[Storm Knights] Any Linguists On the Board?

[Daddy Warpig]

I'm not a linguist but I took some linguistics in college, have read some books on linguistics and language universals

Thanks for taking the time to read the doc, and make comments. Also, thanks for the suggested readings.

Another big problem is that I'm not seeing any verbs or ways to convert a noun into a verb form.

You're quite correct. That's because I didn't intend to build an entire language, or even a significant chunk of one. This was an attempt to rationalize (retroactively explain) titles that existed in the original Living Land Sourcebook, and to allow me to create titles and words that had an internal consistency.

Takta Ker. Edeinos. Edia Ker. Rek Stalek. Tak Stalek. Jakkat. Rek Jakutta. Rek Pakken. Pak Tetak.

The italicized words are present in the original material. The others are mine. By constructing specific meanings for the original words, I can create new titles that fit. This gives the vocabulary an internal consistency.

That's why the doc is focused around nouns and titles, and lacks verbs. What was important to me is not constructing an entire language, but to construct part of a language that feels noticeably alien to English.

On verbs. Looking at the language so far, most of what we consider verbs are nouns tagged with the signifier, "ia".

"Tant" means one who serves (helping cure a sickness, or carrying an infant). Ia is a signifier meaning . "Tantia" means "am serving". "Tutantia" means "you are giving service" ("tu" meaning "you"). "Somtantia" means "I am giving service" ("som" meaning "me").

Ik means "deaf". "Tuikia" is "you are not listening", more literally "You are committing deafness."

What about verbs beyond ?

The culture of the Eidenos is experiential. One doesn't run, one experiences a dash or a race. Not "I am running", but "I am experiencing a run."

Each sensation or experience is intense, it engulfs them wholly. This is, in fact, part of their religion, its most fundamental tenet: live Life fully, experience it fully. Allow the experience of doing to engulf your mind and body.

They switch from one all-consuming experience to another. This changes them on a fundamental level. They view each different experience as a different state of being.

We view alive and dead as different states of existence. They view "experiencing pain", "experiencing warmth", "experiencing sound" as different states of existence.

Experiences are things which change one. Their language reflects this.

Pain isn't a verb, but a signifier attached to the being experiencing the pain. Pain changes you from one state to another.

"Tuteg" means "I hurt". "Somteg" means "you hurt". ("Teg" being the signifier for .)

"Resk" signifies or . "Turesk" means "I am experiencing warmth". "Tutegresk" means "I am experiencing pain from heat"; or, in English, "I burned myself".

What about "it is hot"? Ker (the world) + resk + ia. Kereskia means "the world is causing heat."

(In the Edeinos religion, the world itself is infused with life and hence capable of taking action, like causing it to be hot. The very name of the cosm evinces this: the Living Land or Takta Ker, "Life and the Universe are One".)

The Edeinos language has a lot of words that indicate different experiences and senses, each described precisely. These signifiers can be stacked, as in "tutegresk."

I would imagine that most things which we express as verbs could be expressed as signifiers or compound signifiers, or nouns that one . Am I wrong about that?

Modern literate people rely heavily on readings and writing to remember things but that's not necessarily true for oral culture.

Thanks for the information and examples. I'll remove that bit.

String together the correct words in nearly any order, and the phrase will be grammatically correct. The only exceptions are certain compound nouns and all titles, which are formalized or traditional names for things, always presented in this exact form.

The first is that I don't see any linguistic markers indicating parts of speech such as subject or object, which is a necessity for a language that doesn't rely on word order to convey that information.

That's true, again because that was beyond the scope of the original vocabulary list. Which doesn't mean I couldn't or shouldn't add it.

Here's a way that fits with the vocabulary as given.

Tu + teg + Som + ia. You, pain, me, and . Teg can modify either Tu or Som, as can ia, so "Tutegiasom" or other possible variants don't indicate who is giving and who is receiving the pain. (Which was your observation.)

Enter the clack. One edeinos sound is a snapping together of their snout, which causes a loud clack of teeth against teeth. (Amplified by the echo chamber of their large nasal cavity.) This is represented by an apostrophe, such as in the name Tal'Tu.

The signifier is attached to the being experiencing the thing (the object); the signifier is attached to the person or thing causing the pain, and both compound words are separated by a clack.

I hurt you: "Somia'tuteg". "I am doing to you pain."

But this works no matter the syllable order. Some possible variants:

Tuteg'somia
Tuteg'iasom
Tegtu'somia
Tegtu'iasom
Somia'tegtu
Iasom'tegtu
Iasom'tuteg

All mean the same thing. Tu (you) has become a being experiencing teg (pain), and som (I) am ia (). 8 different ways to say the same thing, by stringing the syllables together, modifying the nouns correctly, and separating the subject and object.

That would be a confusing language for us to speak, or read (which is why even when the language allows me to, I pick one phrase and stick with it), but to a people born to it, it works.

(Now, this may actually be unworkable as a language. If so, please show me how.)

There are other issues, but those are the biggest ones that I noticed.

Any others that you omitted, feel free to post.

Thanks, John. I appreciate the time you took to read and comment on the article. If the above addresses your points (or not), feel free to let me know.

(BTW, I've given you a commentary credit in the doc.)

[1of3]

What about "it is hot"? Ker (the world) + resk + ia. Kereskia means "the world is causing heat."

Statements like this are usually fun. What's wrong with reskia?

I imagine that most things which we express as verbs could be expressed as signifiers or compound signifiers, or nouns that one . Am I wrong about that?

Verb can mean two thinks. (1) A class of words (run, kill, give, be) or a certain part of a sentence (2) Bob kills John.

It's right that you do not need a specific class of words called verb. There are languages that do not make a difference between nouns and verbs on this level.

As John said, you probably want verbs as part of sentence.

Here's a way that fits with the vocabulary as given.
[...]
I hurt you: "Somia'tuteg". "I am doing to you pain."

But this works no matter the syllable order.

That's alright. As John said, humans will usually favor a certain word order, but your people apparanetly aren't human. When I can take dragons flying, I can take saurians going wild with their word order.

[Daddy Warpig]

What about "it is hot"? Ker (the world) + resk + ia. Kereskia means "the world is causing heat."

Statements like this are usually fun. What's wrong with reskia?

Two things. "Resk" is an experience, some thing has to be having the experience or giving the experience. Also, "Resk" and "ia" are both indicator syllables ("determiner clitic"?), they have to be attached to another word to make sense.

In this case, it could be the sun, the wind, humidity, or something else causing the heat. Failing that, it is "the world", or Ker. Hence kereskia.

(BTW, thanks for your other comments. I didn't have anything to say about your last reply. I read it, and tried to address the concerns. I'd like to add you to the commentary credits. If you like, I can use your handle or your real name. PM me which you'd prefer.)

EDIT: I've added a lot of the explanatory material from this thread to the file. Anyone interested can have another look, if they like, and see if it makes the context of the vocabulary more understandable.

http://goo.gl/RYpGI

[John Morrow]

I hurt you: "Somia'tuteg". "I am doing to you pain."

But this works no matter the syllable order. Some possible variants:

Tuteg'somia
Tuteg'iasom
Tegtu'somia
Tegtu'iasom
Somia'tegtu
Iasom'tegtu
Iasom'tuteg

All mean the same thing. Tu (you) has become a being experiencing teg (pain), and som (I) am ia (). 8 different ways to say the same thing, by stringing the syllables together, modifying the nouns correctly, and separating the subject and object.

That's a fine solution, but it imply that word order is not entirely flexible.  Concepts need to be grouped together, which works.  Unless you absolutely need word order to be wide open, I recommend some sort of guidelines here, at least about how words need to be grouped, even if it doesn't matter if they are grouped before or after each other.

In these cases, the "is doing it" is then essentially a subject marker and the empty "is experiencing it" assumption is essentially an object marker, because that is pretty much what the subject and object of a sentence are.

So the language is passive by default.  Without a specific "is doing it" in the sentence, the default form is for nouns to be experiencing a state without specific cause, which suggests a "things happen" attitude to life rather than an "things get done" attitude toward life.  

You probably also need a handful of active markers to go along with "does" (causes) such as "goes" to imply movement or travel, "thinks" to imply thought or feeling rather than action, "wishes" to imply desires, an imperative "commands" implying an order or request to another to do something, "can" for capacity to do so, and so on.  You also need some sort of tense marker.  There should probably be at least a past vs. present/future and a complete vs. incomplete marker (a not-started marker along with the present tense can create a effective future tense).  There is a decent set of verb tense examples here that you can use for ideas.

You probably also need relationship markers for nouns.  At the very least, you'll probably need a "belongs to"/"possessed by" marker to fill the role of the possessive in English (e.g., "the house's door" or "the torch's flame").  Even if you want to avoid the concepts of property and ownership for cultural reasons, physically being in possession or control of something would be hard to avoid being able to think about or express.

Note that languages don't simply handle these things with different words but also transform forms through ablaut (in English, you'll see that in "get", "got" or "sing", "sang", "sung").  Instead of creating a entirely different markers for various verb tenses, you transform the vowels so that (for example) "ia" (present tense) could become "io" ("ee-oh") (past tense) or "uo" (past perfect) or you could play with reversals, such that "ia" (present tense) becomes the dipthong "ai" (past tense).  You could also add in a semi-vowel "w" or "y" such as "yia" or "iya" to imply a different form.  You don't need the markers to be entirely different, but you should try to make sure that they are phonetically distinct so that they aren't easily confused.   If it isn't easy to hear the difference, it's generally not a good choice.  

Also look at Nonconcatenative morphology, which is a feature of Semitic languages.

You may want to take a look at particles in Japanese for ideas about what you might need to add as particles or markers in this language.

One example of where you can incorporate what I'm talking about:

"Edeinos: (compound noun) Speaking Ones, those who can Speak. Potentially refers to any intelligent race, in practice used to describe the natives of Takta Ker. [edei+nos]"

So a step further would be...

ed = "talk" + ei = "can"

Those who can cause pain woud then be "Tegeinos".  Of course I'd argue that if the language is passive by default, then perhaps the correct translation of Edeinos would be "Those who can be talked to" (i.e., those who understand) and Tegeinos would be "Those who can be caused pain."  In other words, "can" needs to be defined as meaning either "can experience" or "can do".

[John Morrow]

Any others that you omitted, feel free to post.

The main other one, which I touched on in my last reply, has to do with phonology and morphology.  Languages tend to have a standard sound set and organize them in certain ways, which is what make the words of a language sounds like words from that language, such that one can tell that, even when used in English, that "repartee" is French, "tsunami" is Japanese, "magnus" or "magnum" is Latin, and that Kung Pao chicken is a Chinese food dish, even if you weren't told the origins of those words.  It's also how Americans learn to pick out the ethnicity of other Americans on the basis on last names.  One can tell that "O'Reilly" is Irish, "MacDougal" is Scottish, "Schultz" is German, "Straczynski" is Polish, "Stephanopoulos" is Greek, or "Vasquez" is Spanish just by the way that they sound, and a more culturally aware person would have no problem telling that "Assad" is Arabic, "Chang" is Chinese, "Nguyen" is Vietnamese, "Chopra" is Indian, "Njenga" is African (Kenyan), and so on.  

So what I think you need to do is define the vowel and consonant inventory for the language and limit new word creation to that inventory of sounds.  Then define the possible sound combinations such as consonant and vowel clusters, and understand the role that things like voicing and tongue position play on how sounds transform.  In English, the possessive "s" in "bets" is pronounced like an "s" because "t" is not voiced, and neither is "s", but in "beds", where "d" is the voiced version of "t", the "s" gets also gets voiced and is pronounced "z".  English also has aspiration rules such that "cat" is actually pronounced with an aspirated "k" sound (a sort of "h").  In some (Asian) Indian languages, aspiration carries important information, which is why the English spoken by some Indians sounds so staccato -- they don't aspirate the "k" sound in "cat".

There are other ways to carry linguistic information such as stress and tone (see Russian and Chinese for examples) or even tonal stress (Japanese does that).  Since your source material is probably silent on those things, you could add them to distinguish words or word forms but I would warn you that really getting tone will likely be difficult for someone who doesn't already know a language (like Chinese or Vietnamese) that uses tone and stripping tone out is problematic (Japanese stripped the tone off of the words it borrowed from Chinese, creating a huge homonym problem in Japanese, which is why misunderstandings are a common plot in anime).

This chapter on language universals might be useful.  If you are looking for the language to be non-human, you can make up your own rules, but bear in mind that you'll have human beings playing your game and things they can't pronounce or process are going to be problematic.

[Daddy Warpig]

That's a fine solution, but it imply that word order is not entirely flexible.  Concepts need to be grouped together

Yes. Since actions are indicator syllables (which have no meaning on their own), they have to be attached to the name of the being performing the action. That forms a compound noun. Most can come before or after it, but they have to be connected to it. (There are exceptions, like -ta- which connects two nouns, and is always in the middle of the two.)

So the language is passive by default.

I disagree, but for a specific reason. This might be true of a human language with similar structure, but eidenos psychology, culture, and theology are based on a core truism: to Live, one must experience, and to experience, one must do.

In order "to be", you must do.

There is no existence without action. Flowers grow. A still man thinks and feels. We sleep, we dream. "To be" is a fallacy. There is no being, only doing.

The language lacks any word meaning . The closest it comes to, for example, "I am" is "I am doing things typical of myself." (Iasom, ia+som.) Everything is an action, even "being yourself".

Passivity is a cultural and religious anathema. Even when not engaging in obvious activity, edeinos are meditating, or basking in some experience.

Those who cease to seek out experiences, cease to do things, are spiritually rotting away. They are suffering from takrekia. (tak+rek+ia, "Life is Rotting.")

Those who become wholly passive, who do little or nothing, and hence experience little or nothing, are takrekiad, Lifeless. (Iad being the past tense of ia.)

The core of existence, the reason for existence, is to do. In order "to be", you must do.

You probably also need a handful of active markers

I agree with all these suggestions; to have even a skeletal language, such things would be needed. And, of course, you previously included various links to lists of words that would be required for a minimal vocabulary.

Again, thanks for the comments.

[1of3]

You probably also need a handful of active markers to go along with "does" (causes) such as "goes" to imply movement or travel, "thinks" to imply thought or feeling rather than action, "wishes" to imply desires, an imperative "commands" implying an order or request to another to do something, "can" for capacity to do so, and so on. You also need some sort of tense marker

"can" seems to be the basic form without /ia/. Edei = Speaker according to the file. That is, one who can speak, while edeia is one who is speaking now. Past tense is listed as -iad.

Of course I'd argue that if the language is passive by default, then perhaps the correct translation of Edeinos would be "Those who can be talked to" (i.e., those who understand) [...]

Not necessarily. "edei" might not be a transitive verb. In this case an ergative language wouldn't bother. (An active language would.)

[John Morrow]

I disagree, but for a specific reason. This might be true of a human language with similar structure, but eidenos psychology, culture, and theology are based on a core truism: to Live, one must experience, and to experience, one must do.

Then I think the language, as structured, does not reflect that and the language needs to be more verb oriented.  A language oriented around a culture where doing things is of paramount importance should be a language with words about doing things, not words about being in a state.  I know you are working inside of constraints created by someone else, but I think you need to think about how to make doing things a more important part of the language rather than having it reside in a marker attached to more static state words such as "being in pain" or "being able to speak".  If that's not what you want, then I think you need to try to rework things a bit to make verbs a lot more important.

In order "to be", you must do.

To put it simply, the language you've been describing defaults to describing states of being, not states of doing.  If there is "only doing", then the language needs to reflect that, not being.  I know you are basing this on someone else's work and the focus has been on nouns, but the result of doing so doesn't seem to support the cultural context that you want it to support.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things because I'm not reading them carefully enough, but this seems to run counter to your statement about, "We view alive and dead as different states of existence. They view 'experiencing pain', 'experiencing warmth', 'experiencing sound' as different states of existence."  Describing things in terms of states of existence is very different than describing things in terms of making things happening. (e.g., someone causing pain or someone causing themselves pain, someone warming themselves or making someone else warm, someone making a sound or actively listening to a sound).

[John Morrow]

"can" seems to be the basic form without /ia/.

The problem is that without the /ia/, you don't really have a subject or object marker, which makes it hard to differentiate between experiencing a state or being able to cause it.

Edei = Speaker according to the file. That is, one who can speak, while edeia is one who is speaking now. Past tense is listed as -iad.

I'm guessing the language was designed to sound correct to an English speaker and the "d" at the end for past tense does that.  It's always a problem trying to build on someone else's work like this unless they were a linguist like Tolkein.  More often than not, you'll wind up with a writer who doesn't know any better creating something like the Talislan script on page 499 of the 4th Edition Talislanta book.  While I think the baseline here is better than many, it may also have some serious flaws to it.

Not necessarily. "edei" might not be a transitive verb. In this case an ergative language wouldn't bother. (An active language would.)

I thought briefly about providing a link to information about ergative languages but thought better of it.  Yes, there are other ways to look at it but
 earlier he said, "We view alive and dead as different states of existence. They view 'experiencing pain', 'experiencing warmth', 'experiencing sound' as different states of existence."  That all sounds very passive to me so I was going with that theme, thus one experiences someone else talking to them and understands what they are saying.  If that's not the intent, then I think the focus needs to be shifted away from experiencing things and toward making things happen.

[1of3]

The problem is that without the /ia/, you don't really have a subject or object marker, which makes it hard to differentiate between experiencing a state or being able to cause it.

I thought, in a transitive sentence the verb would go with the patient, tense markers (if any) with the agent.

[Daddy Warpig]

I think you need to think about how to make doing things a more important part of the language rather than having it reside in a marker attached to more static state words such as "being in pain" or "being able to speak".

Let me give two examples, and you can tell me how they might be improved.

Somtah. Som+tah, "me" + . "Tah" is an indicator syllable. Attached to "som", it indicates both "I am running" and "I am experiencing running".

(To the eidenos, these are redundant sentences. If one runs, one must also experience running. You can't separate the two.)

Is that a passive construction? If so, what would make it active?

Somteg. Som+teg. Me + . Teg is also an indicator syllable. Attached to som, it indicates "I am experiencing pain."

(You can attach additional nouns or indicators to show the source. "Ret" means . Somtegret, Som+teg+ret, means "I am experiencing pain because of heat.")

Again, what makes that passive? What would make it active?

I'm not trying to quibble, you and 1of3 both know far more about languages than I. I don't understand why somtah is a passive construct, and the other "verbs" all work much the same way. If I can fix that, I can fix the others.

[John Morrow]

I thought, in a transitive sentence the verb would go with the patient, tense markers (if any) with the agent.

That's one way to do it.  Are there enough markers to tell the difference?

[1of3]

Somtah. Som+tah, "me" + . "Tah" is an indicator syllable. Attached to "som", it indicates both "I am running" and "I am experiencing running".

(To the eidenos, these are redundant sentences. If one runs, one must also experience running. You can't separate the two.)

Is that a passive construction? If so, what would make it active?

It isn't passive in a technical sense. Don't worry.

I wonder, why "is running" doesn't get /ia/ though.

[Daddy Warpig]

I wonder, why "is running" doesn't get /ia/ though.

Ia is an indicator syllable which indicates that a noun is performing its function. It turns the noun into a verb.

A leader is a "saar", saar is a noun. Saaria means "is leading".

Tusaaria (tu+saar+ia) means "you are leading". Somsarria (som+saar+ia) means "I am leading".

A "tant" is a person who serves others. Tantia means "is giving service". Tutantia, somtantia, etc.

Most other nouns can be transformed into verbs the same way.

The reason "somtah" doesn't need an "ia", is because "tah" isn't a noun. It's an indicator syllable, which has no meaning on its own. It needs to be attached to a noun (in this case "som") to have meaning, whereupon it indicates that noun is running.

[Daddy Warpig]

which makes it hard to differentiate between experiencing a state or being able to cause it.

To have a complete language, you would definitely need something that indicates capability.

As a hypothetical, using the word you chose earlier, "ie", we could say:

Somieteg: som+ie+teg. "I am capable of causing pain."

Somietah: som+ie+tah. "I can run."

Somieret: som+ie+ret. "I can cause warmth."

So, yes, that would be needed.

I'm guessing the language was designed to sound correct to an English speaker and the "d" at the end for past tense does that.

I don't think the words were designed at all. They seemed to be chosen mainly for sounding gutteral, and even that general guideline was broken a lot. (Baruk, Bor Aka.)

Though, in this case, "-iad" is my fault. It wasn't meant to sound English, just to fit in with the general harshness of most extant syllables. It could be iat or iak (or even iya, or one of the other variations you suggested). ("Tu" for "you" runs into the same problem.)

You mentioned the need to "define the vowel and consonant inventory", and you're correct about that. This would be one example of something that would change, once that is done.

I'm limited by the extant words, but in a perfect world I'd get rid of M and B, and possibly sibilants. I already want to change Som into another syllable, and that one was also mine.

(Something I'd also like to change is "Saar" for leader. Not my choice. Seriously, an alien species of saurians on a non-Earth world chooses tsar or kaiser or caesar for "leader"? Christ.)

They view 'experiencing pain', 'experiencing warmth', 'experiencing sound' as different states of existence.

That all sounds very passive to me

I explained it poorly then. Different actions cause different states of existence. "To be" or exist or Live, you must do.

Doing is existing. The two cannot be separated.

Each experience affects your whole being: physical, mental, and spiritual. So doing different things changes your state of existence. (From an eidenos POV.)

The point of their religion is to experience as many things as possible, by doing as many things as possible. That isn't intended to be passive.