Zompist Bboard Again

I set myself a goal of reaching 1K glyphs before the end of 2022. As of today there are 1008. I'll be publishing the document in a few weeks after editing/reviewing.

masako wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2022 5:18 pm I set myself a goal of reaching 1K glyphs before the end of 2022. As of today there are 1008. I'll be publishing the document in a few weeks after editing/reviewing.

Congrats!

That's amazing. I'm not really good at coming up with (written) characters, so I think it's quite a feat you've made so many.

a gretting card for the new year...

Very nice!

xxx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:21 am a gretting card for the new year...

Very nice indeed.

`M_NEnæêmT@_M
thank you...

I have finally managed to complete a first draft of my novel - The Warriors of the Sun - set in my conworld (the one with the Vedreki - https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=15310#p15310). Not quite as long as I'd hoped at 80k, but I think I can add some stuff at second time round.

Now for a break from it and a bit more translation into Vedreki and Cheyadeneen to sort the syntax and generate more vocab.

I did a thing: glyphs

masako wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:27 pm I did a thing: glyphs

Thorough and aesthetically pleasing. But you aleady knew that I'm a fan of your glyphs

got some good preliminary planning done on auxiliaries for verb aspect

Finished revising the phonology chapter:

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=66704#p66704

having doubts about my auxiliaries for verb aspect

Emily wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:13 am having doubts about my auxiliaries for verb aspect

Hmm, elaborate please? I was reading a bit about aspectual auxiliaries recently.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:35 am

Emily wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:13 am having doubts about my auxiliaries for verb aspect

Hmm, elaborate please? I was reading a bit about aspectual auxiliaries recently.

lack of confidence in whether the choices i made are any good (this is for a daughter of wulfila's gothic). my first draft is basically:

• "be" + past participle = perfect
• "become" + past participle = passive (the synthetic passive is lost due to sound changes)
• "be" + present participle = habitual
• "become" + present participle = inceptive

but now i'm worrying that this is shit actually

Emily wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:48 pm ...my first draft is basically:

• "be" + past participle = perfect
• "become" + past participle = passive (the synthetic passive is lost due to sound changes)
• "be" + present participle = habitual
• "become" + present participle = inceptive

but now i'm worrying that this is shit actually

What exactly would be wrong with it?

The first construction is not exactly uncommon cross-linguistically, note French Je suis arrivé, archaic English "You are come"; one of the classical Japanese past tenses, けり (keri) is fairly transparently etymologically past tense marker き (ki) followed by the classical copula あり (ari); I believe the modern past tense marker た/だ (ta/da) descends from earlier たり (tari), another derivative of that copula. One of the old perfective auxiliaries, ぬ (nu), is also thought to have been some sort of copula, though it only survives into anything attested (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) as this auxiliary, and probably some particles.

The third construction reminds me of how I often hear non-native speakers say something like He's working here [some length of time] in place of He's worked here since [whenever], or He's been working here [however long].

The other two remind me vaguely of English constructions using get, such as he got going, or it got written.

replaced gothic's inherited suppletive past tense of "go" with a new suppletive (the past tense of "flee", which otherwise disappears as it would end up merging with "show")

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:48 am

Emily wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:48 pm ...my first draft is basically:

• "be" + past participle = perfect
• "become" + past participle = passive (the synthetic passive is lost due to sound changes)
• "be" + present participle = habitual
• "become" + present participle = inceptive

but now i'm worrying that this is shit actually

What exactly would be wrong with it?

The first construction is not exactly uncommon cross-linguistically, note French Je suis arrivé, archaic English "You are come"; one of the classical Japanese past tenses, けり (keri) is fairly transparently etymologically past tense marker き (ki) followed by the classical copula あり (ari); I believe the modern past tense marker た/だ (ta/da) descends from earlier たり (tari), another derivative of that copula. One of the old perfective auxiliaries, ぬ (nu), is also thought to have been some sort of copula, though it only survives into anything attested (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) as this auxiliary, and probably some particles.

The third construction reminds me of how I often hear non-native speakers say something like He's working here [some length of time] in place of He's worked here since [whenever], or He's been working here [however long].

The other two remind me vaguely of English constructions using get, such as he got going, or it got written.

all good points! and the passive one at least is attested in irl gothic already. but i'm an indecisive person, and i'm struggling with striking a balance between being true to the realities and histories of the germanic languages and trying to chart a different path for this one (since it was supposed to have developed in isolation from the other germanic languages, in an area that mostly spoke russian and its ancestors). i think what i need to do to get more confident is figure out how russian verbs work and how they developed. not that gothic would or should copy it, but it could at least have been an influence, and at any rate it'll give me a better insight into other possibilities besides just what english and german did

Emily wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:58 am replaced gothic's inherited suppletive past tense of "go" with a new suppletive (the past tense of "flee", which otherwise disappears as it would end up merging with "show")

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:48 am

Emily wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:48 pm ...my first draft is basically:

• "be" + past participle = perfect
• "become" + past participle = passive (the synthetic passive is lost due to sound changes)
• "be" + present participle = habitual
• "become" + present participle = inceptive

but now i'm worrying that this is shit actually

What exactly would be wrong with it?

The first construction is not exactly uncommon cross-linguistically, note French Je suis arrivé, archaic English "You are come"; one of the classical Japanese past tenses, けり (keri) is fairly transparently etymologically past tense marker き (ki) followed by the classical copula あり (ari); I believe the modern past tense marker た/だ (ta/da) descends from earlier たり (tari), another derivative of that copula. One of the old perfective auxiliaries, ぬ (nu), is also thought to have been some sort of copula, though it only survives into anything attested (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) as this auxiliary, and probably some particles.

The third construction reminds me of how I often hear non-native speakers say something like He's working here [some length of time] in place of He's worked here since [whenever], or He's been working here [however long].

The other two remind me vaguely of English constructions using get, such as he got going, or it got written.

all good points! and the passive one at least is attested in irl gothic already. but i'm an indecisive person, and i'm struggling with striking a balance between being true to the realities and histories of the germanic languages and trying to chart a different path for this one (since it was supposed to have developed in isolation from the other germanic languages, in an area that mostly spoke russian and its ancestors). i think what i need to do to get more confident is figure out how russian verbs work and how they developed. not that gothic would or should copy it, but it could at least have been an influence, and at any rate it'll give me a better insight into other possibilities besides just what english and german did

From my experience at removing a language from its original context entirely, I've just gone with what suggested itself to me as I went. Any form I didn't like, I had replaced with something else. Sometimes it's fun to do the opposite of what the living languages related to yours ended up doing.

I have finished repairing my Proto-Hesperic thematic word list, which was fouled up by a mishandled update to a new phonology, also adding the PIE antecedents of the Proto-Hesperic forms such that I can spot errors without having to request The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (the best PIE dictionary I know of) by interlibrary loan again. Took a lot of time and effort because my list and the lists in the book are not always in the same order, many items in my list were not in the tables but only in the running text, some items in my list were so defaced that it was not easy to figure out their etymologies, and PIE is a bitch to type with all those diacritics, superscripts and subscripts (I did not want to make up my own easier-to-type PIE orthography because that would be utterly misleading). But it turned out on the way that the book is also the most important source for that magnificent spreadsheet that Samuel McCabe (formerly known on the ZBB as TheGoatMan, later Goatface and yet later Morrígan) has put together, so when I have a question about a PIE antecedent of a Hesperic word, I can look it up there.

ok well regardless of questions of usage of the participles, i've at least developed a decent set of forms for them (for phase 2, "early modern gothic"). they're going to split into "true" participles (used attributively — the running man, a cracked window) on one hand and verbal forms (used predicatively — the man is running, i have cracked the window). the verbal forms are ossified remnants of the original nominative forms of the participles (that is, they're the SCA results from earlier with minimal modification), while the adjectival forms are regularized to match the (new) normal adjective endings

of course now that i think about it i should still redo the dual in the verbal forms to fit the same descent process instead of just having a late "borrowing" from adjectival forms. a woman's work is never done~~~~~