Tyl-Sjok (was Re: TRANS: Happiness)
|From:||Yoon Ha Lee <yl112@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, October 30, 2001, 5:14|
On Monday, October 29, 2001, at 04:20 , Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Yoon Ha Lee <yl112@...> writes:
>> i(l) ([i] before a consonant, [il] before a vowel): demand/discovery form
>> y(l) ([i"] before a consonant, [i"l] before a vowel):
>> uncertain/speculative form
>> a(l) ([a] before a consonant, [al] before a vowel): status quo/state form
>> Again, horrendously fuzzy. I use the symbols
> Ah, ok. Then this triad is basically the same that you use for other
> systems of the language, like in your posting about structure
>Yes, that's a good way to put it. Horrendously regular. I plan to
include some oddball clusters of 2 or 4 just to screw things up. ^_^
>> (I haven't been consistent in keeping the English definitions all nouns,
>> but since you can verb-ize these nouns using the causative particles, I
>> figure it's no big deal.)
> Yeah, I'm used to that since Tyl-Sjok has the same word types as
> Tasratal. :-)
>> Tasratal being pretty new,
> Preparing your participation in the new relay? :-) I did not dare to
> go for S4 yet. I fear too much work... :-)
>Basically, yeah. I think the only reason I get away with relatively young,
unfeatured and ill-tested conlangs in a relay is that I don't yet have
the conlinguistic sophistication to realize all the features that I haven'
t devised yet. I reckon it's a great way to learn, and man, relays are
just *fun.* We need another translation exercise though, I don't feel
creative enough to come up with my own right now and I'd love the practice.
:-) (Anyone? Anyone? I know I missed a bunch in the past....)
> Ok. Here's a small overview of what I have. So far, I only have some
> `nice' particles for forming actions and events. They add aspects to
> the stative lexicon forms. I made the decision to (mostly) only have
> states in the lexicon, no real actions. Quite unrealistic from the
> point of view, of course, but it's an arlang. :-)
><G> Hurrah for artlangs!
> The modifying particles to a state X are the following:
> la X - inchoative: to become X
> lu X - resultative: to make something X
> lw X - durative: to be in the process of (being) X
> E.g. Tyl-Sjok has no base form for `to cook'. Instead:
> tulu - to be hot like boiling water
> la tulu - to become boiling
> lu tulu - to bring to boil
> lw tulu - to boil
>Wow--that's beautifully symmetric. I like it a lot.
> So that's the basis, but I'd like the system to have particles for
> meanings of entities not only for states and actions. And these
> should be nice.
> I liked your modifiers, because the facets you can have for a base
> noun are really nice, because the meaning is sometimes only slightly
> shifted, providing a fine-grained and seemingly quite regular system.
>Danke schön. :-) I like morphology...the idea of coming up with tons of
words totally from scratch is fun, but also slightly terrifying. I am an
essentially lazy being....
> In German, there are some prefixes (er-, be-, ver-) to verbs that are
> usually not translated into English, because the shift is so small and
> an English equivalent would be longish. Yet they are at least a bit
> regular. But also quite rare, so I can barely find examples...
>Huh...that's neat. I hadn't realized that. (Of course, I suppose there's
a lot you don't realize after a mere year of German, which is now rapidly
> E.g.: both `verdreht' and `gedreht' = `turned'. `verdreht' implies
> that some previous order was destroyed, while `gedreht' only means
> that something was basically turned. (I don't say you cannot express
> this difference in English, e.g. by a phrasal verb, but the German
> system is so morphological that it is nice for puns without obviously
> expressing the meaning directly). Tasratal modifiers seem to address
> that issue.
>:-) Thanks for the example--I found it very illuminating.
> I'll see what I can do in Tyl-Sjok, which has no morphology.
Hmm. If you don't want to give it morphology, I guess it *would* have to
be a set of particles or even some sort of syntactical thing. (I wonder
how you'd systematize that syntactically?) <pondering> Definitely want
to see where you go with this. :-)
Yoon Ha Lee [email@example.com]
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.