|From:||Arthaey Angosii <arthaey@...>|
|Date:||Friday, January 17, 2003, 4:47|
Emaelivpar Nik Taylor:
>Sally Caves wrote:
>> Heh heh heh... that's been one of my goals, too, for Teonaht! Actually, 501
>> nouns would be better, because they are more irregular.
>A single fully inflected verb in Uatakassi would take up several
>*pages* :-) The last time I calculated it out, I think I came up with
>5,000-some possible inflections.
<boggle> Could you give us a taste of what a semi-fully inflected verb
would look like? I can't imagine a verb taking up so much space.
I have to admit to never having looked at any of the "501 Verbs" series,
though I've noticed them at Barnes & Noble while browsing the language
section. I looked at the sample pages through Amazon.com (why doesn't B&N
have this feature?) and it does look like it would be a good model to
follow to spur a conlanger to invent more words. But are these books
really helpful to foreign language learners past the 101 stage? Unless
irregularity is the rule <coughmaggelcough> I don't see how having
pre-conjugated verbs is helpful since so much is predictable repetition.
That said, I do think it'd be cool to have "501 Asha'illen Verbs". :)
Arg! That reminds me of an issue I'm currently having. In English, you
have the noun "English," the language itself. The noun can also mean the
people of England, who typically speak English. Then there's the adjective
"English," as in English language. I have trouble keeping straight in my
head the system I've set up to communicate the same meanings:
Asha'ille - (n) the language itself
Asha'illen - (n) one who speaks Asha'ille
Asha'illen - (adj) pertaining to Asha'ille
asha'ille - (n) the language itself
isha'illih - (n) one who speaks Asha'ille*
dasha'ille - (adj) pertaining to Asha'ille
asha'illeth - (adj) pertaining to Asha'ille
There are two forms of the adjective form. This first one listed is the
older form, from Sarenshille (Old Asha'ille) via the parent language,
Gharchove. The second one follows the modern productive rules of
adjective-formation. There's not historical-linguistics reasons why the
two forms can't coexist, is there?
Note too that an "Asha'illen" is equivalent to a Spanish "hispanohablante"
-- it's just a person who can speak the language, not necessary a person of
a specific nationality (or species, in my case).
* I just made up this term now. I realized while typing this e-mail that I
didn't have a native term that encompassed all Asha'ille speakers**, only
"dacresaea" which is specific to the Cresaean species (and has a second
sense meaning anything from the planet Cresaea; but I'm willing to live
with this secondary ambiguity).
** See my problem?? Hmm... it's really "English-speakers," not "English
speakers," isn't it. The "English" is part of a compound noun, not an
adjective modifying "speakers." Perhaps that's been my source of confusion.