Let's create a good language!

[Schiaparelliorbust]

One thing I was thinking of doing is handling conjunctions like "and" and "or" with something like "foo and bar" <foo X bar Y>, where X and Y are as-yet undecided words. I imagine that distinctions between conjunctions will be made more on the Ys than the Xs. What do you think?

Like "and this or that"? Are we going to be able to use the conjunctions by themselves? And I don't get your last point.

[fluffykitty]

I'm saying that we could translate something like "foo and bar" as <foo X bar Y>, where the X and Y are both necessary parts of the phrase (like how "neither foo nor bar" works, but "foo nor bar" doesn't unless you're talking about Boolean logic), so <foo X bar> would seem incomplete to speakers of this language. The last point is that we could use the same X for eg "and" and "or", but distinguish the two by different Ys.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I'm saying that we could translate something like "foo and bar" as <foo X bar Y>, where the X and Y are both necessary parts of the phrase (like how "neither foo nor bar" works, but "foo nor bar" doesn't unless you're talking about Boolean logic), so <foo X bar> would seem incomplete to speakers of this language. The last point is that we could use the same X for eg "and" and "or", but distinguish the two by different Ys.

So you're saying that "and", "or", "neither ... nor ... " should all be two words? Both French and Turkish also use two words for "neither ... nor ...". In French "ni ... ni ..." and in Turkish "ne ... ne ...". Turkish for some reason uses the word for "what".

[fluffykitty]

Yes, except that the conjunctions follow the constituent phrases. Also, what do you think about removing initial consonants from person suffixes?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Yes, except that the conjunctions follow the constituent phrases.

Could you use each conjunction with the words we already have and give their translations please?

Also, what do you think about removing initial consonants from person suffixes?

I don't think I like that. Why do you want it?

[fluffykitty]

Could you use each conjunction with the words we already have and give their translations please?

We haven't made any conjunctions yet.

Also, what do you think about removing initial consonants from person suffixes?

I don't think I like that. Why do you want it?

The person suffixes seem a bit heavy to me.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Could you use each conjunction with the words we already have and give their translations please?

We haven't made any conjunctions yet.

Just use some placeholder.

The person suffixes seem a bit heavy to me.

I can't find them, can you please repost them?

[fluffykitty]

We haven't made any conjunctions yet.

Just use some placeholder.

"food and water" <ngwe place pu holte>. (Should we use those for the actual words for "and"?)

The person suffixes seem a bit heavy to me.

I can't find them, can you please repost them?

Code: Select all

First person		let
Second person		so
Third person animate	hei
Third person inanimate	zein

[Schiaparelliorbust]

"food and water" <ngwe place pu holte>. (Should we use those for the actual words for "and"?)

I think they should be single-syllable. Also, let's find words for yes and no, also single syllable.

Code: Select all

First person		let
Second person		so
Third person animate	hei
Third person inanimate	zein

They're already one syllable each. Getting rid of the h in "hei" would also make it vowel only.

[fluffykitty]

"food and water" <ngwe place pu holte>. (Should we use those for the actual words for "and"?)

I think they should be single-syllable. Also, let's find words for yes and no, also single syllable.

Do you have any suggestions?

Code: Select all

First person		let
Second person		so
Third person animate	hei
Third person inanimate	zein

They're already one syllable each. Getting rid of the h in "hei" would also make it vowel only.

So? Plenty of languages have vowel-only affixes and they work just fine.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Do you have any suggestions?

lan - yes
suk - no

So? Plenty of languages have vowel-only affixes and they work just fine.

Ok, we can do that.
Edit: Why is no one posting here?

[fluffykitty]

lan - yes
suk - no

Some other things I think we should do are marking positions relative to an object using "top", "inside", etc+genitive, eg <(top)(loc) (house)(gen)> "inside the house", and using those with the position noun in the instrumental for paths of motion, eg <(inside)(instr) (tunnel)(gen)> "via the tunnel". We're not really at a point where that would matter, but it's something I think we should do.

[Hunting]

with - jy, from Chinese. (Admittedly not a very good match but and is taken) Pastebin anyone?

[fluffykitty]

with - jy, from Chinese. (Admittedly not a very good match but and is taken)

We're already expressing that basic meaning with a case marker, but we could use that for a more specific meaning (eg "using" or "with" as in "I'm making a word with you")

Pastebin anyone?

We're tracking progress on a LifeWiki page, but Schiaparellio hasn't updated it since page 5 or so. Here's a Pastebin of my much-better updated personal sheet, which I won't link here because that's against the rules.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

lan - yes
suk - no

Some other things I think we should do are marking positions relative to an object using "top", "inside", etc+genitive, eg <(top)(loc) (house)(gen)> "inside the house", and using those with the position noun in the instrumental for paths of motion, eg <(inside)(instr) (tunnel)(gen)> "via the tunnel". We're not really at a point where that would matter, but it's something I think we should do.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let's not forget this. Can you make words for conjunctions please?

with - jy, from Chinese. (Admittedly not a very good match but and is taken) Pastebin anyone?

So you think maybe /aj/ could be -jy? We already have sounds for both j and y and in it doesn't sound like /jy/.

[Hunting]

so you think maybe /aj/ could be -jy? We already have sounds for both j and y and in it doesn't sound like /jy/.

Since when? I failed to follow this thread due to lack of time, but your page still says "Everything else is its IPA symbol".

I have mamy potential suggestions, but I'm trying to be not over controlling. But I prefer to leave the sound part the original way.

[fluffykitty]

Some other things I think we should do are marking positions relative to an object using "top", "inside", etc+genitive, eg <(top)(loc) (house)(gen)> "inside the house", and using those with the position noun in the instrumental for paths of motion, eg <(inside)(instr) (tunnel)(gen)> "via the tunnel". We're not really at a point where that would matter, but it's something I think we should do.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let's not forget this. Can you make words for conjunctions please?

<cu> "and (X)" <con> "and (Y)" <he> "or (X)" <hoi> "or (Y)" <hekoi> "or (exclusive, Y)"

with - jy, from Chinese. (Admittedly not a very good match but and is taken) Pastebin anyone?

so you think maybe /aj/ could be -jy? We already have sounds for both j and y and in it doesn't sound like /jy/.

I think he meant using <jy> for "with".

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I think he meant using <jy> for "with".

with - jy, from Chinese. (Admittedly not a very good match but and is taken) Pastebin anyone?

Is that what it is?

<cu> "and (X)" <con> "and (Y)" <he> "or (X)" <hoi> "or (Y)" <hekoi> "or (exclusive, Y)"

Could you use them with our current words?

We're tracking progress on a LifeWiki page, but Schiaparellio hasn't updated it since page 5 or so. Here's a Pastebin of my much-better updated personal sheet, which I won't link here because that's against the rules.

Sorry, I'll try to update better in the future. I still have trouble with links and stuff on my user page.

[fluffykitty]

<cu> "and (X)" <con> "and (Y)" <he> "or (X)" <hoi> "or (Y)" <hekoi> "or (exclusive, Y)"

Could you use them with our current words?

<kara cu tai con> "a table and a chair" (you still haven't fixed <kara>, <tzegomai>, or <germ> btw)

We're tracking progress on a LifeWiki page, but Schiaparellio hasn't updated it since page 5 or so. Here's a Pastebin of my much-better updated personal sheet, which I won't link here because that's against the rules.

Sorry, I'll try to update better in the future. I still have trouble with links and stuff on my user page.

Okay.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

<kara cu tai con> "a table and a chair" (you still haven't fixed <kara>, <tzegomai>, or <germ> btw)

I forgot about those.
kara -> kala
tzegomai -> tzekomai
germ -> kejm

[fluffykitty]

Okay. I think we should use <ngwemai> for "to eat", and in general derive verbs from nouns by adding verb endings. We can use the nominative singular for ordinary derivations, like <ngwemai>, and maybe other cases/numbers for other kinds of derivations, like "to make drinkable" <pulmai> (dative) or "to sleep" <keinamai> (locative).

Also, for verb derivations, along with a passive suffix, we could have suffixes that promote each of the basic cases to the object position, like <(give)(promote dative)mai> "to give to", or <ngwe(promote instrumental)mai> "to use for eating". We could then use the passive suffix on top of that to promote to the subject position.

We could also express stuff like "I make you eat" with something like "You eat caused by/because of me" (with a special preposition for "caused by/because of"). Maybe <faup>+genitive?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Okay. I think we should use <ngwemai> for "to eat", and in general derive verbs from nouns by adding verb endings. We can use the nominative singular for ordinary derivations, like <ngwemai>, and maybe other cases/numbers for other kinds of derivations, like "to make drinkable" <pulmai> (dative) or "to sleep" <keinamai> (locative).

Also, for verb derivations, along with a passive suffix, we could have suffixes that promote each of the basic cases to the object position, like <(give)(promote dative)mai> "to give to", or <ngwe(promote instrumental)mai> "to use for eating". We could then use the passive suffix on top of that to promote to the subject position.

We could also express stuff like "I make you eat" with something like "You eat caused by/because of me" (with a special preposition for "caused by/because of"). Maybe <faup>+genitive?

I think "to make someone do something" should still be a suffix. Maybe we could even chain the suffix like "to make someone make someone do something". Cause could be reserved for something else. I don't think all verbs should be based on nouns, stuff like "to walk" ("to leg" would be weird), "to watch"/"to see" (they should definitely be different verbs, maybe one of them could be based on "eye"), "to hold".

[fluffykitty]

I think "to make someone do something" should still be a suffix. Maybe we could even chain the suffix like "to make someone make someone do something". Cause could be reserved for something else.

Maybe.

I don't think all verbs should be based on nouns, stuff like "to walk" ("to leg" would be weird), "to watch"/"to see" (they should definitely be different verbs, maybe one of them could be based on "eye"), "to hold".

"To use legs" (instrumental plural) is probably better for "to walk", although that would probably include more than just walking. "To see" could be "to perceive with eyes" and "to watch" could be "to focus on with eyes". "To hold" should probably just be a primitive verb.

[Hunting]

Well what is the current phonology? I thought it was settled, but apparently j and y changed somehow.

[fluffykitty]

<j> and <y> have always been /j/ and /y/ AFAIK. I think Schiaparellio thought you meant "with -jy", as a response to our discussion about how to spell /ai/.