Re: Tyl-Sjok (was Re: TRANS: Happiness)

Hi!

Yoon Ha Lee <yl112@...> writes:
> <G>  Hurrah for artlangs!
Yes!! :-))))

> > 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.
Oh, thanks! :-)

And once, it made a very nice composition possible: `to exist' is
translated as `lw hw' where `hw' means `to happen when...' (it is like
Mandarin `zai4' = `to be at...', but for time).  Plus the `lw'
modifier, so you get something like `durative being in time' which I
found very fitting.

> 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....
HAHA!  That's the very same reason for the above particles... :-))

> 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.
Yeah, I think so, too.  Those would be a particles like the above,
which would either precede or follow the word they modify.

> Auf wiedertippen,
Haha! :-)

I think in Dutch, this actually is grammatical.  Speakers of Dutch:
would you find `tot schrijfs' or `tot meels' correct?

> Error: Keyboard not attached.  Press F1 to continue.
I did, but nothing happend!

**Henrik

Reply