Zompist Bboard Again

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2023 3:31 pm**

(two US soldiers in 19th century gear are hunkered down behind a wooden palisade)

"Corporal, you told me the Mikihahaka have no word for war!"

"They don't general!" (an arrow narrowly misses the corporal's head) "I swear, they don't!"

A messenger on horseback rushes through a side gate, and staggers up to the general despite several arrow wounds.

"General! The Mikihahaka... They've learned... to paraphrase!" (he dies)

Coming to theaters this summer...

Make Big Shoot Shoot Fight

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2023 9:36 pm**

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 3:31 pm (two US soldiers in 19th century gear are hunkered down behind a wooden palisade)

"Corporal, you told me the Mikihahaka have no word for war!"

"They don't general!" (an arrow narrowly misses the corporal's head) "I swear, they don't!"

A messenger on horseback rushes through a side gate, and staggers up to the general despite several arrow wounds.

"General! The Mikihahaka... They've learned... to paraphrase!" (he dies)

Coming to theaters this summer...

Make Big Shoot Shoot Fight

lol

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2023 9:40 pm**

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:46 am I've decided to restructure an old dictionary. Different glosses for the same entry are separated by semicolon, and I will not change that because it would be a lot of work. But I don't know how to separate explanations from glosses. I have three suggestions. Which do you think looks best?

Personally I'd go with your current formatting or Alternative 1.

Posted: **Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:23 am**

äreo wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 9:40 pmPersonally I'd go with your current formatting or Alternative 1.

The current, really? I think it's bad because if you have a comment about the meaning of a gloss and some grammatical information, they both have to go in the same parentheses, eg. wear (headgear; pol. stem). And when there are several glosses, it's ambiguous whether the parenthetic information applies to all of the glosses or just the last one.

Hmm, I guess alternative 1 is good because the dash is a visually clear separator.

Thanks for the feedback!

Posted: **Sun Dec 17, 2023 10:58 am**

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:23 am
äreo wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 9:40 pmPersonally I'd go with your current formatting or Alternative 1.
The current, really? I think it's bad because if you have a comment about the meaning of a gloss and some grammatical information, they both have to go in the same parentheses, eg. wear (headgear; pol. stem). And when there are several glosses, it's ambiguous whether the parenthetic information applies to all of the glosses or just the last one.

Hmm, I guess alternative 1 is good because the dash is a visually clear separator.

Thanks for the feedback!

Happy to help. I resolved the unclear parentheses problem in my dictionary by putting them before all the glosses they applied to, with glosses they didn't apply to coming before them. This was really just an issue for lexicalized plurals, so I would list singular meanings first, then "(plural)" followed by the plural meaning. For example:

lís | sight, face, (pl.) eyes

Posted: **Sun Dec 24, 2023 10:34 am**

Ah, that's a clever way. I tested that too, but it didn't work so well for my purposes.

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2023 3:14 pm**

I just posted this on Mastodon; it probably won't tell experienced conlangers anything new, but newbies might take something useful from it:

To illustrate how different, even closely related, languages can express similar things in different ways, here are three common German words *literally* translated into English:

Kühlschrank - "cool/cooling cupboard/wardrobe/cabinet" - fridge

Seehund - "sea dog" - common harbor seal

Baumwolle - "tree wool" - cotton

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:36 am**

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 3:14 pmKühlschrank - "cool/cooling cupboard/wardrobe/cabinet" - fridge

Of course, the word originated when it was actually a cooling cupboard (with blocks of ice in it), before it was an electrical appliance.

JAL

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2024 12:10 pm**

jal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:36 am
Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 3:14 pmKühlschrank - "cool/cooling cupboard/wardrobe/cabinet" - fridge
Of course, the word originated when it was actually a cooling cupboard (with blocks of ice in it), before it was an electrical appliance.

JAL

Thank you, good to know!

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:48 pm**

If you were reading a speculative fiction story, and came upon the noun <chonday> how would you pronounce it in your head and what would be your immediate associations or thoughts about it, just from spelling. What would be different if the word was <tonday> instead?

If you're curious, I'm thinking of using one of those for "a ten day period" as a rough equivalent of a week.

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:54 pm**

linguistcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:48 pm If you were reading a speculative fiction story, and came upon the noun <chonday> how would you pronounce it in your head and what would be your immediate associations or thoughts about it, just from spelling. What would be different if the word was <tonday> instead?

If you're curious, I'm thinking of using one of those for "a ten day period" as a rough equivalent of a week.

They'd both end in /ɒndeɪ/ and I think the latter would more quickly connect to "day" in my head.

"tennight" like "sennight" and "fortnight" might be worth considering too.

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:10 pm**

linguistcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:48 pm If you were reading a speculative fiction story, and came upon the noun <chonday> how would you pronounce it in your head and what would be your immediate associations or thoughts about it, just from spelling. What would be different if the word was <tonday> instead?

If you're curious, I'm thinking of using one of those for "a ten day period" as a rough equivalent of a week.

Probably /ˈt͡ʃɒndæ͡i/ for the former, and either /ˈtɒndæ͡i/ or /ˈtʌndæ͡i/ for the latter. (Of course, this relies on me recognising them as intended to be English words.)

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:35 pm**

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:10 pm Probably /ˈt͡ʃɒndæ͡i/ for the former, and either /ˈtɒndæ͡i/ or /ˈtʌndæ͡i/ for the latter. (Of course, this relies on me recognising them as intended to be English words.)

I didn't think about it but I would probably also guess closer to /ˈtʌndæ͡i/ myself for the second. Would changing the spelling to <taunday> get it closer. If not I might go with tennight, as äreo suggested.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:14 am**

linguistcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:48 pmIf you were reading a speculative fiction story, and came upon the noun <chonday> how would you pronounce it in your head and what would be your immediate associations or thoughts about it, just from spelling. What would be different if the word was <tonday> instead?

"chonday" probably rhyming with "John day", while "tonday" more likely with STRUT (like "monday").

If you're curious, I'm thinking of using one of those for "a ten day period" as a rough equivalent of a week.

The main problem with that would be, for me, that the "day" part would make it sound like it's a specific day. If not a day of the week, then perhaps some holiday.

JAL

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2024 7:32 am**

You could call it "a ten of days."

(or my favorite: a "daycade")

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2024 7:55 am**

Another objection is that "chon" or "ton" doesn't seem to mean anything, while "day" does. That also makes it difficult to parse. I'd stick to more familiar language. E.g. "tenfold", or "halfscore", or "tennight".

JAL

Posted: **Wed Jan 03, 2024 1:49 am**

You could instead model the word off of German Jahrhundert 'century' and its cognates, including rare English yearhundred, and call your ten-day weeks daytens (probably pronounced more like Dayton(, Ohio) than like uncompounded day ten). Otherwise I'd also endorse tennight.

Posted: **Sat Jan 06, 2024 7:33 am**

After staring at paradigm tables for some time, I think I’ve finally found a reasonable structure to use for verb stem alternations in Eŋes. To illustrate by example:

Basic stem	fay ‘go up’	wal ‘go’	tuʔf ‘accompany’	winas ‘touch’
-es stem (iterative)		wles ‘walk’		wines ‘tap, knock’
-e stem (semelfactive / interrupted / diminutive)		wle ‘stroll’		wine ‘brush against’
-oŋ stem (resulting state / complete)	foyŋ ‘be high’	wloŋ ‘having walked’
-en stem (intensive)		wlen ‘run’	tuʔn ‘be friends with’	winen ‘indent’
-em stem (inchoative)	faym ‘rise’

So, the stem formation isn’t entirely regular, and the meaning is lexically determined, and not every verb can take every stem form… but the pattern is pretty clear, all the same.

Posted: **Sat Jan 06, 2024 1:32 pm**

Does it feature ablaut, what with fay ~ foyŋ?

Posted: **Sat Jan 06, 2024 6:18 pm**

Zju wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 1:32 pm Does it feature ablaut, what with fay ~ foyŋ?

Sort of… but it’s probably easier to think of it as being like a biconsonantal system. (Compare it to the next column along, wal—wloŋ… that’s clearly not ablaut!)

Zompist Bboard Again

Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread