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
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Tuesday, January 31 2006 07:15 Profile Homepage #150 My lack of knowledge about Dutch tenses is tripping me up here. I think that what you've just said is acceptable, but it worries me a little bit that I can't cross-reference this to anything. My answer is yes, unless something else weird turns up. -------------------- 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 07:18 Profile Homepage #151 Okay, I'll change th verbs page... again. Some langauges like Dutch, don't use an emormous array of all kinds of tenses adn the like. I'm not sure how german does this, but it might be similair, if not the same. EDIT: I uploaded a newer version of the nouns page, in which I mainly explained the termiantive in a (hopefully) clearer way. I also hope the doubts that this is a terminative, are now taken away. awwwww.... the banners are there. At least it is much better how they do it here, then how they did it at Angelfire. [ Tuesday, January 31, 2006 07:35: 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
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Wednesday, February 1 2006 06:31 Profile Homepage #152 I double posted delibarately. here is the answer I got from the garman expert on hurrian. She also asked somebody who knows even more about it. If you want, I can ask het for books in which it says so. however, only if you ask, as I don't want to waist to much of her time. quote: finally, here is my answer to your questions: 1. Usage of genitive. As far as we understand the Hurrian grammar genitive is only used to express possession and relationship. 2. "a glass of milk" What a difficult question! Firstly, the word for milk itself: We do not know whether the Hurrians used singular or plural for liquids. I would guess, milk is plural as it is in Sumerian and Akkadian, but that's not a proof. Just consider the word shije, shie "water" in singuar [the plural form shije=na means "water(courses), rivers"], and tarm=a=(n)ni "source (for water), ground water" derived from the verb tarm- "to give to drink, to water" (not: "to drink"), which is also a word in singular. Then, did they have an own word for milk or is milk something that e.g. comes "out of the cow". In this case we would have several derivation suffixes just to express milk. Secondly, what's the construction? In principle, it could be a genitive construction (like e.g. in Italian) but it could also could be something else. We do not have any similar construction so that we just do not know. I also asked Mauro Giorgieri (I consider him the one who understands the Hurrian grammar the best, these days) about this, and he couldn't say. All I can say is: If it was a genitive construction it would be (but I am sure, you already know this): in ergative: GLASS=sh MILK=(ne=)ve=ne=sh (or plural: MILK=na=ash=e=ne=sh) in absolutive: GLASS MILK=(ne=)ve (or plural: MILK=na=ash=e) I am sorry that I have no better answer to your question. However, if you have any more question I can try to answer them. Best wishes from Heidelberg, Jeanette Dr. Jeanette C. Fincke c/o Institut für Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Orients - Assyriologie Hauptstr. 126 D - 69117 Heidelberg -------------------- 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 Wednesday, February 1 2006 07:27 Profile Homepage #153 If Hurrian is so minimally understood even by experts, it might be a really bad idea to base your language on it. It'd be like basing a language on Etruscan. Yeah, the terminative now looks more like a terminative, not as much like an allative. A terminative (as far as I can tell) is used for actually reaching an end (a terminus), whereas the allative is used for motion towards something. I still can't stand this description: "The ablative instrumental is used when something or somebody did or does something." Do you mean that it is used to denote "by means of" something? That is, "He killed him with a sword"? Or do you mean that it denotes the agent in a passive sentence: "He was killed by him"? Or something else? -------------------- 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 Wednesday, February 1 2006 07:44 Profile Homepage #154 I base the language on Hurrian, for the parts that are known (e.g. the construction of a noun, verb, etc). I'm glad that the terminative is clearer now. I'm also happy that you mentioned the word "terminus." Now I understand why it is called terminative. Thanks. quote: I still can't stand this description: "The ablative instrumental is used when something or somebody did or does something." Do you mean that it is used to denote "by means of" something? That is, "He killed him with a sword"? Or do you mean that it denotes the agent in a passive sentence: "He was killed by him"? Or something else? I mean that it denotes the agent in a passive sentence (by him). I'll change it as soon as I found a ways to describe it in a clearer fashion, although I think that the example I gave (by the noun) makes it already quite clear (at least for me). Do you still want me to ask Dr. Jeanette C. Fincke about books/articles? I wanted to ask you (Kelandon) if I may copy the description of placement of tongue, form of lips etc. from your Slith language pronunciation page to the Nephilian pronunciation page? Would you mind? [ Wednesday, February 01, 2006 07:51: 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
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Wednesday, February 1 2006 07:57 Profile Homepage #155 I never wanted you to give a reference to an article, because I've never thought that it matters. I don't really give a damn what Hurrian or Sumerian do, at least with regard to your language. Your language must simply make sense with itself, not necessarily match any other actual language. I think, as far as the ablative-instrumental, you could just change "Also, The ablative instrumental is used when something or somebody did or does something. This is most often found with passive sentences" into "Also, the ablative instrumental is found in passive sentences." -------------------- 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 Wednesday, February 1 2006 08:06 Profile Homepage #156 quote: I never wanted you to give a reference to an article, because I've never thought that it matters. I don't really give a damn what Hurrian or Sumerian do, at least with regard to your language. Your language must simply make sense with itself, not necessarily match any other actual language. Wise words. Wise words indeed. quote: I think, as far as the ablative-instrumental, you could just change "Also, The ablative instrumental is used when something or somebody did or does something. This is most often found with passive sentences" into "Also, the ablative instrumental is found in passive sentences." Sounds good to me. You only didn't answer my last question. Could you still answer it, please? -------------------- 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 Wednesday, February 1 2006 13:50 Profile Homepage #157 I'd highly recommend that you simply do what I did: go to Wikipedia's IPA page (or any other source on phonology) and take the information that you need from there. If you simply must duplicate what's on my page, I won't object, but I strongly recommend against doing it blindly. -------------------- 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
wz. As Infiltrator Member # 3040	written Wednesday, February 1 2006 21:41 Profile #158 Sorry to temporarily attempt to derail the discussion, but I stumbled upon this thread and am very interested by it. I am currently taking an intro to Linguistics course, where I am learning about things like Chomsky's notion of a Universal Grammar. What do people think of the idea that Sliths and Nephilim may not have the same Universal Grammar that humans do? For instance, what if they are not limited by binding theory for reflexive pronouns? Or if they can have movement out of coordinate structures? What if Sliths and/or Nephilim are much better than humans at keeping deep nests of modifiers in their head at one time, and are much worse at disambiguating double meanings? The impression I received is that both Kelandon's Slith grammar and Thralni's Nephil grammar are consistent with languages that could actually be spoken by humans natively. Am I correct in this impression? Or are there any properties of these languages that do not appear in any human language? If, in fact, Slith and/or Nephil language properties are different enough from those of human languages, it could have many implications for whether or not there could be native human speakers of the Slith tongue or vice versa, and might explain why, for instance, there are more Nephilim who speak passable Human than there are Sliths. [ Wednesday, February 01, 2006 21:44: Message edited by: wz. arsenic... ] -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 \| Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Wednesday, February 1 2006 21:55 Profile Homepage #159 Basically, yes, Classical Slith could be spoken by humans. It would be difficult to learn, but not prohibitively so. There are two major reasons for this: 1. Humans actually do learn it in the scenario, so it has to be possible. 2. For practical purposes, I'm sticking to what I know, and I know Indo-European languages. Perhaps for my next conlang I'll stretch farther. :P And I have a different explanation for the speech patterns of the sliths in Avernum. [ Wednesday, February 01, 2006 21:57: 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
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Thursday, February 2 2006 03:21 Profile Homepage #160 Interesting question, wz. Keep in mind, though, that the idea of a universal grammar is FAR from universally accepted. Personally, I am inclined to think that Chomsky has observed a number of useful patterns that run across languages, but I don't buy most of his theories about grammar operation. Syntactically, in particular, I find it really suspicious that with his UG it's (relatively) simple to get from deep structure to surface structure in English, but in languages with different word order, suddenly you're doing all these twists and turns. Not to mention agglutinative languages... judge for yourself, though. UG is based largely on generalizable human cognitive structure and development. To the degree that sliths or nephils are cognitively different from humans, they might have a different UG. But it seems to me that (like almost all fantasy/SF races) they are almost identical to us, cognitively. Differences in temperament are as likely to be cultural as anything else, and both seem to be capable of more or less the same stuff humans are capable of. -- slartucker, who is trying to resist the temptation to reduce everything to Optimality Theory -------------------- 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 Thursday, February 2 2006 05:59 Profile Homepage #161 I'm convinced humans will be able to speak the Nephil language. I actually intended that people, when playing my scenario, would be able to translate the texts, and understand the grammar. Pronunciation also shouldn't be a real problem, I think. It is a problem that so little is known about the two languages, and we can only guess, using the names of the characters. however, this can only give an indication of sounds the Nephilim/Sliths seem to make, but it doesn't say anything about how nephilim/Sliths may have written it or pronounced it. The problem with making a langauge that isn't based on already known languages is, is mainly that it is far to hard. making a new grammar, new conjugations and the like, is an awful lot of work and wouldn't be so appreciated that it is really worthwhile. the difference between Nephilim and Sliths, and their ability to succesfully pronounce English words, may lie in the fact that Sliths come from far underground, while Nephilim, like humans, come from the surfafe. they could have met, exchanging information, religion, language and the like. However, your question did give me new insights in the "nephilim homeland" (which isn't really homeland). I'm glad you asked it. Kelandon, I do understand these terms. They aren't that complicated one has to study a month to know them. I'm not copying anything blindly. What use does it have to copy something you don't know what it is? Slartucker: I'm still wondering why you suddenly stopped helping? Just curious. -------------------- 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 Thursday, February 2 2006 09:25 Profile Homepage #162 I stopped helping because it was getting frustrating, and it felt like I was spinning my wheels. You constantly misinterpreted the statements I made, and answered questions I did not ask. The genitive is the big thing. It took 2 pages of Kelandon explaining something very simple to you, suggesting your disagreement was related to English/Dutch word differences, and imploring you to look it up yourself -- during which time you repeatedly told us we were wrong -- before you finally looked it up and lo and behold, we weren't wrong. Meanwhile, attempting to address that question another way, I asked you for a reference to substantiate the claim you'd made about Sumerian genitive. Despite clarifying my question many times in very specific terms, you have now offered me references to Akkadian and Hurrian but NOT Sumerian. (No, I do not want the reference anymore!) As somebody else observed, you seem much more interested in winning an argument than in resolving it according to logic. And you seem more interested in arguing than in producing a grammar that is accurately described and understandable to the reader. That last part, of course, is what I was trying to help with. I wish you good luck with the grammar, as I said, but I have no interest in helping someone who is going to argue with everything I say. -- Slartucker, who really should know better than to fan flames, however reasonable he may think he's being -------------------- 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 Thursday, February 2 2006 09:57 Profile Homepage #163 At a certain point I was getting obessed with the discussion, yes. that was mainly because I was arguing with people I no nothing about, claiming they study a certain field, and say the opposite of the books, my parents and other people I talked too. I guess I'm very suspicious. I'm sorry to have frustrated you. I assmune I don't have to say I didn't mean to lose you, as you already came up with that yourself. I leave the decision to you if you want to offer any more help or not, although I would be delighted to hear your opinions. I suppose I would have felt the same: frustrated, very irriated. If I promise I won't argue to the exstent as I argued with you about the genitive, will you consider helping me again? I was obsessed with winning the discussion, which made me lose the actual point of the whole discossuion: help with the cases of my language. I apologize. I hope not to start arguing like that again. Will you please help again? -------------------- 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 Thursday, February 2 2006 14:40 Profile Homepage #164 Well, I appreciate your saying those things. And I applaud your suspicion of people who claim to know what they're talking about -- many of them don't. But I think one should be suspicious of what you think you know, too. Subjecting your own arguments to the same scrutiny you demand of others is the only way to keep yourself from turning into a pompous airhead. (And yes... I have had in my life occasion to be a pompous airhead :D ) Anyway, I guess I'll contribute my opinion again if you want, though I think you'll understand if I don't debate things. --t -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Thursday, February 2 2006 15:20 Profile Homepage #165 Thralni, just make the changes that you want to make, and I'll tell you if I object. I doubt I'll mind whatever you do. -------------------- 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 Friday, February 3 2006 04:34 Profile Homepage #166 I'm very glad to hear that, Slartucker. I'm looking forward to hear your opinions once again. In the weekend I'll start making the pages for the conjugation of the verb. Until then... Nothing, I guess. -------------------- 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 Friday, February 3 2006 19:28 Profile Homepage #167 By the way, while we're talking about Universal Grammar and weird languages, what does everyone think about Pirahã? Is it really as freaky as some people claim, or has Daniel Everett pulled a Margaret Mead? -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Friday, February 3 2006 21:16 Profile Homepage #168 Pirahã seems interesting, but we really don't know enough about it to make a lot of conclusions. Everything that I've read about it says that much more evidence is needed to verify the work that has been done so far. I think it is possible that cultural norms may limit what one talks about, and a language is defined by how it's used, so in that way, there may be some interesting features of the language. -------------------- 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 Friday, February 10 2006 23:35 Profile Homepage #169 Added the conjugation pages. If there are some things that you don't really understand, or simply want to be explained in a better way, don't hesitate to say. -------------------- 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
Rent-an-Ihrno Infiltrator Member # 3933	written Saturday, February 11 2006 00:01 Profile #170 im studying latin atm, and i dont think your definition of the ablativus instrumentalis is 100% accurate. in "he killed him with a sword", the sword would be an AI. in "he was killed by him", the him would also be ablative, but im not sure if its instrumentalis. there are 20 other ablatives... i would rather say: "the ablativus instrumentalis is used for beings or objects that are used by somebody/something else for doing something." or something like that. change the grammar and the two "used", and it should be fine. -------------------- OH MY GOD IT'S THE FUNKY **!!! Posts: 425 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 28 2004 08:00**
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Saturday, February 11 2006 02:09 Profile Homepage #171 The ablativus instrumentalis is not defined correctly, I know that. there has been an enormous discussion about it. Anyway, thatnk you for looking at it. Everyhelp is welcome, and I thank you. EDIT: You are studying Latin too? Fpr how long, if I may ask? [ Saturday, February 11, 2006 02:09: 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
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, February 11 2006 06:58 Profile Homepage #172 It would be easier just to call it an "ablative" and be done with it. The hyphen doesn't help anything. -------------------- 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
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Saturday, February 11 2006 09:49 Profile Homepage #173 If the language is still ergative-absolutive, the important part about transitive verbs is not that they require an object, it's that they require a transitive subject (i.e., they use the absolutive, which is not going to get used with intransitive verbs). Are you still making it prodrop, or not? It appears that you are allowing pronouns to drop if they are ergative subjects, or absolutive subjects, but not ergative objects. I still think that makes little sense, for an ergative language, since it's basically dealing with pronouns as if they were nom-acc. Your writing is mostly simpler and clearer, which is good, but there are still some really bad typos (transitive vs intransitive are mixed up in 1 or 2 places). If I am reading your conjugation charts correctly, then it is impossible to tell the difference between 1st 2nd and 3rd person in any tense besides present tense. Right? Um... not good in combination with prodrop! Oh yeah. And is it STILL called Nephilian? -------------------- 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 Saturday, February 11 2006 23:46 Profile Homepage #174 quote: Originally written by Slartucker: If the language is still ergative-absolutive, the important part about transitive verbs is not that they require an object, it's that they require a transitive subject (i.e., they use the absolutive, which is not going to get used with intransitive verbs). okay, I'll change it. quote: Originally written by Slartucker: Are you still making it prodrop, or not? It appears that you are allowing pronouns to drop if they are ergative subjects, or absolutive subjects, but not ergative objects. I still think that makes little sense, for an ergative language, since it's basically dealing with pronouns as if they were nom-acc. No, I figured that it would be simpler if I wouldn't make it prodrop. Did I fail to remove the prodrop part of the description somewhere? Basically, I completely removed prodrop from my language. quote: Originally written by Slartucker: Your writing is mostly simpler and clearer, which is good, but there are still some really bad typos (transitive vs intransitive are mixed up in 1 or 2 places). I'm glad to hear that. I'm progressing! :) Anyway, I'll search for the typos and I'll fix them. On what page are they exactly? conjugation pages? quote: Originally written by Slartucker: If I am reading your conjugation charts correctly, then it is impossible to tell the difference between 1st 2nd and 3rd person in any tense besides present tense. Right? Um... not good in combination with prodrop! Wait, there are things you are missing here, maybe because I didn't write it in a clear way. first, I suppose this comment is irrelevant now, as I dropped prodrop. Second, it's not true what you think about the tenses. the only difference between all tenses, is one single suffix. if that suffix is not there, then it is present. if there is a suffix there, then it will be a certain tense, depending on the suffix. 1st 2nd and 3rd person can be always distinguished. What made you think this can not be done? quote: Originally written by Kelandon: It would be easier just to call it an "ablative" and be done with it. The hyphen doesn't help anything. Yes, you're right. I've got a "instrumental" case, so the "ablative-instumental" can be just ablative. quote: Originally written by Slartucker: Oh yeah. And is it still called Nephilian? for the time being, yes. I have difficulty finding a name that suits me. -------------------- 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