Re: LUNATIC again

In Rokbeigalmki i would probably refer to a conlang as _lesna sudaole-ad_
"[artisticly-]created language", _lesna sudbolok-ad_ "built language", or
_lesna suddabolok-ad_ "built-up language".
_aole_ is "creation" referring to a concept or something artistic, as
opposed to _yeished_ which is more physical.
_bolok_ is building something fully, and _dabolok_ is more of adding on
to or improving something already somewhat built.
But those three forms at the top are simple adjectives (using the
adjective prefix _sud-_) that don't really tell you any of the info that
Sally and Herman mentioned...so i might use a different, rarer form that
i refer to unlinguistically as the "noun-adjective", _ool-_.

It's used very strangely....i myself don't even understand it that well.
But what i do understand is that it's a form of the verb-noun with
properties of both a 'doer' noun and a subordinate clause.

the most common example of _ool-_ is in the long form of the common name
of the Rokbeigalm Creator-Deity, _khada-a oolu-kabak dwim-a sudglendm-a_,
"the One who Founded the Great Waters".

khada = one
-a = the

ool + u = "ool", past
kabak = foundation

dwim = waters
sud + glend = "great", adjective-prefix + greatness


So, the _ool-_ is both an adjective and a 'doer' noun.  Normal "doer"
nouns are formed by softening the final consonant, such as _neded_
"wandering" >> _nededh_ /nEdED/ "wanderer".  But _ool-_ can be used in
ways that final consonant softening can't, to specify the time of the
action.
Therefore, using _aole_, another form of saying "conlang" could be:

_lesna ooloi-aole-ad_, using the present-routine vowel _oi_ for a
constantly-being-created language,
or
_lesna oolu-aole-ad_, using the past tense vowel _u_ for a 'finished'
language.


-Stephen (Steg)


On Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:02:31 -0500 Sally Caves <scaves@...>
writes:
>That's a lovely distinction.  In other words, to leave off building a
>language as opposed to finish building a language.
>
>Teonaht doesn't have a word for "invent" either, yet; but it does have
>"build."  Nor does it have a distinction, yet, between "built" and
>"being
>built."  Nor does it really have a past participle.  To say "the built
>house" you say something like "the house underbuilding," with
>"building"
>as gerund, and "under" meaning "subjected to"; which I suppose can
>mean
>either that the house is in the process of being built or that it is
>finished being built.  You say: li gwenda tsobreffodma(rem) to mean
>"the
>chosen girl" (the girl subjected to choosing).  So if you said in T.,
>li
>gallaly tsobhadharem, /l@ g@'lali tsop'hatarEm/, "the language under
>or
>subjected to building,"  the "built language," this would cover the
>unfinished quality of our "invented" languages quite adequately,
>though I
>imagine I'd have to introduce some adverb or particle or a different
>conjoined preposition to distinguish "having been built"  from "under
>building."  I suppose this is detestably ambiguous, but I note that
>natural languages sometimes slip slide around like this.  Maybe not
>precisely in this area, but in others.  That poor encoding, those
>unsophisticated sots...  I tend to like it.
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]