The nephilim language
Pages
| Author | Topic: The nephilim language |
|---|---|
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, January 24 2006 07:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yeah, I know what a uvular trill is. I just want to make sure that you know what a uvular trill is. :P My question was this: does the uvular trill only occur when followed by an A? I mean, are they not capable of saying (uvular trill) E? (This is possible, I suppose, but it would be the result of a fairly strange sound change.) quote:And you haven't let all this discussion of linguistics distract you from your main task, which is making that scenario, right? Make sure that you keep making the scenario while you work on all this stuff. You can make notes to yourself now about places to put in nephil language later once you have things figured out more. quote:I don't suggest that you copy my work, but you might want to copy my method. I started with phonetics, because I wanted to know the sounds that I had to work with when I was making inflectional endings. I made sure that I had enumerated every last sound in the slith language before I went into creating cases and conjugations. [ Tuesday, January 24, 2006 07:49: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Tuesday, January 24 2006 08:07
Profile
Homepage
I'm planning on putting in a RE sound(not planning, it will be there), I just have difficulty finding a symbol. it appears the keybard can't type the symbol I wanted. I'll manage, though. No, I'm currently busy planning the whole scenario. I won't forget it. By the way, at the moment I'm giving the pronounciation page transformation. EDIT: Oh yes, I wanted to say I changed the exlpanation of the absolutive case, and I wondered if one of you (Kelandon, Slartucker perhap?) could look at it if it's clearer now. I would very much appreciate that. And thanks for editing the link, Kelandon! :) [ Tuesday, January 24, 2006 09:38: Message edited by: Thralni, Nephil translators & co. ] -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, January 24 2006 15:13
Profile
Homepage
About verbs: some of the same comments as I made before. The term "postposition" refers to something that is essentially like a preposition, but it comes after the object. I seriously doubt you're using the word correctly in the verb section. The word "than" is used for comparisons, not "then." I know that it's a little hard in a second language, but get it straight. Rather than talking about "modern languages" as if they were a monolithic group, it's probably best to make reference to specific languages or language families ("This is the conjugational system found in most modern Indo-European languages," for example). I really have no idea what most of that page about verbs is supposed to mean. You don't explain what "bipartite" and "multipartite" verbs are or why anyone cares about the difference, so it's a little hard to tell what your purpose in that page is. Many of your oblique cases are still poorly named or poorly described. The so-called "terminative" is definitely an allative. The so-called "ablative-instrumental" is clearly an ablative alone. The "instrumentative" is clearly an instrumental. One would never use the instrumental for "a glass of milk" — one would use the genitive for that, but there's been some confusion as to whether your genitive is a real genitive. Your "locative-terminative" may very well be an adessive, too. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 00:56
Profile
Homepage
You clearly didn't get it. The verb part is an introduction. More details about these groups aren't there yet. they will be added when I'm certain comments would be minimal (although I don't know if that is possible with two linguists here). I only tell there about the basics of the verbs, not yet what it all means. The cases. Sigh. Look, I already wrote that that might change as I first will have to experiment with these grammar parts, and modify the cases when necessary. And please, don't stay with Latin and/or Greek and languages based on them all the time! There are other languages in which it may be different. The glass of milk you gave as an example, think of it this way: glass denotes an amount of the milk. It could also have been a bucket or a flask. it denotes the amount of milk, and therefor milk and glass will be in the same case. I have been looking in books about Sumerian and Hurrian to see how they do it. In Sumerian it is not done as you say, also in Hurrian it is not as say it is. I quote from "Hurritisch" by Ilse Wegner: quote:*(couldn't really translate that, but it means something belonging to something else, like "The king's son", and not "a glass of milk"). What's exactly the difference between an instrumental and instrumentative case? I could have confused two different casenames, and give the wrong instead. What I mean is that it denotes "with what?" About the other comments about the cases I already said what I wanted to say: look at the first lines of this post if you don't know what I'm talking about. However, I'll try to make the verb part clearer. Also, I don't understand the fact that you don't seem to understand what I mean, although others whome I asked to look and read what I wrote (people who know less about linguistics) seemd to understand it enough to know what I'm talking about. About the phonetics: I must say I don't have an idea what a nephil could have said and what not. therefor I decided to look into books and see how the build of a cat's mouth looks like and what a cat can do (with his mouth) and what not (big cats like lions and tigers, I mean). I don't think one can really make the phonetics when one doesn't really get to know the speaker of the language. [ Wednesday, January 25, 2006 03:37: Message edited by: Thralni, Nephil translators & co. ] -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 08:00
Profile
Homepage
I understand that the verb stuff is an introduction, but I don't understand what the point of any of it is. Maybe it will become more clear when you write the rest of it. quote:Latin and Greek have nothing to do with it. If your language has a proper genitive, it will express the "of milk" with the genitive. If it doesn't, then your so-called "genitive" is a possessive case. These words mean something independent of the languages in which they are used. Look, if you say that your nephils have males and females, but the males are the ones who get pregnant, bear children, etc., then the very first thing that people are going to say is that you've named the genders incorrectly. In any species, the female is defined as the one that undergoes pregnancy (with one or two really unusual exceptions). This isn't specific to mammals or reptiles or whatever: it's a general biological definition. Likewise, a genitive case must be used at least for the possessive genitive and the partitive genitive to be a real genitive case. It's a linguistic definition that spans all languages. There are languages that don't have real genitive cases; these languages have possessive cases. English is one of them (for pronouns). But my point was that you say under the "instrumentative" case (which isn't a word in English, which is how I know that it has to be an instrumental) that the "instrumentative" isn't used to express "of" things. This is needless and confusing. In no language that I've ever heard of would one use the instrumental to express the partitive genitive. My knowledge of general linguistics is not limited to Latin and Greek, so please disabuse yourself of that notion. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 08:16
Profile
Homepage
quote:I suggest you do that before jumping to conclusions. quote:Then how come I don't see anything about it in already two or three books? quote:Nephilim quote:Okay, but then don't start saying that I have an incorrect genitive. Just say I have to modify the name of the case, and not that I ahve to do it like in other languages. You just said yourself that some languages do it differently. quote:Did I say that? I thikn I already told you twice it is not like that. I also didn't say it on the website itself (I think I will remove that whole part about the glass of milk. it will only confuse). quote:That is what I figures from your posts. I apologize for that. -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 08:49
Profile
Homepage
"You clearly didn't get it. The verb part is an introduction." — If it's an introduction, then Kel's criticism is even more relevant. The intro is supposed to be clear and easy to understand. If it's confusing, your full text is probably doomed, and you should really fix the introduction before moving on to the more detailed work. "The cases. Sigh. Look, I already wrote that that might change as I first will have to experiment with these grammar parts, and modify the cases when necessary." — Thralni, you ask us for feedback, and then when you get it you deflect it by saying everything is going to change anyway. If you're not ready to get the feedback yet don't ask for it. "There are other languages in which it may be different." — Not really. While there are of course differences in how cases are used, the case names are NOT language-specific and are applied based on which one fits best. "I have been looking in books about Sumerian and Hurrian to see how they do it. In Sumerian it is not done as you say, also in Hurrian it is not as say it is." — NOT TRUE. I don't know about Hurrian, but for Sumerian see for example this partial grammar, which states (my italics): "the genitive case codes any relation between two noun phrases, including possession, location and composition as well as a variety of extended syntactic functions." But I am skeptical, with Kel, that Hurrian scholars would possibly call it the genitive if it is only used for possessive functions! "I don't understand the fact that you don't seem to understand what I mean, although others whome I asked to look and read what I wrote (people who know less about linguistics) seemd to understand it enough to know what I'm talking about." — Well, we are used to precision in describing language. We understand the basic gist of what you are saying as much as anyone else. However, if you want to produce a grammar that people can use to translate into or out of Nephilian, people will need to get more than just the basic gist! They have to understand the details, too. Looking at the anatomy of a cat's mouth sounds like a cool idea. Don't forget, though, that nephils in A1-4 seem to be capable of producing most English words with minimal phonetic alterations, so their mouth probably isn't too different from a human's. Thralni, I think some of the confusion in your writing is not caused by bad understanding of English, but simply by sloppy translating! In your nouns page by the part on [a] and [ina] markers, you say: "Some cases can only be used with animate, some only with animate, and some with both." I think what you meant to say is "Some NOUNS can only be used with animate, some only with INANIMATE, and some with both." This is a small error, but these small errors ruin a grammar! Nouns page comments: It is probably worth noting that most Indo-European languages are Nom-Acc languages, however, the two terms are NOT the same thing, so talking about the enormous difference between ergative and Indo-European languages is really misleading. Verbs: If I understand you right, the difference between "bipartite" and "multipartite" verbs is that multipartites have 4 possible suffixes, whereas bipartites have 3 -- the person and number suffixes are combined into one. Right? In that case why the HECK are they called BIpartite and MULTIpartite? Like Kel said, you need to stop using postposition. A suffix that indicates person, number, tense, or voice is presumably not ever used as its own word in a sentence, so it is not a postposition! Pro-dropped subjects are not postpositions, either! It seems weird to me that you are using pro-drop on the SUBJECT despite making the language ergative-absolutive. I guess that would make the language one that employs partial ergativity. This is one of the few ways in which ergative languages really *are* messier. Also, in the chart, it looks like you are saying irregular verbs are neither transitive nor intransitive. Is that true? Because that makes no sense! "The difference between the normal bipartite-group and irregular verbs, is the way the stem and the ending are formed. The stem changes, and the ending adapts to that, sometimes getting totally different verbs in comparison to the infinitive." — Totally different verbs?!? Do you mean "different-looking endings"? This is *really* unclear. If you don't want to explain it better in the introduction, you are better served by just referring the reader to a later section. That last sentence is spectacularly confusing. "Only the four most necessary tenses exist." — That's a bit of a value judgment. Also, it seems counterintuitive that aspect is only used for the past tense, not for present or future. ...Slartucker, who hopes that his comments are helpful, but fears that they are not -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 08:52
Profile
Homepage
Thralni: I've been saying the same thing since my first post on the subject: either your genitive includes a partitive genitive, or the your genitive is actually a possessive. Please read more carefully. "Nephils" is correct because the standard English plural (adding -s) is always correct, even if another form is also correct. (See "octopus," "octopuses," "octopodes.") Your website says that the "instrumentative" is not used for a partitive genitive. I'm just saying that you should take that line out, because it isn't necessary: an instrumental is never used for a partitive genitive. The sentence is redundant, not incorrect. [ Wednesday, January 25, 2006 08:53: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 08:53
Profile
Homepage
Regarding our assertion that the genitive has wider uses, Thralni asked: "Then how come I don't see anything about it in already two or three books?" My guess would be that you are reading highly technical books about languages like Sumerian and Hurrian, which are read by a very tiny pool of highly specialized scholars! They probably assume a broad base of knowledge both about the ancient near east and about general linguistics. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 10:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:I probably misunderstood you then. quote:I know that, but the plural of nephil is "Nephilim." that's just how it is. quote:Sorry. I was to hasty, and didn't saw the "isn't" part. Instead I read "is." I apologize for that. quote:I asked feeback about the absolutive case. Not the terminative, genitive or whatever case. Instead, I get now feedback about the absolutive case, but I get a series of comments about all other cases. quote:No, that seems to me like nonsense. besides that the books I use say nothing about this (they only speak about ownership and relationship, and these are books with a general overview of the grammar), my mother looked into some Sumerian texts and it is simply not true. If it is true what it says "any gicen relationship between two nouns," then how about locative, comitative relatioships between two nouns? they are wortless then. Take this part of what Cal Jonhson says: "including possession, location and composition" How can it be location? they already have a seperate case for that: the locative! The locative would be made useless if this is true. Then take this Sumerian eaxmple: dug geshtin = "a jug of whine" This is absolutely no genitive. the genitive would read "dug geshtina" or something similair to that. I got it straight from my mother, who is a qualified Sumerologist. quote:Please, Nephilim! That can be, but I think that looking at a cat's mouth will only make it more realistic. quote:Oh, that's stupid. i changed that quite a while ago, but probably didn't change that part. stupid. quote:I didn't say they are the same thing. What exactly is your point? quote:The site says "under construction." Conclusion: it is not ready yet, and there might come more. They are called bipartite, because there are no seperate suffixes for singular/plural and the person. instead it is combined to one, make the basic structure of the verb without additional suffixes a bipartite combination. quote:A error I made because I didn't exactly know what a postposition is. I'll fix it, don't worry. Now can you guys please stop commenting on that? quote:In hindsite, that was stupid and I should really take it out. quote:I thought the chart would be clear enough. What I mean is, is that the irregular verbs, like the transitive and intransitive verbs, form a seperate sub-group in the bipartite-group. quote:I agree that this should definetely be described clearer. I will fix that too. quote:Why do you think that? quote:Why? (and stop stealing Alo's signature please.) quote:I don't think this has got to do with who wrote the books. the books are general overviews of the Hurrian and Sumerian grammar. A first year student should understand it. Phew, that was quite some writing... -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 13:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:Emphatically, no. Foreign words must be italicized in English. Foreign words always take foreign plurals. Fully assimilated borrowed words — words that were previously foreign but are now considered part of the English language — are not italicized. They may take either their original foreign plural ("nephilim") or the standard English plural ("nephils"). Thus, the plural of "stadium" (a Latin word, borrowed from Greek) is either "stadia" or "stadiums," for example. We know that "nephil" is a borrowed word because it is not italicized. We therefore know that both "nephilim" and "nephils" are correct plurals. Thralni, will you do something for me? Find a book on English grammar written in Dutch. Find the part on pronoun case (the bit that talks about the difference between "I" and "me"). Tell me what the Dutch name of the case of the word "my" is. Also, for the record, I've never been responding to your question about what we think of the description of the absolutive case. I've been responding to the errors on your site. [ Wednesday, January 25, 2006 13:42: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 13:40
Profile
Homepage
Sigh. Okay, a few points: 1) Nobody's attacking you. If you don't want any more feedback, then when you post that you have updated the site, I suggest you specify that you don't want feedback. Otherwise, please stop responding to my questions by saying "it's under construction." If it's really *that* unfinished, why are you publicizing it? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer :) 2) Almost any book about ancient near eastern language is written for a specialized audience. General overviews are no exceptions. First-year graduate students in such a field are expected to have (or to very quickly pick up) a WEALTH of knowledge on the subject that 99.99% of the world does not have. It is absurd for you to claim that any material giving technical details about the language is written for a general audience. It's not. (For what it's worth, grad students at uofc aren't even allowed to take Sumerian until they have had a year of Akkadian; the faculty feels the scholarship is significantly more obscure to a newcomer.) 3) I am a little confused about this persistent disagreement over the genitive. I assume your mother knows what she's talking about, but it's strange that my sources disagree. Is it possible that this is some kind of discrepancy between English and Dutch? Alternately, can you point me to a bibliographic reference to a book, article, whatever which states that Sumerian has a genitive which is only used for possession? 4) Source wrote: "including possession, location and composition" You said: "How can it be location? they already have a seperate case for that: the locative! The locative would be made useless if this is true." — ALWAYS, in a language, there is more than one way of expressing the same or similar things. Sometimes, one of these ways is specific to the grammar (like a case). Interrogatives are a really good example: many languages have more than one way of marking an utterance as a question, including those that rely on inserting words, on changing word order, on prosody, and so on. Often, these different ways are mostly interchangeable. Does that render any of them useless? No! Languages are subtle creatures. Semantics interfaces with everything; variations on meaning are infinite. So be careful before you go calling a linguistic structure "useless." 5) Me: "It is probably worth noting that most Indo-European languages are Nom-Acc languages, however, the two terms are NOT the same thing, so talking about the enormous difference between ergative and Indo-European languages is really misleading." Thralni: "I didn't say they are the same thing. What exactly is your point?" — Okay, I will try to be clearer. Quoting from your nouns page: quote:What you go on to contrast here is the difference between an ergative-absolutive language and a nominative-accusative language. However, what you SAY you are contrasting is the difference between an ergative language and "a standard Indo-European language." Basically you say the above phrase in place of saying "a nom-acc language" — very misleading. It's extra misleading because there exist Indo-European languages that are partially ergative. Hindi and Urdu, which are ergative-absolutive in certain situations, are one well-known example. 6) "I thought the chart would be clear enough. What I mean is, is that the irregular verbs, like the transitive and intransitive verbs, form a seperate sub-group in the bipartite-group." — EVERY verb is either transitive, or intransitive. EVERY verb is either regular, or irregular. They are two binary features which are completely unrelated. Your chart clearly suggests that if a verb is irregular, it isn't transitive or intransitive. 7) Now that you have explained the meaning of bipartite/multipartite, the names make more sense. It's still a really weird naming convention, and I am confused as to what the discrepancy between those two types of verbs is supposed to add to the language, anyway. --slartucker -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 16:21
Profile
Homepage
Oh my! I can drive the car, but don't ask me how it works. Both of you ^ seem to have an intimate understanding of English. Or you pretend to. :cool: -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Wednesday, January 25 2006 16:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:My thoughts exactly. I'm not understanding half of what is said in this topic. This is either really good or really bad considering that I'm trying to create my own language. At least Dikiyoba won't be able to confuse people with long linguistic terms. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 05:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:Okay, but I will keep insisting on nephilim (partly because it think it sounds nicer :) ) quote:Two things: 1) dutch doesn't have cases; 2) We say "een glas melk" (A glass milk), not "een glas van melk" (a glass of milk). If you say that, you actually say that the glass is made of milk. If Dutch would have cases, it is no genitive in Dutch, nor in german (Ein Glass Milch). In french one says un verre d'eau. Now, I'm a bit confused as to whether it's "de" as "of" or just to make it clear that there in no "le", so if it is "A glass water" or " A glass of milk." There are quite a few languages that don't use the genitive for this example of the "glass of milk" you gave me. Okay, asked me to tell you what the Dutch name of the case that signifies "my." I assume you mean as in "my house." Granted that Dutch would have cases, it would be a possessive case. however, as I already said, there is no use of genetive in Dutch for the "a glass of milk" example. We say "a glass" to denote the amount, and then the amount of what: "Milk" => A glass milk. however, English is different in that case, and in English it is said different. Is this enough proof of the fact one says it differently in other languages? Then about the latin genitive. there are severaluses of the genitive: genitivus possesivusgenitivus subiectivus/obiectivusgenitivus qualitatisgenitivus partitivusi was wondering if you could imagine the possibility of all these seperate forms to be one? I don't mean to offence, but I'm under the assumption that Latin has to do with this. In the genitive in nephilian, these uses are known: 1) possesion (the house of the man) 2) realtionship (The king's son) 3) with verbs (The beating of the father) quote:In that case you didn't do what I asked. I had changed the description and asked for opinions on it. Instead I get opinions on everything except what I asked for. Did I miss something? quote:You have no idea about what books I'm talking. I think that with the support I get of my parents I should be able to understand it, don't you think? quote:I explained this above. there is a difference between English and Dutch (german to, mind you). I couldn't find anything on the internet to direct you to. fact is that in numerous Sumerian texts the genitive wasn't used for that specific purpose, although it may be used for that in general terms. quote:Could you give me an example sentence, and not just a whole story saying why it is like that? I'd like to compare to other languages, like Dutch and german. quote:Aha. I'll change that. quote:I know that, thank you. quote:I'll ask other people their opinin about this. If there are more people that say the same, I may change it. quote:I'll explain that clearer on the webpage. there definetly is a difference: The multipartite-group verb is the group of finite verbs, while the bipartite-group is more the one of the non-finite verbs. I chose to name the group to their construction instead after what they are. Ans Slartucker, I kindly ask you to stop using bold and CAPITAL letters. It gives me a feeling of being shouted at. Thanks in advance ( :P ) EDIT: modified the verb page [ Thursday, January 26, 2006 06:07: Message edited by: Thralni, Nephil translators & co. ] -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 07:47
Profile
Homepage
Thralni: I grow tired of explaining the same thing over and over again, especially since you consistently mis-read what I've said (I asked you the Dutch name of an English pronoun case, not the Dutch name of something in Dutch, etc.). I'll leave it at this: your cases (several of them) are named to suggest uses that are quite different from what your descriptions and examples suggest their uses are. Either your names are misleading, or your descriptions and examples are. I never answered your question because I started critiquing your website before you asked the question. (And the reason that I've been using italics is that you've been giving me the impression that you don't read what I write unless I highlight the important parts. :P ) Likewise, seriously, before you go any farther, give the language a better name than "Nephilian." The name is improper for many reasons, not the least of which is that it sounds terrible and suggests that they're from Nephilia. To answer your question: I think you'd be much better off leaving out the "two-participant" description entirely. Leave it out of the summary and description of the ergative. Also, I'd take out the reference to the nominative, because it doesn't really help either (the whole point is that it's not like a nom-acc language). In your second example sentence for the absolutive, why is "with the dog" even there? Leave it out. It needlessly looks like an object. Give an example sentence under the ergative. It could be the same as before, "The man picks the fruit," but just highlight the subject instead of the object. There are also a number of typos and grammatical errors, but I'm not even going to go there until the rest of it makes sense. But I had a thought: if the nephil word for "nephil" is "nephil," that would almost certainly mean that the nephil plural has to be "nephilim." No English-speaker would invent that plural; it must be borrowed from something. In your version of this history, where does that plural come from? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 09:44
Profile
Homepage
Aaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!!!!!!!! Thralni, I am not discussing the genitive further unless you do one of two things: 1) Do what Kelandon asked. Find a book about English grammar which is written in Dutch and report the name of the case of the personal pronoun "my". 2) Do what I asked. Give me a citation for a book or a scholarly article stating that in Sumerian the genitive is only used for possession. That way, I can go look it up in the research archives at the university. It doesn't need to be online. (And if the book or article is not in English, that's fine too.) quote:!!!!!! Finite and non-finite are just classifications of different forms of the same verb. This is like talking about "present tense verbs" and "past tense verbs" as two totally different sets of lexical entries, which they are not. They are just different forms of the same verb! The problem is that transitive verbs and intransitive verbs are two different groups of verbs. Regular verbs and irregular verbs are two different groups of verbs. Finite and infinite verbs are two different groups of particular verb forms... but you can't logically separate out types of verbs after you separate out verb forms. Once you separate out groups of verb forms, you are no longer dealing with entire verbs, you are dealing with verb forms! Furthermore... looking at the verb page, it seems that your explanation of what finite and non-finite verbs are is really misleading. A verb form is classified as "finite" or "non-finite" based on the presence of markers specifying person, number, gender, and so on. It does not matter whether the markers are prefixes or suffixes or pronouns! In English, the suffixes are mostly other information. In Nephilian, however, they are always part of the suffixes! Perfect evidence of this confusion is in your table showing how a finite verb is constructed. How can a finite verbal form be an infinitive? That is a contradiction. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 10:09
Profile
This thread really suffers from lack of a play-by-play announcer. It has all the makings of a grand language spat, but us commoners have little hope of either understanding the rules of engagement or the point scoring system. My thoughts you ask? 1. Thralni - practice the English phrase "Thanks for your help, I appreciate the help you are giving me." You are receiving feedback because the participants find the subject interesting. That means you are creating something that is interesting. Good job! In fact, it is so interesting that these people want to help you make it as good and useful as possible. It is nice to be polite to people that want to help, otherwise they tend to just ignore and not help, which is bad. 2. Slartucker - brick wall 3. Kelandon - brick wall *this message sponsored by Mr Murrow* -------------------- WWtNSD? Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 10:26
Profile
Homepage
quote:okay, now I finally understand the main problem. thanks for this explanation that I can finally understand. quote:I don't care if you use italics or not, I only care about bold and CAPITAL letters. Use italics when and where you please. quote:No, this actually does irritate me so extremely much! Ungggh aaaaaaaah! jezus Bok! Ahem. Sorry, had to let out some energy :) I'm certainly not going to call it "The nephil language/tongue", as it sounds rediculous. I'd rather refer to it as "ancient Nephil" instead. quote:maybe you're right about the two-participant verb. But about the nominative, take it away? I thought Slartucker started complaining that I had to make the difference more clear? Or are you talking about some place completely different then what I'm thinking of at the moment? quote:I needed an intransitive-like verb, and this was all I could come up with at that moment. However, I do think that there should be an example for an intransitive verb in a sentence there. otherwise people will get confused (strange, me saying that...). quote:Didn't I do that? *looks at the rgative* No, stupid, when you think about it. i'll change it. quote:yes, that's quite a good comment, of which I only thought when I had finished all the suffixes. My thought was like this (mainly an excuse not to have to change everything): If humans spell the nehil names like Frrrrmrrrr, which is absolutely horrible, then I wouldn't be surprised if they can spell the plural of the words correctly and just invented something which would be similair. What do you think? or should I start rewriting everything (O please, nooooo!) quote:Ah, well, that makes it easier. For clarity: it didn't say that it is used for posession only. I'm a bit confused in rekation to this sentence: "his palace of kingship" Is that the same as "a glass of milk," or not? I could have misread it, you know... quote:Hmmm... I shall retreat and only come back until I find a better way of putting this. I clearly didn't understand what the book said. I'll also ask my parents about it. quote:It is not an infinitive, it makes it more clear to what group the verb belongs, as I also wrote on the site: quote:...but I suppose that is also found weird. Note, though, that that's actually only the multipartite-group verb. if you look at the seperate constructions of the verbs, you'll notice why I said that. thanks for not using the bold and capital letters. it is already more pleasant to read what you wrote. Just one question: are you frustrated? wow. I'm mostly talking, but doing nothing with the language itself. Ever since this discussion began, I have done close to nothing about the language, except fixing mistakes. [ Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:32: Message edited by: Thralni, Nephil translators & co. ] -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 13:04
Profile
Homepage
Mr. Salmon, you speak wisdom. I have one really important question... is "jezus Bok" something in Dutch, or is there now a Christian Vahnatai conspiracy? I knew "Vahnatai Creationism" sounded fishy... :confused: About the words Nephilim and Nepharim... it seems reasonable that words like those could have irregular plurals, since they are important and unique. Personally, I always figured that they were words created by humans, either based on misapprehending something a nephil said, or some kind of mage language name for the kitties. quote:*facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm* Thralni, you do realize that the only reason I was arguing with you about this was because you said its genitive was only used for possession? OY. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, January 26 2006 15:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:Call it "Flügenförgen" for all I care. I'm just saying that "Nephilian" sounds really bad. quote:I said that you had to make the difference more clear, but the way that you can make the difference more clear is with examples and fully correct explanations, not bad analogies. (The whole point of an ergative case is that it's not like a nominative case.) quote:Yes. Yes, there should be an example sentence for an intransitive verb. I'm NOT suggesting that you delete the sentence; I AM suggesting that you take out the bit about "with the dog". "I walk" is just as good an example of a sentence with an intransitive verb as "I walk with the dog" — better, because it doesn't throw in other confusing words. To summarize: the sentence should just say "I walk," not "I walk with the dog." quote:Yes, as long as the plural of "nephil" in the nephil language is something that could be interpreted as sounding like "nephilim." That is, "nephilfarh" doesn't sound a heck of a lot like "nephilim," so it's hard to imagine how the two could be confused. However, you could say that in the later language (when the nephil race actually comes into contact with the human race) the F drops out, and the RH sounded enough like an M by that point that humans heard something more like "nephilam," which they (for ease of pronunciation) turned into "nephilim." This sort of stretches credibility, but meh. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Friday, January 27 2006 02:17
Profile
Homepage
quote:You're right, and I do appreciate the help. However, sometimes there are these comments which I simply hate to hear and irritate me nuts. quote:?? quote:I suggest we let that topic rest for now. quote:I know. i just seem to be really bad in explaning things. quote:Yes, that's not such a bad idea, actually. quote:That was also part of what I thought. Actually, Slartucker, what you said seems to be more like what I thought it would be. But, do you know anything of irregular plurals in Sumerian, Hurrian or Akadian? [ Friday, January 27, 2006 03:55: Message edited by: Thralni, Nephil translators & co. ] -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Saturday, January 28 2006 01:17
Profile
Homepage
I completely changed the verb. I actually found it a bit to complicated, and it didn't make sense. EDIT: I was just thinking, Kelandon, that we were so busy talking about ancient nephil, that I actually forgot about the Slith language. How is it going? [ Saturday, January 28, 2006 01:18: Message edited by: Thralni, Nephil translators & co. ] -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, January 28 2006 07:06
Profile
Homepage
I'm not working on it much. I know everything I need to know about it, so there's not much point in me making pages about it until I'm ready to release a scenario with it. I've been working on the scenario instead. I did take a quick break from the scenario to make a few more pages, but I'm not sure when I'll put them up, because I'm not sure when I'll finish them. My priority is the scenario. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Saturday, January 28 2006 08:55
Profile
Homepage
Oh, that's too bad. Well, you are the man in charge. Slartucker, you asked for a reference? here it is: Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, by Wolfram von Soden. See paragraph 62 d. There you'll find an example of the Akkadian way to deal with the "glass of milk" example. By the way, I'm not entirely convinced by the fact that english uses a genitive for the "glass of milk exmaple." -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |