The nephilim language

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: The nephilim language
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, January 28 2006 15:17 Profile Homepage #125 quote: Originally written by Thralni, Nephil translators & co.: By the way, I'm not entirely convinced by the fact that english uses a genitive for the "glass of milk exmaple." English doesn't, but that's irrelevant. The point is that a case that can serve the same function as the "of" in both "a glass of milk" and "the home of the man" is genitive, and a case that can't isn't. [ Saturday, January 28, 2006 15:21: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Saturday, January 28 2006 15:35 Profile Homepage #126 Thralni, I asked for a reference to something very specific. Quoting myself: "Give me a citation for a book or a scholarly article stating that in Sumerian the genitive is only used for possession." Your reference: - is about Akkadian, not Sumerian - does not state that any genitive, let alone the Sumerian genitive, is ONLY used for possession. (I spent many hours buried in the G.A.G. learning cuneiform...) -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Sunday, January 29 2006 00:06 Profile Homepage #127 With all your respect, but isn't it enough that there are numerous examples where it is not used like that? Numerous texts and numerous articles don't mention anything about these uses. Also, how come you want to see a book or article that much? isn't it enough that the head of the IAA (International Association of Assyriology) (my father) told me how it is, and that what that Johnson guy said is nonsense (by the way, he is not a Sumerologist, he is one of the computer-related people of the oriental insitute). I decided to ask somebody else about the Hurrian uses of the genitive, and I'm awaiting her reply (it should come next week). I musst have forgotten about you wanting only a refernce to a Sumerian source. I'm sorry. must have slipped my mind. the fact that you have been burried in G.A.G. learning cuneiform (was it a year? I think you told me that you studied it for a year), is quite irrelevant. My father have been studying it and doing research on it for about 20-25 years (that goes for others whome I asked as well). I'll wait for the reply of the women I also asked about this, and see what she says. In the meantime I'm going to continue with the verb. quote: The point is that a case that can serve the same function as the "of" in both "a glass of milk" and "the home of the man" is genitive, and a case that can't isn't. Ah, wait a second here. It can but it doesn't have to, right? If a language doesn't use it, but it can be used for that as an alternative way, then my language has a genitive, no? I can't recall ever saying that my language can't use it, only that they don't use it for that. That's no contradiction what I said. And I hope you people don't assume I'm not grateful for you help? (Although at some occasions I may get irritated) [ Sunday, January 29, 2006 00:07: 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
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Sunday, January 29 2006 00:59 Profile Homepage #128 quote: Originally written by Thralni, Nephil translators & co.: quote: The point is that a case that can serve the same function as the "of" in both "a glass of milk" and "the home of the man" is genitive, and a case that can't isn't. Ah, wait a second here. It can but it doesn't have to, right? If a language doesn't use it, but it can be used for that as an alternative way, then my language has a genitive, no? I can't recall ever saying that my language can't use it, only that they don't use it for that. That's no contradiction what I said. Well, if the case is never used to express a partitive relationship, then a speaker who used the case to express a partitive relationship wouldn't be understood, unless it's an archaic usage or something. Really, though, I'm not sure why all this wrangling is necessary. If you don't want the case to be usable to denote partitive relationships, just call it a possessive case instead of a genitive case. At this point you seem to be more interested in winning an argument than in using the most accurate terms to describe your language. [ Sunday, January 29, 2006 01:01: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Sunday, January 29 2006 01:08 Profile Homepage #129 All this wrangling is because Kelandon and Slartucker say something completely different about the genitive uses in Sumerian and Hurrian (moslt Slatucker, actually), than people who probably know more about it in those specific languages. They may be right about the genitive in general terms, but in this specific language, hurrian it is I'm talking about (My language was based on hurrian), I'd rather await what experts on the language have to say. if they agree with what slartucker said, okay. Then he was right. If not, the genitive in my language will stay a genitive. I myself actually don't quite understand the extreme need for touchable evidence all the time, instead of having the words of scholars o the field. If anybody could explain this, feel free to explain it. Kelandon: I looked up what you wanted me to look up (How one calls the case signifying "my", remember that?). The book I looked in calls it a genitive, and not a possesive case. Thuryl: The Nephil language is an ancient language, and therefor certain things could have dropped out. however, the language I'm making here, doesn't go as far as the time that language might have had this use of the genitive. In other words: It isn't used anymore in the language I'm making, but could have been used once. [ Sunday, January 29, 2006 01:26: Message edited by: Thralni, The flying Dutchmen ] -------------------- 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
ef Guardian Member # 2476	written Sunday, January 29 2006 04:10 Profile #130 quote: Also, how come you want to see a book or article that much? isn't it enough that the head of the IAA (International Association of Assyriology) (my father) told me how it is, No, it is not enough. If you don't know that, then your father will. From a researcher's point of view, Slartucker has nothing but hearsay to guide him right now, and has to trust that you, a non-professional in this area, have fully grasped what you've been told and passed it on correctly. I would call that a scientist's nightmare. I'm sure your father can provide such a reference easily, and would be happy to do so, were he aware of the deep and genuine involvement of the one who's asking for it. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 \| Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Sunday, January 29 2006 07:40 Profile Homepage #131 I can give tons of references saying what Sumerian uses the genitive for, that is not a problem. What is a problem, is to give references to books, where is said what Sumerian doesn't use the genitive for. I'll await the Hurrian's expert's email, and directly copy and paste it into a post. -------------------- 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
ef Guardian Member # 2476	written Sunday, January 29 2006 09:25 Profile #132 In the meantime, maybe this link could be useful: Google Scholar/Sumerian/Genitive -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 \| Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Sunday, January 29 2006 10:28 Profile Homepage #133 First of all, Cale Johnson, the author of the page I linked to, is at UCLA. Are you thinking of Chuck Jones, who used to run the computer lab at the Oriental Institute? Different person, different name. Thralni, I was not shooting down your source. The point of my comment about the GAG was that I know, like, and respect it very much! However, it simply did not address the point in contention whatsoever. quote: I can give tons of references saying what Sumerian uses the genitive for, that is not a problem. What is a problem, is to give references to books, where is said what Sumerian doesn't use the genitive for. I'll await the Hurrian's expert's email, and directly copy and paste it into a post. And that is the problem, Thralni. I was not complaining about your assertions of what the Sumerian genitive was for, those were quite correct. I was complaining about your assertions of what it was not for -- which you have just admitted you have no evidence for! quote: They may be right about the genitive in general terms, but in this specific language, hurrian it is I'm talking about (My language was based on hurrian), I'd rather await what experts on the language have to say The point that we have been trying to get across to you is that terms like "genitive" are the same no matter what language you apply them to! The English word "genitive" means one thing and one thing only. It may be that in Dutch, the word used for "genitive" is also used for "possessive" and that distinction is not made. That's why Kelandon asked you to do something very specific in order to clarify the issue. Edit: And you looked it up!!! HALLELUJAH! As we suspected, this is all a translation problem. Thralni: In English, the case "my" is in is NOT called genitive, it is called possessive. In other words, English uses two different words for genitive and possessive, but Dutch uses the same word for both of them. Therefore, if you are writing in Dutch you are correct to use that word to describe a case that only deals with ownership. But if you are writing in English, you need to check whether "genitive" or "possessive" is the correct word to use. If it only deals with ownership, "possessive" is the correct word. [ Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:31: Message edited by: Slartucker ] -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Sunday, January 29 2006 10:32 Profile Homepage #134 Ugh. All this misunderstanding is really irritating. okay, I agree with the fact the "genitive" is the same in all languages, but how come that you can't call a certain case a genitive when it doesn't have certain functions a normal genitive would have, although it has more functions than only stating the possessive case. I'm sorry, I have to go. I'll continue this post some other time. -------------------- 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
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Sunday, January 29 2006 13:58 Profile Homepage #135 I have never said anything about the use of the genitive in Hurrian or Sumerian. I'm not qualified to do so, and honestly, it's not relevant to this discussion. I've spoken about what the phrase "genitive case" means in general linguistics (at least in linguistics conducted in English) in contrast to what the phrase "possessive case" means. Evidently Dutch does not make a distinction between a "possessive case" and a "genitive case," but I can testify to the fact that English does. Since you're writing your description of your language in English, you should abide by English standards. Now, in order that we may figure out what this case really is, explain what the non-possessive uses are. Your example, I believe, once you started to say that it was not use simply for possession was "his palace of kingship." Is that still accurate? EDIT: Thralni, would it make sense to call a case an "accusative" case if it were used for the subject of the sentence? Of course not. So it makes no more sense to call a case a "genitive" case if it isn't used for both the possessive and the partitive functions of a genitive case. [ Sunday, January 29, 2006 14:10: 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
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Monday, January 30 2006 06:50 Profile Homepage #136 quote: Edit: And you looked it up! As we suspected, this is all a translation problem. I had looked it up already before you posted that. Unless you where writing that post at the time I posted my post, you could have seen that. quote: In English, the case "my" is in is NOT called genitive, it is called possessive. In other words, English uses two different words for genitive and possessive, but Dutch uses the same word for both of them. Therefore, if you are writing in Dutch you are correct to use that word to describe a case that only deals with ownership. But if you are writing in English, you need to check whether "genitive" or "possessive" is the correct word to use. If it only deals with ownership, "possessive" is the correct word. It doesn't only deal with possession, as I also said in the modified version of the nouns page (The beating of the father). It is correct that Dutch doesn't do it like that, and I beleive German also doesn't do it like that. However, I'm still awaiting the hurrian's expert's email, and I wonder what she shall say about this. until then, I suggest we stop talking about the genitive, but start disicussing other things, like the "equative" and verb introduction page. If you could do that, I'd be very grateful. quote: Now, in order that we may figure out what this case really is, explain what the non-possessive uses are. Your example, I believe, once you started to say that it was not use simply for possession was "his palace of kingship." Is that still accurate? Yes. I'll have to modify the nouns page again, i think. Note that "his palace of kingship," is about the same as "his royal palace." This form wouldn't be used too often, but it is used. -------------------- 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
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, January 30 2006 07:00 Profile Homepage #137 I have already posted all of my comments on the other cases, the pronunciation page, and the verbs page. If you want to know what I think about them, re-read this thread. -------------------- 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
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Monday, January 30 2006 07:05 Profile Homepage #138 Were your comments on the verbs page about the new version of the verbs page? i completely changed it, so I'm not sure if your comments are still relevant. The pronunciation page is coming along nicely. I only have to make the descriptions (velar, trill, that sort of stuff). -------------------- 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
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Monday, January 30 2006 07:33 Profile Homepage #139 Okay, I am so very done here. Thralni, good luck with the language. I hope you are more receptive to constructive criticism you receive in the future. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Monday, January 30 2006 07:41 Profile Homepage #140 Fine with me, slartucker. I suppose that means you think the verbs are poorly executed. Thta's a pity. I thought we were having a nice discussion, albeit with irritations now and then. oh well. I'll find somebody else to critisize instead. thanks for the help, though. -------------------- 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
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, January 30 2006 07:49 Profile Homepage #141 Eh, the verbs page is better now than when I first looked at it. I'd still run it through a spellchecker, though: there are some easy-to-fix typos that distract and make it harder to understand. In the same fashion as before: are you sure that you mean a "past perfective" tense, rather than a "past perfect" tense? Both are possible, but they mean different things. It may be useful to give an example of this form of the past tense. By the way, the vocative case has nothing to do with imperatives. [ Monday, January 30, 2006 07:51: 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
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Monday, January 30 2006 07:57 Profile Homepage #142 You are probably absolutely right about the "past perfect". What I want is like the latin perfectum. How would one call that in english? And you're also right about the vocative and imperative confusion. I went under the assumption, somehow, that a vocative needs the imperative. I'm learning classical languages at school. You would expect that i would know 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
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, January 30 2006 08:28 Profile Homepage #143 quote: Originally written by Thralni, The flying Dutchmen: You are probably absolutely right about the "past perfect". What I want is like the latin perfectum. How would one call that in english? Well, that's the question, isn't it? What tense does your unmarked "past" correspond to in Latin? I ask because I think that you may be doing one of two things: 1. Your "past" is like the Latin "perfectum," and your "past perfect" is like the Latin "plusquamperfectum." In this case, your "past" is just a "past" in English, and your "past perfect" is in fact a "past perfect" in English (or a "pluperfect" — they are the same). OR 2. Your "past" is like the Latin "imperfectum" and your "past perfect" is like the Latin "perfectum." In this case, your "past" should be called the "imperfect," and your "past perfect" should be called the "perfect" (without the word "past"). This is the reason why it may be useful to give examples of both of your past tenses. [ Monday, January 30, 2006 08:29: 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
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Monday, January 30 2006 09:15 Profile Homepage #144 Option 2. Imperfect and perfect: "He threw" and "he has thrown." Thanks. I'm going to change it now. -------------------- 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
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, January 30 2006 19:32 Profile Homepage #145 Um, no. "He threw" is simple past. "He has thrown" is present perfect. Those are both encompassed by the Latin perfectum. Imperfect(um) is "He was throwing." Past perfect (plusquamperfectum) is "He had thrown." -------------------- 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
ef Guardian Member # 2476	written Monday, January 30 2006 19:59 Profile #146 quote: Imperfect(um) is "He was throwing." Now that is interesting. The german language does not have an equivalent to your '-ing'-form, Dutch hasn't either as far as I know. So within the context of my own language, simple past and imperfect are identical. 'Ich ging' = 'I went' is all there is, 'I was going' needs a workaround to be expressed. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 \| Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Monday, January 30 2006 20:00 Profile Homepage #147 My knowledge of languages is limited and my knowledge of Latin nil, but wouldn't "he was throwing" be past progressive, "he has thrown" past perfect (or pluperfect), and "he threw" whatever other past tense you want since English doesn't distinguish? "He threw the ball every day" and "he threw the ball last Saturday" are past imperfect and past indefinite (simple past?) respectively in Spanish. —Alorael, who has followed this discussion with interest and almost total lack of comprehension. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, January 30 2006 20:26 Profile Homepage #148 Alorael: I was debating about how much detail to get into. In a word, yes, mostly. English doesn't have an exact equivalent to an imperfect, but English's past progressive is more equivalent than any other one tense. Yes, the past frequentative ("He threw every day") is also an imperfect, but I wasn't sure how much I wanted to go into the nuts and bolts of the difference between English's tenses and Latin's, given the audience for which I was writing. "He has thrown" is present perfect, though. "He had thrown" is past perfect. If anyone really cares, I can go into all of the tense and aspect issues that arise here and exactly what each thing is called. EDIT: Oh, heck, I'll just do it. My page on the slith verb may be sort of educational as far as what the distinctions are that we're talking about. There's tense, and then there's aspect. Tense conveys when something happens (past, present, future). Aspect conveys something about the manner in which it happens, including: true perfective, which indicates action that takes place over one definite period of time and finishes;iterative/frequentative (not sure on the distinction), which indicates action that happens often;durative, which indicates action that lasts for a long time and may or may not finish;inchoative/inceptive, which indicates action beginningmany, many others (for which I refer you to Wikipedia)* English has these distinctions: basic tense (past, present, future), progressive or not, and perfect or not. * Spanish has these distinctions: basic tense (past, present, future), perfect or not, and (only in the past) perfective or imperfective. Note that PERFECTIVE and PERFECT are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. * Latin has these distinctions: basic tense (past, present, future), perfect or not (with one exception), and (in the past) perfective or not. Unfortunately, Latin's present perfect and perfective past had collapsed into each other, so that dixi was both "I spoke" and "I have spoken." Those two forms are distinct in English and Spanish. Now, English's progressive more or less corresponds to a durative aspect (which is distinct in, say, certain situations in certain Slavic languages — the difference between i&#x0015B&#x00107 and chodzi&#x00107 in Polish) — a durative aspect focuses on doing the action of the verb, rather than on finishing it. It stresses the process. (Your mom tells you to clean your room and you reply: "I'm doing it!" You may not be done, and you may not ever finish, but you're in the process.) English's simple past (non-progressive, non-perfect) generally indicates one-time action ("I threw the ball"), but it can indicate things done routinely ("I threw the ball every Sunday — because I was the quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers"). This is called the frequentative aspect. The problem when using examples is that the imperfect encompasses the frequentative and durative aspects, but the progressive only encompasses the durative aspect. Since Spanish has an imperfect, but English has a progressive, there's no direct equivalence. Basically: English: simple past = perfective + frequentative; progressive = durative Spanish: preterite = perfective; imperfect = frequentative + durative So the frequentative presents an obvious difference between the way that English and Spanish handle tenses. There are other aspectual problems in translation between English and Spanish, but the frequentative problem is the first one that comes to mind. [ Monday, January 30, 2006 21:30: 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
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Tuesday, January 31 2006 07:05 Profile Homepage #149 Yes, I had forgotten about the differences between dutch and english. I'm now in a total state of confusion. In Dutch, the latin perfectum can be translated as "He has trown" (most often used) and "he threw" (not often used). for this last example ("he threw") we use the latin "Imperfectum." In other words, in dutch it is done like this: Imperfectum: he threw Perfectum: he has thrown. If I say that "he threw" is simple past, and "he has thrown" present perfect, am I right then? By the way, as ef already said, Dutch doesn't have the -ing form. If in Dutch you were to say "I'm going," you just say "ik ga" ("I go"). This means Dutch uses the present tense to denote an acyion you are starting at that moment (I go), or an action that is happening at that moment, but started just now (I'm going). I hope one can comprehend that explanation. -------------------- 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