Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: "to be" or "not to be"

From:Scotto Hlad <scott.hlad@...>
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2008, 10:01
You're correct on the criteria, David. Eugene seems to be on the right
track from what I said. Ultimately, I am thinking of a different root
entirely from the copula.

Be (in all its English forms) as the "positive" copula (for lack of a
better term)
then I'll temporarily coin
Ort (in various forms) as the negative copula.

I am happy. ( I am happy )
I ort happy. ( I am not happy )

One could then add a suffix to make a noun out of it. I'll use "-sa" for
an example:

Be+sa = besa for a being
Ort+sa = ortsa for a non being meaning something imaginary or perhaps
even someone who is dead or a ghost etc.


-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [] On
Behalf Of David J. Peterson
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: "to be" or "not to be"

Not sure how Tag. handles that; Indonesian uses a different negator
for nouns:

saya tidak sakit (I not sick) 'I'm not sick'
tidak ada uangku (~uang saya) 'I don't have any money'
saya tidak tahu 'I don't know'

ia guru 'he's a teacher'
ia bukan guru 'he's not a teacher'
bukan ia~Ali yang datang 'it's not he/Ali who's coming'

Dang.  I think in order to fulfill the criteria we're looking for,
the language needs to have a copula (so, not PRON. + N, or
something similar), it needs to have a standard way to negate
verbs, and then it needs an at least somewhat unrelated purely
negative copula.  What do we think of Eugene's Korean example?

"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison