Let's create a good language!

[Schiaparelliorbust]

<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/.

On my user page, /ai/ is a legal diphthong. Are there any restrictions as to where you can use it?

[fluffykitty]

AFAIK no. We were only talking about how to spell it. Also, I think "to eat" should be "ngwesmai" since food goes in the object position, and we should make more root words. How about <nwep-> "what" and <nymp-> "who"? We could use their locative forms for "where" and "when" respectively.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

AFAIK no. We were only talking about how to spell it. Also, I think "to eat" should be "ngwesmai" since food goes in the object position, and we should make more root words. How about <nwep-> "what" and <nymp-> "who"? We could use their locative forms for "where" and "when" respectively.

Yes, that sounds good.
Some more words:
air - jil
to pull - takmai
to push - pifmai
eye - syk
mouth - lupom
ear - satil

[fluffykitty]

Yes, that sounds good.
Some more words:
air - jil
to pull - takmai
to push - pifmai
eye - syk
mouth - lupom
ear - satil

Okay. Also, now that I think about it, it would probably be better to use something like "at what time" for "when" rather than <nynca>. How about <kxac> "time (not iteration)"? Also, I think we should use <nymp-> for "which" questions about humans (eg "which builder"). Do <nwep-> and friends take case/number marking when acting as determiners (eg "what book", etc)? I think they should.

[Hunting]

feca - head
fecals - I think/in my opinion

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Okay. Also, now that I think about it, it would probably be better to use something like "at what time" for "when" rather than <nynca>. How about <kxac> "time (not iteration)"?

What do you mean by "time (not iteration)"?

Also, I think we should use <nymp-> for "which" questions about humans (eg "which builder").

So you want a different "which" for animate and inanimate? That sounds interesting.

Do <nwep-> and friends take case/number marking when acting as determiners (eg "what book", etc)? I think they should.

I agree that they should. I would also like a word for "which" but for ordinals. I feel that's something English is lacking.

[Hunting]

afaik - <afaik>

[fluffykitty]

fecals - I think/in my opinion

We should figure out where adverbs go in sentences. Also, that kind of coda consonant cluster isn't allowed. Maybe we could use <fecane> (locative singular of "head") instead.

Okay. Also, now that I think about it, it would probably be better to use something like "at what time" for "when" rather than <nynca>. How about <kxac> "time (not iteration)"?

What do you mean by "time (not iteration)"?

Time but not as in eg "six times"

[Schiaparelliorbust]

We should figure out where adverbs go in sentences. Also, that kind of coda consonant cluster isn't allowed. Maybe we could use <fecane> (locative singular of "head") instead.

I say they should go before verbs. I think there should be a suffix for adjective -> adverb.

[fluffykitty]

We should figure out where adverbs go in sentences. Also, that kind of coda consonant cluster isn't allowed. Maybe we could use <fecane> (locative singular of "head") instead.

I say they should go before verbs. I think there should be a suffix for adjective -> adverb.

That works. We should make adjectives. Do those agree with nouns?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

That works. We should make adjectives. Do those agree with nouns?

You mean do they change whether the noun is plural or not? I think they should.

[fluffykitty]

There's also agreement for case. If we do that, then we can just reuse the existing noun endings. We should start trying to translate stuff.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

There's also agreement for case. If we do that, then we can just reuse the existing noun endings. We should start trying to translate stuff.

Yes, there is no need to make new case endings. So we should start translating sentences? We also need more tenses.

[fluffykitty]

So we should start translating sentences?

Sure. Using <ynk> "top", we can do stuff like <Ngwe ynca nu kalane saithanein> "There's food on the table". Also, that /tç/ cluster is kinda awkward. Maybe we should make stuff like that assimilate to /cç/.

We also need more tenses.

Why? We already have "to have", "to come", "to want", and the basic tense endings. What else is there?

We should also figure out how stress works. Maybe just always the first syllable?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Why? We already have "to have", "to come", "to want", and the basic tense endings. What else is there?

Past perfect, future perfect, their imperfective variations.

We should also figure out how stress works. Maybe just always the first syllable?

Maybe. I doubt we'll be speaking that fast, so I doubt it will matter much, but we should still work it out.

[fluffykitty]

Why? We already have "to have", "to come", "to want", and the basic tense endings. What else is there?

Past perfect, future perfect, their imperfective variations.

We could just do that kind of thing with adverbs. Also, we should make more sentences to translate.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Why? We already have "to have", "to come", "to want", and the basic tense endings. What else is there?

Past perfect, future perfect, their imperfective variations.

We could just do that kind of thing with adverbs. Also, we should make more sentences to translate.

Stuff like "will be doing" and "had done". Should the passive suffix come before or after the tense suffix?

[fluffykitty]

Stuff like "will be doing" and "had done". Should the passive suffix come before or after the tense suffix?

We already have a future continuous suffix, and "had done" is just a past before another past, which we can do with adverbs. I think the verb suffix order should be (promote x to object)(passive)(tense)(person), skipping affixes that don't apply. Maybe we could use <-(s)o-> for the passive infix, so stuff like <ngwesoleihcet> "I am being eaten". We could use nominative+verb affix constructions for "to be x-like", eg "pumai" <to be water-like, to flow>. A more ordinary verbing could be done with the accusative, eg "pusai" <to drink water>.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Stuff like "will be doing" and "had done". Should the passive suffix come before or after the tense suffix?

We already have a future continuous suffix, and "had done" is just a past before another past, which we can do with adverbs. I think the verb suffix order should be (promote x to object)(passive)(tense)(person), skipping affixes that don't apply. Maybe we could use <-(s)o-> for the passive infix, so stuff like <ngwesoleihcet> "I am being eaten". We could use nominative+verb affix constructions for "to be x-like", eg "pumai" <to be water-like, to flow>. A more ordinary verbing could be done with the accusative, eg "pusai" <to drink water>.

I think these words are somewhat like that of an ancient language. We are basing a lot of our words, especially verbs, on other words. I'm not saying that's a bad things, I'm just pointing it out. To promote x to object, do we use cases? I also don't think that there should be a verb <to drink water>. It should just be <to drink>.
I can update my user page right now, but it seems to be not part of my user page, because linking to the language page gives an external link. This is the language page:https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/User:Sc ... s_language. I will update it nevertheless.

[fluffykitty]

I think these words are somewhat like that of an ancient language. We are basing a lot of our words, especially verbs, on other words. I'm not saying that's a bad things, I'm just pointing it out.

That is kind of a proto-langy thing, isn't it. Maybe after we develop this language more we can evolve it and get another one.

To promote x to object, do we use cases?

The "promote x to object" affixes are inserted in the verb before the passive infix. Maybe we could have a "promote subject to object" affix for causative stuff, like "to be sad"->"to sadden".

I also don't think that there should be a verb <to drink water>. It should just be <to drink>.

We already have the non-derived verb <tzekomai> for "to drink".

I can update my user page right now, but it seems to be not part of my user page, because linking to the language page gives an external link. This is the language page:https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/User:Sc ... s_language. I will update it nevertheless.

[[User:Schiaparelliorbust/Hunting's language]] works fine AFAICT.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

The "promote x to object" affixes are inserted in the verb before the passive infix. Maybe we could have a "promote subject to object" affix for causative stuff, like "to be sad"->"to sadden".

Something like "I sadden when I see things like this."?

[[User:Schiaparelliorbust/Hunting's language]] works fine AFAICT.

Worked perfectly, thank you!

[fluffykitty]

The "promote x to object" affixes are inserted in the verb before the passive infix. Maybe we could have a "promote subject to object" affix for causative stuff, like "to be sad"->"to sadden".

Something like "I sadden when I see things like this."?

I was thinking more along the lines of "Things like this sadden me". A meaning like that would probably be achieved by promotion+passive. Alternatively, we could have a middle voice infix that contrasts "I am saddened" (passive, implies a cause) and "I sadden" (middle, doesn't).

[[User:Schiaparelliorbust/Hunting's language]] works fine AFAICT.

Worked perfectly, thank you!

You're welcome.

Some other ideas I had were to use the plural for mass nouns like <ngwe-> "food" and <pu-> "water", with the singular specifically representing a container or something of the mass noun, eg <pu> "a glass/cup/bottle/etc of water" or <ngwe> "a foodstuff". The plural form might also be used for the plurals of these.

We could use the conjunctions for asking about something being included in a list, eg <Nu kala cu?> (And the table?). Responses to the question could then use the conjunctions to indicate if that thing is in the list, with the X form including it and the Y form excluding it.

Another thought I had is that if we make the promotion infixes the usual way to express stuff like "I sleep at your house" with an intransitive verb and a non-subject non-object argument, we can get the case of the main non-subject argument of a verb marked on the verb. That might be interesting. If we evolve the language, these forms might get fossilized and change meaning independently, like "to sleep at"->"to live at".

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Some other ideas I had were to use the plural for mass nouns like <ngwe-> "food" and <pu-> "water", with the singular specifically representing a container or something of the mass noun, eg <pu> "a glass/cup/bottle/etc of water" or <ngwe> "a foodstuff". The plural form might also be used for the plurals of these.

I like that idea. Will we have any way of indicating container? Like a bottle of water and a glass of water are different.

Another thought I had is that if we make the promotion infixes the usual way to express stuff like "I sleep at your house" with an intransitive verb and a non-subject non-object argument, we can get the case of the main non-subject argument of a verb marked on the verb. That might be interesting. If we evolve the language, these forms might get fossilized and change meaning independently, like "to sleep at"->"to live at".

Could you please elaborate? I know most of the stuff you're saying, but I can't understand it as a whole.

[fluffykitty]

Some other ideas I had were to use the plural for mass nouns like <ngwe-> "food" and <pu-> "water", with the singular specifically representing a container or something of the mass noun, eg <pu> "a glass/cup/bottle/etc of water" or <ngwe> "a foodstuff". The plural form might also be used for the plurals of these.

I like that idea. Will we have any way of indicating container? Like a bottle of water and a glass of water are different.

We could use individual words for "glass" or "bottle" and a plural genitive.

Another thought I had is that if we make the promotion infixes the usual way to express stuff like "I sleep at your house" with an intransitive verb and a non-subject non-object argument, we can get the case of the main non-subject argument of a verb marked on the verb. That might be interesting. If we evolve the language, these forms might get fossilized and change meaning independently, like "to sleep at"->"to live at".

Could you please elaborate? I know most of the stuff you're saying, but I can't understand it as a whole.

Instead of writing "I sleep your house-at" (with a case marker), we could use "I at-sleep your house" (with a locative-to-object promotion infix). Later, if the promotion infixes become unproductive, the association between "to sleep" and "to at-sleep" would be lost (and similarly for other verbs/promotions), allowing the meanings to diverge, for example to "to sleep" and "to live at".

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Instead of writing "I sleep your house-at" (with a case marker), we could use "I at-sleep your house" (with a locative-to-object promotion infix). Later, if the promotion infixes become unproductive, the association between "to sleep" and "to at-sleep" would be lost (and similarly for other verbs/promotions), allowing the meanings to diverge, for example to "to sleep" and "to live at".

So "to sleep" and "to at-sleep" are different verbs and their meaning diverge over time. How would we do this? Do you want something like Old Komal, but reversed? We could evolve the language.