Shaquelingua (was: How to write down a language design?)
|From:||Remi Villatel <maxilys@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, November 4, 2003, 1:13|
> It's a very nicely detailed page. Your language works a bit like a
> compendium of conlangs such as Ebisedian, Nova, Mia Soderquist's conlang,
Thank you, that's very heart-warming...
> etc. I had a hard time to read it though because the grammar is difficult
> and I kept forgetting what "kepriçke" et alia really mean.
So do I! ;-) I needed a few seconds to remember what "kepriçte" means. I'm
working on this. It's very difficult to use "common" words without loosing
some meaning and it's very difficult to use "alien" words without loosing
some readers. By the way, kepriçte = descriptor of flux.
> I still don't
> understand what words in your concrete examples are lipuvrä. I don't
"lipüvrä" means "referential". It's always written in dark yellow and has
the "u" declension. It is to be understood as always beginning with "about"
or "relative to".
u-yiviiltu, e-dija'ay itiv'kja.
u-yiviilta = the forest (lipüvrä)
e-dija = towards (pikkä)
ay (kepriçte: complete physical quality)
Hence the translation:
I'm having the physical quality "towards", relative to the forest.
= I'm going towards the forest.
u-kerifka, e-zepli'iv itiv'kja.
u-kerikfa = a lateness
e-zepli = very
iv (kepriçte: incomplete immaterial quality)
Hence the translation:
I'm have the immaterial quality "very", about a lateness.
= I'm very late.
The referencial (lipüvrä) is non-circumstantial complement or the flux (pikkä).
> understand why the sulëvjä starts either with i- or with tvoi-. I guess
> it's tvo-i-, but then what? I would suggest that you explain, explain and
> explain again the interlinears ;-)
i- and tvoi- are 2 quantifiers (quantificateurs) with the sulëjvä
In the last grammatical reform, I change this a little so the declension
will be more obvious.
> BTW, is the sulëvrä of "I walk in the
> woods" (locative) the same as "I plant a tree in the woods" (patient)?
I can be the same if the second sentence is understood as: I'm in the woods
and I plant a tree.
i-yiviiltu löku, he-flodje'osi itiv'kja.
= In a forest, I'm experimenting some walking.
i-yiviiltu löku, itiv'kja e-kfilsëj'çlä.
= In a forest, I'm putting a tree into (unspecified).
itiv'kja e-kfilsëj täl'ë-yiviiltu.
= I'm putting a tree into a forest.
The descriptor of flux (kepriçte) commands the shape of the sentence. Right?
> apart from that, you say there is no verb in your language but to me there
> are verbs made as a copula+noun like in a lot of human languages--unless you
> meant that the predicate is not made with a verb.
There is no verb because what you may call "the verbal root" is either a
noun or an adjective and --like you must know-- the same word has both
walues in shaquelingua. Any way, I made a radical change in order that the
"copula" (kepriçte) doesn't stay so glued to the noun/adjective. Sometimes
it really looks like too much like a verb. ;-)
> Is there also a copula
> expressing creation?
No. But you can "apply creation" to something (dotative) or something can
have (descriptive) or acquire (acquisitive) the quality "creation/created".
> For instance, the content of a written message is also
> a physically elaborated item--or maybe you use transformation?
If you just change the descriptor of flux (kepriçte), you can turn any
abstraction into physical reality and vice-versa... when it makes sense!
> Also, is
> there any prospective aspect?
içriv'kja = I'm wanting to...
açriv'kja = I'm wishing to...
itov'kja = I will...
atov'kja = I would...
vasjeov'kja = If I could...
> To express "to fill" will you consider that
> the filler makes the bottle full (descriptive) with water or will you
> consider that the filler puts water into the bottle (transitive) or that the
> bottle acquires a content (acquisitive)?
You can say it any way:
itiv'kja e-rëkas at'vogë-grida. = I'm making the bottle full.
itiv'kaj he-körça täl'vogë-grida = I'm putting some water into the bottle.
e-rëkas'ra itiv'voa-grida. = The bottle is becoming full.
he-körça'üpi itiv'voa-grida. = The bottle is taking some water.
itiv'kja be bea-körça rëkas at'vogë-grida.
= I'm making the bottle full-by-water.
> What copula do you use when I say
> "X plays with Y"?
i-Y kibo, e-kiçir'sjo iti'a-X.
= With Y, X is experimenting a game.
e'kiçir'sjo iti a-Y kibo a-X.
= X with Y are experimenting a game.
> "X protects from Y"?
u-Y, e-çtelii'uv iteo'a-X.
= X behaves as a protection, relative to Y.
i-Y yiri, e-çtelii'uv iteo'a-X.
= Against Y, X behaves as a protection.
> What is the base (pikkä?) for "to
> break": the broken item or the breaking state/action?
The breaking state/action.
= The machine acquired the physical quality "broken".
= The machine broke.
itev'taj e-giraçe där'vogë-piyör.
= He/she gave the physical quality "broken" to the machine.
= He/she broke the machine.
Thank you, for all the things you make me think about! But it was very hard
to answer because I had to stick to the ancient grammar and I made quite a
lot of changes!