Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 > particles. >
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 > historical > 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 deteriorating.)
> 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. :-) Auf wiedertippen, Yoon Ha Lee [] Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.


Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>