Whee, new verb!
Jul. 21st, 2003 07:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
For the synthetic language, which as of now has no name. And probably won't for a while.
to thank kazh
Which leadeth to sakazh rif, "Thank you" [lit. "I thank you (sing.)]; plural being sakazh rihi. And the response "you're welcome" would be nekharulnef or nef kharulnef [lit. "It is nothing", as per usual for many languages]. We don't need zhe "to be" in there because it's unnecessary for communication in this language (because I said so because I _hate_ "to be"), but I'm not sure if one is supposed to combine the subject and the object when there's an implied verb or not. I should ask someone who knows. Then again, "You're welcome" is a common enough phrase that it could in the vernacular be combined into the shorter, easier-to-pronounce single word even if it was technically grammatically incorrect, because every language needs its idioms and annoying irregularities.
It helps to come up with idiom-type things if you're working with a culture as well as a language. I don't believe we know where this language is set yet; we'll have to address that sooner or later; most likely sooner. It seems to me like it'd be a more primitive society, because the language sounds like broken glass and seems to consist of stringing concepts together, and we're going with very logical grammar, not whacked-out muddled grammar and vocab like English has from several hundred years of throwing extra languages into it. (Modern English is mostly Anglo-Saxon and Old French; Anglo-Saxon was a mix of the languages of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, and Old French I'm not sure about; my best guess would be mangled Latin and mebbe a bit of the language of the Gauls. I've also heard Old Norse influenced English, but I may be mistaken on any or all of these counts.
We need words for and, or, and but. I'd recommend them not be from our list of three-letter syllables, but only be two letters each.
And the closest I can get to "farewell" at the moment, as we haven't done greetings yet:
Zheri ika,
-Claudia
to thank kazh
Which leadeth to sakazh rif, "Thank you" [lit. "I thank you (sing.)]; plural being sakazh rihi. And the response "you're welcome" would be nekharulnef or nef kharulnef [lit. "It is nothing", as per usual for many languages]. We don't need zhe "to be" in there because it's unnecessary for communication in this language (because I said so because I _hate_ "to be"), but I'm not sure if one is supposed to combine the subject and the object when there's an implied verb or not. I should ask someone who knows. Then again, "You're welcome" is a common enough phrase that it could in the vernacular be combined into the shorter, easier-to-pronounce single word even if it was technically grammatically incorrect, because every language needs its idioms and annoying irregularities.
It helps to come up with idiom-type things if you're working with a culture as well as a language. I don't believe we know where this language is set yet; we'll have to address that sooner or later; most likely sooner. It seems to me like it'd be a more primitive society, because the language sounds like broken glass and seems to consist of stringing concepts together, and we're going with very logical grammar, not whacked-out muddled grammar and vocab like English has from several hundred years of throwing extra languages into it. (Modern English is mostly Anglo-Saxon and Old French; Anglo-Saxon was a mix of the languages of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, and Old French I'm not sure about; my best guess would be mangled Latin and mebbe a bit of the language of the Gauls. I've also heard Old Norse influenced English, but I may be mistaken on any or all of these counts.
We need words for and, or, and but. I'd recommend them not be from our list of three-letter syllables, but only be two letters each.
And the closest I can get to "farewell" at the moment, as we haven't done greetings yet:
Zheri ika,
-Claudia
Old Norse and English
Date: 2003-07-21 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-27 04:02 pm (UTC)and we need another more specific word for good behaviour perhaps, rather than just a positive adnoun, cause you are saying "be good".
Nitpick
Date: 2003-08-04 07:38 am (UTC)Anyway. You do have a point.