Conlang fluency thread

[Nortaneous]

Rbòr ỉngrudash te doú mzùn na melrán, nRảb nman dàr, ngoủl?
[ʁbòˁʁ ɪ̌ŋgð̩əs̠t̪θɨ mɹʌ̀nə mɪçʁán nʁæ̌o̯ nməndɒ̀ˁ ŋɯ̌ç]
C4-fake England-ADJ FOC REL.IRR 2M.DAT STAT.IRR C4-want<2S> C4-be_like that Q
Well, if it's fake English you want, Rau is fake English, isn't it?

[Travis B.]

Zyaŋ luo the kyan iŋgyis khoŋ in sadźiwam trie luo qha kyan jot khoŋ.
[zjɑɴ luo tʰe kjɛɴ ʔiŋɡjih kʰoɴ ʔiɴ sadʑiwaɴ tʂie luo qʰa kjɛɴ ɟøʔ kʰoɴ]
Zlang EQU.IPFV DIRECT.EVID language English be.fake CONJ Sajiwan POSSIBLE.IPFV EQU.IPFV DED.EVID language be.low be.fake
Old Zlang is fake English, but Sajiwan seems like it might be fake Dutch.

[xxx]

Fehs, yu fo bway in cende a wo ting glos ste, and nesfa, it in won fi rof-mos mi kol Sajiwan "kantafit Inggles".
First, you obviously don't understand what a gloss is, and secondly, there's no need to insult me and call Sajiwan "fake English".

Tg»g¬¬µë_Ng®±2®½`NNv®À¬g½g®¬h»

(my words not insulting to you and my words containing only identical roots difficult to be caught by language used by you)
I don't try to be insulting and my isolating language is difficult to be caught by gloss (I prefer back translation...)

[Travis B.]

Fehs, yu fo bway in cende a wo ting glos ste, and nesfa, it in won fi rof-mos mi kol Sajiwan "kantafit Inggles".
First, you obviously don't understand what a gloss is, and secondly, there's no need to insult me and call Sajiwan "fake English".

Tg»g¬¬µë_Ng®±2®½`NNv®À¬g½g®¬h»

(my words not insulting to you and my words containing only identical roots difficult to be caught by language used by you)
I don't try to be insulting and my isolating language is difficult to be caught by gloss (I prefer back translation...)

Interlinear gloss

[xxx]

In its simplest form, an interlinear gloss is simply a literal, word-for-word translation of the source text.

g»g½i®¼
(my word like this...)
back-translation is a simple form of glossing (effortlessly adapted to the isolating languages...)

[bradrn]

(Don’t feel like translating such a long post into any of my languages, sorry…)

A back-translation is not a gloss. There are similarities, but a back-translation lacks the detail or helpfulness of a proper gloss. For instance, in g»g½i®¼, which substring corresponds to ‘my’? Which to ‘like’? It’s impossible for me to know. And because of that, it’s impossible for me to know whether your ‘backtranslation’ has a one-to-one correspondence of morphemes with your language, or even if it contains all of the morphemes in the same order — both of which are properties which back-translations often lack. At best, it can give us some vague idea about some ways your language differs from idiomatic English — but that’s all.

[xxx]

https://voca.ro/1o86Y0Hup7ZG

(me not able to deny you...)

[bradrn]

Incidentally, I have done similar "near-English’ glosses before, e.g.:

Be paatli ndil siwe: ḍḍḍḍḍḍḍḍ ḌḌḌḌḌḌḌḌ. (Ni daa wiilets waq dawa be ngen ndeqisi ngen khiibud bin.)

I help you do: ḍḍḍḍḍḍḍḍ ḌḌḌḌḌḌḌḌ. (You also touch do good I POSS place-d POSS ‘keyboard’ possibly.)

The main difference here is that it’s still quite clear which part of the gloss corresponds to which part of the sentence, and the really important grammatical information is specified in the gloss.

[Travis B.]

Źuw dyaŋ nu luo qha byaw gyoh nu ńdźuk byaw byuw mbres.
[ʑuw djɑɴ nu luo qʰa bjɑw ɡjoh nu ɲdʑuʔ bjɑw bjuw mbʐeh]
idea be.good one EQU.IPFV DED.EVID part gloss one BEN part word be.every
A good idea is to write one gloss for each morpheme.

[Imralu]

In its simplest form, an interlinear gloss is simply a literal, word-for-word translation of the source text.

g»g½i®¼
(my word like this...)
back-translation is a simple form of glossing (effortlessly adapted to the isolating languages...)

Mai ma u nui yu zyangei ha za dyi nwavyu ha ze.
what-COP what SIT thing-COP C language-COP Q hold^A word consist.of.one.part^A Q no^E
What has that got to do with whether a language is isolating or not?

Hi zyange ngai za dyi nwavyu, mye bawei dyi ne zyeme u go.
DEM language GEN.1S-COP hold^A word consist.of.one.part^A | but many-COP word undergo^A join(TR)^A SIT similar^E
This language of mine is isolating, but there are also many compound words.

Nai mwe a ngegyo vye dyi u zyangei li bya u ndu dyi hwa gwe ngegyo va nenge u zyangei li bya.
1S-COP able^E CONJ write^A GEN.PL word SIT language-COP become^A other^E SIT (be)low^E word source and write^A all communicated^E SIT language-COP become^A other^E
I can both write interlinear glosses and translations for it.

I ho va vyu zyange do, a lo ngegyo vye dyi u zyangei li bya u ndu dyi hwa gwe lo ngegyo va nenge u zyangei li bya.
COP good^E all type language thus | CONJ situation write^A GEN.PL word SIT language-COP become^A other^E SIT (be)low^E word source and situation write^A all communicated^E SIT language-COP become^A other^E
Both interlinear glossing and translation are applicable for any language type.

Hi dzo ngegyo u woi ze dzo ngegyo va nenge u zyangei li bya. Hagwo wai mbyu ngegyo u zyangei li bya, do wai nezye bi dzungge.
DEM PST.undergo^A write^A SIT GEN.2S-COP no^E PST.undergo^A write^A all communicated^E SIT language-COP become^A other^E | if.IRR 2S-COP trade^A write^A SIT language-COP become^A other^E | thus 2S-COP caused^E cease^A work.for.money^A
What you wrote is not a translation. If you were a translator, you would be fired.

Dzo ngegyo va nenge u zyangei li byai he ho u zyangei nde (u ha hwai ho). Dei he zyeu a gyu agwe vwegyoi nwimu zu o byai mwe nge zyange hwa.
PST.undergo^A write^A all communicated^E SIT language-COP become^A other^E-COP obligated^E good^E SIT language goal (sit if source-COP good^E) | DEF.SG-COP obligated^E cause-SIT either.INCL hear^E or.INCL read^E-COP understand^E same^E SIT other^E-COP able^E communicate^A language source.
A translation should be correct in the target language (if the source language is correct). It should enable the reader or listener to understand what someone who can speak the source language would.

[xxx]

fyfwxwkybicwuwxwfwxwfybibkuwuwxwuwuky
(my word as yours but seen as word of mine and not understandable by you...)
my English translation is a word to word with 3SDL (not a good English translation)...

(in 3SDL, each word being at the same root level, there is no grammar to gloss, and I don't see the point of investing myself in such an activity when this back-translation gives me a semantic vision which is the target of my conlanguage activity, and which is often erased by the traditional gloss which is a relex of the source language with the words of the target language...)

[bradrn]

in 3SDL, each word being at the same root level, there is no grammar to gloss

Qan fawetl pawtiq tleŋ ndeqis bisa tlii naaya. Ni ngen tleŋ ndiyam Ingles ndisi bisa tleŋ, ni yana na mah qi ngen thaŋ.

/ʔan fawət͡ɬ pawtiʔ t͡ɬəŋ ⁿdəʔis bisa t͡ɬiː naːja || niᵑɡən t͡ɬəŋ ⁿdijam iᵑɡləs ⁿdisi bisa t͡ɬəŋ | nijanana mah ʔi ᵑɡən tʰaŋ/

ACT speak all the place part PL some.way. you=ALN the become English place part the, you=only=thus do two it ALN the.

All languages have grammar. If yours puts words in the same order as English, then you’ve just copied English grammar.

[xxx]

fyxfw'wtwxwhoafw'wpyvwabwufymwxwuboutwafwwkyx
(my language maybe traveling as language of yours, and it maybe traveling back of travel of language of yours...)

3SDL can use the same word order as English, and can use the reverse word order of English...

(anything depend of the chain of roots, with no more predicate, "red head boy" or "boy head red" or "boy red head" (...) is the same...)

[jal]

3SDL can use the same word order as English, and can use the reverse word order of English

Mi sim yu won a senis bo langwic sayans. A wo yu tok in omana langwic-dem u wohk.
It seems to me you lack knowledge about linguistics. What you are saying isn't how languages work.


JAL

[bradrn]

3SDL can use the same word order as English, and can use the reverse word order of English

Mi sim yu won a senis bo langwic sayans. A wo yu tok in omana langwic-dem u wohk.
It seems to me you lack knowledge about linguistics. What you are saying isn't how languages work.

Qan fawetl mbu maqek waq thaba tleŋ nii dawa.

NMLZ speak but which do different the is good

Non-naturalistic languages are fine too.

[jal]

Non-naturalistic languages are fine too.

Sure they are, but it seem to me that xxx hasn't thought through their language at all, and just use some handwaving to avoid explaining how their language actually works. Of course, this is the conlang fluency thread, not the "explain your language thread", and I'm willing to believe that all those seemingly random character strings actually represent something, but xxx is very defensive when asked for some further explanation, and seems to refuse to understand what a gloss is, or produce one. And saying "3SDL can use the same word order as English, and can use the reverse word order of English" just reveals a complete lack of understanding of what even "word order" entails. And things like "each word being at the same root level, there is no grammar to gloss" and "the traditional gloss (...) is a reflex of the source language with the words of the target language" and "anything depend of the chain of roots, with no more predicate, "red head boy" or "boy head red" or "boy red head" (...) is the same." is basically just informed sounding gibberish.


JAL

[xxx]

jñĆ hñð hąĂ løĆY T
(this-thing said-by us elsewhere please...)
let's talk about this elsewhere...

(I find it difficult to hold a linguistic conversation in 3SDL...)

[masako]

ta'impe pakamyanko
You're only foolin' yourself.

[xxx]

k²b°i®i°®±T
(men all speaking denyed maybe...)
anyone can be wrong sometimes...

[jal]

Dis ya de a Fwayde, an dis min nes de it a wik don! Taym fi laymin!
Today is Friday, which means tomorrow it's weekend! Time for relaxing!


JAL