Re: [Re: trQal]

On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Edward Heil wrote:

> Just as a matter of quibbliness:  Tolkien made up Orcs.  Everyone who's used
> them since then has been ripping him off.  Do you want to be on that
> bandwagon?
> Trolls and Goblins, on the other hand, are in the public domain. :)
Hrmm.  Didn't know that.  Perhaps they'll be goblins, then.  I want them
to be more manlike than trolls.

> > 3.  The "vowel gender."
> >     Includes all things of no significance, animals too small to eat,
> > cubs, and inedible plants, as well as small natural objects.  Our
> > paradigm noun is stlkHe, meaning "tree."  (Here's an example of how
> > tongue-twisting troll can be to the human who has grown
> > up speaking a civilized language.  Breaking the word into syllables can
> > help:  "stlk-He"  It sounds a lot like an English speaker
> > saying "stalk, huh!".)  Plurality in vowel gender nouns is irregular, and
> > must be learned for each noun.  The plural of stlkHe is
> > stlkHu.
>
> Usually irregularity is a matter of degree.  Are there broad patterns within
> the vowel gender which tend to hold?
Yes, actually, there are.  I haven't solidified them yet.

> Also, usually irregularity is most tolerated among the most-used elements of a
> language (e.g words for "be," "have," pronouns, etc).  If the vowel gender is
> full of insignignificant items, it seems an *unlikely* place for irregularity
> to lurk, unless these items are still talked about a lot by trolls.
This is the largest gender; just because these things are "insignificant"
doesn't mean they'[re actually unimportant.  What it means is that it's
neither something the trolls could eat, or hunt, or needs to be afraid of.
Which is most things.

> > Trollish has three moods:  "hungry," "horny," and "satisfied."  (These are
> > direct translations of the trolls' descriptions of their
> > verbal moods)  We might say "forceful imperative/subjunctive," "polite
> > imperative/subjunctive" and "indicative."  The three moods
> > for each verb are irregular, and must be learned for each word.  The
> > declension for number, however, is regular through almost
> > all verbs.  Moods are always listed in word lists as satisfied (hungry,
> > horny).
>
> Nifty idea to use their native vocabulary, but you might clarify exactly what
> you mean by listing the uses for the three moods, not just the grammatical
> terms which you might use to classify them.  So, you give commands with the
> "hungry" and "horny" moods, and the "horny" is more polite than the "hungry"?
> Is that how it works?
I'm still working out what all these can do.  The "satisfied" mood
sometimes seems to function as a perfect, other times, as a plain ol'
indicative.  Mood and tense are mixed up here something fierce.

My current explanation is that these "moods" aren't just grammatical
moods, but literally the mood the troll is in at the moment in which he
communicates.

 >
> Also, when you say they are "irregular," do you mean that from the form of a
> verb in one mood, you cannot predict the form it will take in another?  If so,
> you could represent this by saying that the verb has "principal parts" -- as a
> lexical entry for a given verb, you need to list the minimum number of forms
> you must memorize to be able to use the verb in all its moods (three,
> presumably).  Those will be its "principal parts."
Ah, good.  Thanks.

> > Trollish has only two numbers: self and other.
>
> These are persons, then, not numbers.
Righto.  *makes a note*

> > IV.  Adverbs
> >
> > Adverbs agree with verbs in mood only.
>
> This is interesting!  I don't know of a language where adverbs have to agree
> with verbs, but then, I don't know that many languages.  Did you take this
> idea from a natlang?
No, came up with it myownself.

> Postpositions tend to exist in OV languages.  Is Trollish OV?  If so, it
> probably also consistently places modifiers before heads (e.g. adjectives
> before nouns; adverbs before verbs).
>
> Ed
Troll is usually (although not necessarily) VSO or (for emphasis) VOS.
The postpositional thing is an intentional weirdness introduced into the
language -- it violates the rules of common human speech precisely because
it *isn't* human speech.  Glad someone noticed, though.  :)  Plus, I
absolutely adore VSO word order (today, while trying to remember Spanish I
haven't spoken in three years, I accidently slipped into it, in fact,
confusing the listener something fierce).  I also, however, have a thing
for postpositions.  So I found myself a language in which I can have both
at the same time.