Order
|From:||James Worlton <jworlton@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, March 20, 2004, 16:37|
sandat John L. Leland:
> My long-heralded new word order (VSO) for Jases Lalal has arrived. Actually,
> when I
> first invented the language, I intended it to have that sentence structure,
> but then it fell under Rihana-ye influence and only just emerged, by decree of
> the Jases Lalel Lawaleh
> Habav (Fatherland's Language's Scholars' Assembly)--sort of like the French
> Academy except they can actually burn people alive--grammar police with
> enforcement powers. I have to admit I am not myself fluent in any VSO natlang, so
> some of my adaptations (e.g. what to do with infinitives and modifiers) may be
> I will therefore be humbly grateful for criticism before the new system
> becomes fixed.
> John Leland
I'm no expert either, but since Orēlynna is VSO also I'll take a look.
My comments only show how O. would do it, not that my way is better than
your way or anything :). Also, I'm too lazy to translate into O. right
now, so I'll just gloss the word order in English.
> Babvahaj Jabah Jasyn Halah
> Came first people to Jasas how.
In O. the 'how' would come at the beginning of the clause, and the rest
would follow as you have it. (Strangely, O. has no word for 'how'.)
> Babsaj zabaj jaboh* jawyz Hadyn*,
> Made Holy Father first people in beginning in Hadan,
Here I think O. would put 'in beginning' after 'Holy Father' so:
made Father Holy in beginning people first in Hadan
(O.'s adjectives follow the nouns)
> davav hakak dabsaj jabah
> but because sinned first people,
> babvahajamar jabah zabuj
> were forced to move first people by Holy Father
Interesting that you put this into passive voice. I think O. would not
allow passive in this case, so I would have something like:
forced Father Holy people first to move
I really like the way you conjoined the infinitive onto the conjugated
form of the verb. If I have this right it parses something like:
Am I close? Cool. Kind of like German noun compounding but with verbs
instead. O.'s infinitives appear at the end of the clause and are marked
by a particle |na| for the sole purpose that I liked the way it flowed.
To me it seemed too abrupt to just throw the infinitive there (O. does
have infinitive forms).
> kavav Hadyn Haryb. Zazsahaj
> from Hadan to Harab. Worshipped
> Hareb babah dazob, sakav* babvahaj
> Harab's people evil sungod, so moved first people
> jabah kavav Haryb Jasyn.
> from Harab to Jasas (Fatherland)
> Xabvaj jabaz jaboh Jasyn,
> Led first priest first people to Jasas,
> fahah babsaj jabaz zasoh Jasyn.
> and made first priest Holy City in Jasas.
> Navav* dabbaj jabaz, babsahaw babtahaj jabah xabob,
> After died first priest,to make desired first people king,
This seems to nullify what I mentioned above about verb conjoining. If I
have it right your verbs are:
babsahaw - to make
babtahaj - desired/wanted
If I was right above about 'forced to move', then shouldn't this be
(OK, it is rather cumbersome like that, but so are some German noun
constructions :) )
Or maybe you only conjoin verbs when using the passive voice, or maybe
you have a syllable limit for the size of words...
> sakav babsaj mabaz jaxob xabob.
> so made second priest first king king.
Do you have too many kings there?
Overall, it seems logical to me. And I really love the idea of verb
conjoining, even if that is not what you did and I just misunderstood
you. I think I may use that idea in emindahken, since I have no method
for verbs in that lang yet.
"We know by means of our intelligence
that what the intelligence does not
comprehend is more real than what it