ConwayLife.com

fluffykitty wrote: November 19th, 2020, 6:43 am One thing that we should do is not have one-to-one translations between (all of) our words and English words. For example, we could have <kxuzp> "door/window" and <kets> "water (nonpotable)". For base, I've heard good things about base six.

But then translation is irreversible, you can't translate back and it's impossible to figure out what someone means.

wwei23 wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:27 am

fluffykitty wrote: November 19th, 2020, 6:43 am One thing that we should do is not have one-to-one translations between (all of) our words and English words. For example, we could have <kxuzp> "door/window" and <kets> "water (nonpotable)". For base, I've heard good things about base six.

But then translation is irreversible, you can't translate back and it's impossible to figure out what someone means.

all languages with homographs have that problem though

Moosey wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:50 am all languages with homographs have that problem though

Then let's not make more.

wwei23 wrote: November 19th, 2020, 10:08 am Then let's not make more.

Moosey wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:50 am

wwei23 wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:27 am But then translation is irreversible, you can't translate back and it's impossible to figure out what someone means.

all languages with homographs have that problem though

That really isn't a problem, at least for us. Computers have difficulty translating because they simply don't know which version of the word to translate it into. Should "you" translate into French as "tu" or "vous"? We can figure that out easily. They're a natural part of any language.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 19th, 2020, 10:53 am

wwei23 wrote: November 19th, 2020, 10:08 am Then let's not make more.

Moosey wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:50 am

wwei23 wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:27 am But then translation is irreversible, you can't translate back and it's impossible to figure out what someone means.

all languages with homographs have that problem though

That really isn't a problem, at least for us. Computers have difficulty translating because they simply don't know which version of the word to translate it into. Should "you" translate into French as "tu" or "vous"? We can figure that out easily. They're a natural part of any language.

^ it's not a problem, but wwei always worries about worst case

Moosey wrote: November 19th, 2020, 12:51 pm ^ it's not a problem, but wwei always worries about worst case

What do you think about window-door and fog-cloud? Look above.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 19th, 2020, 2:22 pm

Moosey wrote: November 19th, 2020, 12:51 pm ^ it's not a problem, but wwei always worries about worst case

What do you think about window-door and fog-cloud? Look above.

+1 tho window/door might get ambiguous occasionally

We can probably find a way to resolve ambiguity if necessary (eg "with" and "along with"/"using")

fluffykitty wrote: November 19th, 2020, 6:37 pm We can probably find a way to resolve ambiguity if necessary (eg "with" and "along with"/"using")

I really don't think this is a good idea. Their functionalities are entirely different. It's like calling a sink and bathtub the same thing (please don't take that as a suggestion).

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 20th, 2020, 5:55 am

fluffykitty wrote: November 19th, 2020, 6:37 pm We can probably find a way to resolve ambiguity if necessary (eg "with" and "along with"/"using")

I really don't think this is a good idea. Their functionalities are entirely different.

So are "along with" and "using", but English usually just uses "with" for both.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 20th, 2020, 5:55 am It's like calling a sink and bathtub the same thing (please don't take that as a suggestion).

Why not?

fluffykitty wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:02 am So are "along with" and "using", but English usually just uses "with" for both.

I don't get it. Could you give me an example?

fluffykitty wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:02 am

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 20th, 2020, 5:55 am It's like calling a sink and bathtub the same thing (please don't take that as a suggestion).

Why not?

We can't have every similar thing have the same word.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:10 am I don't get it. Could you give me an example?

"I ate with/using a fork", and now that I think about it "along with" doesn't actually work that way.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:10 am We can't have every similar thing have the same word.

True.

fluffykitty wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:14 am

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:10 am We can't have every similar thing have the same word.

True.

So please at least for cloud and fog, let them have different words.

Fine.

Wait are we done with grammar yet? Please don't be BokaBB.

Hunting wrote: November 20th, 2020, 8:36 am Wait are we done with grammar yet? Please don't be BokaBB.

No, we've barely even started. Please be more active here. You said you wanted this to be collaborative, and we want to hear what you have to say.

We have words and stuff that should be added to the page. Also, we still need the progressive, future, and progressive future endings, as well as the auxiliary verbs.

fluffykitty wrote: November 21st, 2020, 1:04 am We have words and stuff that should be added to the page. Also, we still need the progressive, future, and progressive future endings, as well as the auxiliary verbs.

We don't have too many though. I think I should add them once we have a few more.

Okay. Let's make more then. <zyfk> "to say", <slauc> "to speak", <mask> "word". Do you want to make the auxiliaries and tense endings or should I?

fluffykitty wrote: November 21st, 2020, 5:15 am Okay. Let's make more then. <zyfk> "to say", <slauc> "to speak", <mask> "word". Do you want to make the auxiliaries and tense endings or should I?

I make the auxiliaries, you make the tense endings. They're to come, to want, and to have, right?

Yep. So present continuous <(X/l)eihc>, future <(S/l)uh>, and future continuous <(H/h)em>? Also, I propose <sait> "to be", <kenu> "to become", <koi> "this", and <loi> "that". We also need articles, so and maybe just leave the indefinite article unmarked (case ambiguity is probably fine in that case)

fluffykitty wrote: November 21st, 2020, 5:28 am Yep. So present continuous <(X/l)eihc>, future <(S/l)uh>, and future continuous <(H/h)em>? Also, I propose <sait> "to be", <kenu> "to become", <koi> "this", and <loi> "that". We also need articles, so

Code: Select all

Definite	Singular	Plural
Nominative	u		ni
Accusative	ma		sai
Genitive	mu		ni
Dative		fa		fix
Instrumental	u		ma
Locative	ma		sai

and maybe just leave the indefinite article unmarked (case ambiguity is probably fine in that case)

-(m)ay was infinitive, but irregular verbs are fine. We just need to conjugate them. Are all the verbs you gave irregular? If not, in the future please
make them infinitive. The verbs I'm giving now are regular but if you want to we can change that.
to come - jaray
to want - vablomay
to have -feray
I think the articles are too varying to remember. I propose changing a letter or two, like in German.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 21st, 2020, 5:46 am -(m)ay was infinitive, but irregular verbs are fine. We just need to conjugate them. Are all the verbs you gave irregular? If not, in the future please
make them infinitive.

I was quoting them as verb stems. I can do infinitives in the future.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 21st, 2020, 5:46 am I think the articles are too varying to remember. I propose changing a letter or two, like in German.

So change all syllable onsets to /n/?

fluffykitty wrote: November 21st, 2020, 5:54 am So change all syllable onsets to /n/?

I don't know how exactly, you can ask others. I think we should change vowels/add consonants.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 21st, 2020, 6:12 am I don't know how exactly, you can ask others. I think we should change vowels/add consonants.

Okay. Also, /r/, /g/, /v/, and /b/ are not in the phonology, and /ai/ is spelled <ai>, not <aj> or <ay>. Please either revise your words or formally alter the phonology/orthography to accommodate them.