TheRPGSite

Recap: "Storm Knights" is my variant Torg campaign setting.

The Living Land is the Lost Worlds reality, a world of deceptively primitive saurians who worship Life and have the ability to Shape living things to serve their own ends. (Think "West of Eden", but miraculous, not scientific.)

I've taken the original words in the Living Land Sourcebook, and tried to built a coherent language around them. (Only a small fraction of the language has been built, obviously.)

It's available on Google Docs, and anyone stopping by can comment on the material posted. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to ask here or there.

I would especially appreciate commentary from linguists or anyone in associated fields (or just non-English speakers in general). Any helpful contributions are welcome.

URL: http://goo.gl/RYpGI (http://goo.gl/RYpGI)

tl;dr Building a language, need debugging from linguists.

EDIT:

In particular, I am looking for people to answer the following questions:

• Does this seem like a plausible language?
• Can a language function with the rules and words as I've defined them?
• Does this seem like part of an internally coherent alien language?
• Is the writeup clear and understandable?
• Does it make sense?

(There is one more question that is unanswerable without further information on my revised Living Land. So, I don't expect any answers. But it would be: "Does this fit the background and culture I've given the revised Edeinos?")

You could always take a look at The Language Construction Kit (http://www.zompist.com/kit.html), if you haven't already.

The only other thing I can think of to add, and I'm fairly sure you've thought of this already, is to remember that they have an alien anatomy, so they'll likely have access to sounds we don't, and vice versa.

It might be interesting, for example, if they didn't have vocal cords.

The Edeinos in TORG were actually known for having a natural linguist ability allowing them to pick up human tongues rather easily.
There was also an allied race in their realm who were basically intelligent floating starfish that WOULDN'T have had vocal cords.

JG

Quote from: salmelo;511061You could always take a look at The Language Construction Kit (http://www.zompist.com/kit.html), if you haven't already.

I'll take a look.

Quote from: salmelo;511061The only other thing I can think of to add, and I'm fairly sure you've thought of this already, is to remember that they have an alien anatomy, so they'll likely have access to sounds we don't, and vice versa.

We've been discussing that in the Riders on the Storm game, what eidenos sound like. A lot of the extant words, such a Bor Aka and others mean they have to have flexible lips.

It'd be nice to retrofit that, but it's require renaming a lot of things in the Reality, like Baruk Kaah. I don't know enough about anatomy to detail the phonemes available to a species with vocal cords, a tongue and teeth, but not lips.

My contribution was that their extended nasal cavities (from the long snout) give their speech a hollow, booming overtone that's hard for human voices to duplicate (or even understand, when they speak English or other languages). That, and the apostrophe's represent them clacking their teeth together (Tal'Tu).

Quote from: James Gillen;511439There was also an allied race in their realm who were basically intelligent floating starfish that WOULDN'T have had vocal cords.

Stalengers. They communicated by squeezes, using jelly-fish like strands that hung below their central mouth.

There were also the benthe, who communicated via emitting pheromones that affected the emotional states of others.

Hi DW,
Sent you an article which may be of interest on the subject - too long to post directly. No other relevant skills to contribute here though :)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;511741Hi DW,
Sent you an article which may be of interest on the subject - too long to post directly. No other relevant skills to contribute here though :)

Thanks for the info, a very interesting read. It actually answered one of the questions I had about terminology.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;511712It'd be nice to retrofit that, but it's require renaming a lot of things in the Reality, like Baruk Kaah. I don't know enough about anatomy to detail the phonemes available to a species with vocal cords, a tongue and teeth, but not lips.

Well, off the top of my head (and referencing the aforementioned link) I would imagine that they would lack labial consonants (where airflow is stopped at the lips), and either rounded or non-rounded vowels would be unavailable, depending on just how their snout was shaped.

Of course, their mouth is longer, so if their tongue is longer to match they may actually have access to more consonant sounds. Or at least have some that are similar enough to our labial stops for speaking each others languages.

I suppose the long snout might also limit speech somewhat though, since the joint that opens/closes it is so far from it's front. But then again, Parrots (and a few other birds iirc) can mimic human speech and they have beaks.

And of course, I'm no expert on any of these topics, so take everything I've said with a grain of salt. Maybe a few.

Two books, I can recommend:

Lyovin: Introduction to the languages of the world. Includes short descriptions of languages from all continents.

Payne: Describing morpho-syntax. Thought as a guide book to describe a language you might find, but therefore also useful to make one from scratch.

QuoteEdeinos grammar is highly flexible and informal, built around an unwritten and oral language, optimised for short sentences.

There are two meanings of grammar. One is a set of rules somebody wrote down. Linguists use the other one: Set of rules contained in the heads of speakers. Those grammars can't be formal of course.

Also grammars do not very in flexibility. There are languages with word order that is very flexible from an English point of view, but those languages will employ other means to convey meaning.

Also a language, unless artifical, is not optimised for anything. You could say that speakers usually employ shorter periods.

QuoteAs with all languages, this one indicates or illustrates the culture of the Living Land. For example, the fact that gotak and edego are not words in and of themselves, but rather compound nouns formed by existing words suggests that, in edeinos culture, life and Speaking are the norms.

I'm afraid, language doesn't work like that. I hear, Americans value freedom. But that can't be a basic concept of their culture, as it is made up from free + dom. On the other hand, schadenfreude cannot be broken down into smaller parts (in English at least). Surely, those Americans are nasty little creatures.

Also note that linguists have problems with the word "word". There is no single definition encompassing all colloquial meanings of "word". The term you would have wanted to use here is "morpheme".

Still, the basic idea about language and mindset is very much false.



Concerning, death. Your people will probably have a word for that. It may be, that they do not like to talk about death. In that case, they will probably start a euphemism treatmill.

Think: nigger, negro, black person, colored person.
Your people might have: dead, passed away, with the gods, no longer here

Those treatmills will stop, when the culture starts accepting the idea.


Also note that "no longer here" might be called a word, even though it's made up from three words. (It would be a "listeme" composed of three "syntactical words".) This ambiguity is not uncommon in sciences. Try ask a mathmatician, what numbers really are.

Quote from: 1of3;511971Two books, I can recommend:

First, thank you for reading the doc and replying, as well as the suggested reading. There are a couple of things I don't understand, so I'm asking for clarification.

(I think part of the problem was that I didn't ask specific questions. What I should have asked are "Does this seem like a plausible language?" "Can a language function with the rules and words as I've defined them?" "Does this seem like an internally coherent alien language?" Those were the things I was most concerned about.)

Quote from: 1of3;511971

Quote from: Daddy WarpigEdeinos grammar is highly flexible and informal, built around an unwritten and oral language, optimised for short sentences.

There are two meanings of grammar. One is a set of rules somebody wrote down. Linguists use the other one: Set of rules contained in the heads of speakers. Those grammars can't be formal of course.

Also grammars do not very in flexibility.

First question: You made several statements about grammar, indicating my phrasing was incorrect.

But I think my intended meaning came across. Can you provide some alternate phrasing suggestions which would meet the technical requirements (while keeping in mind this is intended for reading by a general audience)?

I'm not a linguist here so it would be helpful to give me some more general-audience oriented explanations of your objections. Because several of them, I just don't understand.

Right now, you have a series of "you can't say that", without explaining why, or what forms would be acceptable for me to say what I need to. I strongly suspect its because I am accidentally using the colloquial meaning of words, instead of the jargon meaning. I don't understand the jargon meaning, so any explanation you could give would be helpful.

Quote from: 1of3;511971Linguists use the other one: Set of rules contained in the heads of speakers. Those grammars can't be formal of course.

I don't understand this point, perhaps because I'm not understanding what you mean by formal.

Internalized rules can, of course, be formal. For example, a religious ceremony with set procedures is the very definition of "formal." Formal rules can be internalized, that is, unwritten.

(In Japanese culture, the appropriate depth of a bow is a very complex, formal phenomena, and bowing too deeply or too shallowly is a social faux pas. But the understanding of it is implicit, not written. Formal, but unwritten.)

I'm not saying "you're wrong", I'm saying "I don't understand what you mean."

Quote from: 1of3;511971Also grammars do not very in flexibility.

So maybe I'm not phrasing this in the right manner. But there seems to me to be a difference between jargon English (e.g. medical terminology), formal English, colloquial English, and slang. Those are pretty much a straight line of increasing flexibility.

For example, "Nation" and "State" have specific meanings in Political Science, they are jargon. But their usage in other contexts is far less specific and formalized. For example "country" and "Nation" are interchangeable, colloquially, but not at all synonymous in a Political Science context.

There is a clear distinction between formal and informal speech. Highly formalized = many set rules, i.e. less flexible. Highly informal = fewer rules, i.e. more flexible.

A language in which specific words must be used in a specific order, and they can never vary from that order, nor can new words be coined... how could that fail to be less flexible than something like English?

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't understand your objection. And because I don't, I have no idea what phrasing would precisely communicate my meaning.

Quote from: 1of3;511971Also a language, unless artifical, is not optimised for anything.

Again, I'm not sure how to convey my intended meaning in a way you would find correct. Eidenos language was once written, but they lost the technology of writing. Since then, it has developed over the course of 2 millennia as a purely spoken tongue.

Over that period of time, complex phrases and compound sentences have dropped out of usage, leaving behind a language usage patterns which maximize the efficiency of verbal communications. (Short phrase length, compact phrases which communicate a lot of meaning.)

So, that left behind a language which is optimal for verbal communication. Development trends—evolution—has optimized the language.

What phrasing would you suggest to describe that process and the end result?

Quote from: 1of3;511971

Quote from: Daddy WarpigAs with all languages, this one indicates or illustrates the culture of the Living Land. For example, the fact that gotak and edego are not words in and of themselves, but rather compound nouns formed by existing words suggests that, in edeinos culture, life and Speaking are the norms.

I'm afraid, language doesn't work like that.

I'm not saying "you're wrong", just that I don't understand what you mean. Let's take the word Undead.

Human societies have a word for living and dead. But they had no word for "undead", because such things didn't exist as a general category. It wasn't until they became common fictional entities in popular culture that a word was coined to describe them as a category or phenomenon, sometime between 1895 and 1900. To coin the word, they prepended "un-" to "dead".

In the revised Living Land, there is a Web of Life, energies that connect all living things. Sapient beings—all sapient beings, in their experience—could Speak (i.e. communicate telepathically) using it. In fact, everything that exists was classified as either Speakers (intelligent beings), Hearers (animals and plants), or the Deaf (rocks and other minerals.)

This explained their world completely. Everything fit into those categories. There was no experience of beings that couldn't Speak.

Until they began cosm raiding, and encountered beings who were intelligent, but couldn't Speak using the Web of Life. So they coined a new term—Edego—meaning the "non-Speakers."

So, my claim was that the fact that there is no classification for "non-Speakers", that one had to be coined, means that the cultural assumption was that all sapient beings could Speak.

(Gotak emerged much the same way, to describe specific beings who had rejected the universal religion of Life.)

So, when you say language doesn't work like that, I don't know what you mean. These words specifically emerged because the concepts were new, and new words were coined to explain them. The norm was life without these phenomena.

Again, not saying you're wrong, just not understanding what you mean.

Quote from: 1of3;511971Also note that linguists have problems with the word "word". There is no single definition encompassing all colloquial meanings of "word".

That's true of many words, such as "culture" (with regards to anthropologists) and "State" (wrt political scientists.) That's because language is so precise, an explicit definition cannot encompass all meanings of any word without becoming unwieldy to the point of uselessness (or internally contradictory).

Hence the difference between denotative and connotative definitions. Or why jargon is created by stripping away colloquial or connotative definitions.

But human minds are well-equipped to understand the implied meaning of words, and use them even in cases where formal definitions fail. Part of teaching is getting learners over the hump, where they stop needing the formal definition, because their unconscious parts of their brain now understands the implicit meaning.

Quote from: 1of3;511971The term you would have wanted to use here is "morpheme".

Such would undoubtedly be the technically correct jargon for linguists. But it's unsuitable for a general audience of non-linguists.

Using "morpheme" would require me to explain what it means, and then most people wouldn't understand the definition. It would increase the technical precision for linguists, but wreck the readability for general audiences.

(Quick question: are you a linguist? Because that may explain the gap between my understanding and your statements. Anything you could do to bridge that gap would be appreciated.)

Quote from: 1of3;511971Still, the basic idea about language and mindset is very much false.

Language doesn't illuminate culture? I don't understand what you mean by that.

This is my layman's observation:

Once can discern something of hip-hop's attitudes towards women by looking at the words they use to describe them, and their meaning. Tricks, hos, bitches, hootchies, etc.

Language is part of culture, it affects culture and culture affects language (just as technology, art, philosophy, and religion does.) The fact that we have a word for "philosophy" means it's part of our culture, it exists as a consciously recognized endeavor. If there is no word for "I" in an alien language, that implies something about the alien culture.

Or so it seems to me.

Quote from: 1of3;511971Concerning, death. Your people will probably have a word for that.

The original language certainly did. The word became taboo (due to religious reasons) about 2 millennia ago, and dropped out of usage. The closest they have now to it is either Rek (rot, corrosion, erosion) or takgo ("not life").

Words which drop out of usage can cease to exist, especially in a wholly verbal tongue. Can't they?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512065But I think my intended meaning came across. Can you provide some alternate phrasing suggestions which would meet the technical requirements (while keeping in mind this is intended for reading by a general audience)?

Sure. And yes, I have studied some linguistics. By profession, I'm a classical philologist.

"The edeinos have a rich oral tradition about [Whatever genres they feature]. They have not invented script and employ short sentences in most conversations."

Maybe you can add, whether or not foreigners have learned the language.

QuoteInternalized rules can, of course, be formal. For example, a religious ceremony with set procedures is the very definition of "formal." Formal rules can be internalized, that is, unwritten.

I'll try to make an example. The rules of English grammar are like "adjective before noun". Everyone says "big house", not "house big".

If a certain number of speakers say something at least sometimes, it's part of the grammar. Grammar is less about how people usually talk. That's style. Grammar is about how people can possibly talk in that language.

"Formal grammar" has a special meaning. It's a preconstructed language with a fixed grammar. Predicate logic is formal in this sense. I was confused because you used formal in the sense of, I think, ceremonial. But there cannot be ceremonial grammar, there is only ceremonial style.

To stay with your bowing example. Certain bows have certain meanings. I can now use the "correct" bow or I can consciously (or as a Gaijin less consciously) use the wrong bow. That doesn't make it ungrammatical in bowing grammar. It's like just saying something impolite. An ungrammatical bow is like turning the back on the one you're bowing to. That's not bowing at all. It's gibberisch, and therefore not part of the grammar.

QuoteFor example, "Nation" and "State" have specific meanings in Political Science, they are jargon. But their usage in other contexts is far less specific and formalized. For example "country" and "Nation" are interchangeable, colloquially, but not at all synonymous in a Political Science context.

Again those are features of style or register. Not grammar, even if you include semantics in grammar.

QuoteA language in which specific words must be used in a specific order, and they can never vary from that order, nor can new words be coined... how could that fail to be less flexible than something like English?

Speakers will want to coin new words. So their language will allow it. Only in very restricted styles, will the coining of new words be frowned up. Even in situations, where such style is called for, speakers will be able to ignore it.

QuoteOver that period of time, complex phrases and compound sentences have dropped out of usage, leaving behind a language usage patterns which maximize the efficiency of verbal communications. (Short phrase length, compact phrases which communicate a lot of meaning.)

So, that left behind a language which is optimal for verbal communication.

I'm just not sure, how a language can be optimal for verbal communication. All living languages are used by speakers in verbal communications. All of them seem to get along fine.

There are a few areas where a speaker's native language can have effects on processing time. For example, when a speaker's language has words for numbers with only one syllable, they tend to be little bit faster calculating. (Difference is miniscule compared to individual mathmatical aptitude.)

QuoteIn the revised Living Land, there is a Web of Life, energies that connect all living things. [...]

Until they began cosm raiding, and encountered beings who were intelligent, but couldn't Speak using the Web of Life. So they coined a new term—Edego—meaning the "non-Speakers."

So, my claim was that the fact that there is no classification for "non-Speakers", that one had to be coined, means that the cultural assumption was that all sapient beings could Speak.

That explains a lot. Thanks. So they had to make up, new words in a new situation. That's indeed quite usual. When people first got cars, they made up a word for car. Realizing that cars were possible, had an immendous impact on culture and life. It didn't change English one bit.

So I thought, you wanted to say something about the language. But there is little correlation between how a person sees the world and the words their language has. I see now that you didn't want to say that, at all.

What you wanted to say was: Up to that point in their history, edeinos didn't know non-telepaths. When they encountered some, they made up this word XX, literally a combination of negation + telepath. That's totally cool. It's not very intersting from a linguistic point of view. People make new words, when they need them.

I was cringing a little bit, when I read your sentence, because without the fictional background it reminded of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-whorf) in the eskimo-words-for-snow kind of sense.

QuoteWords which drop out of usage can cease to exist, especially in a wholly verbal tongue. Can't they?

Sure. The problem is, a foreign person learning the language will recognize that most things he calls dead are called "rotten" by the edeinos. How will he ever know that "rotten" does not mean dead, if the edeinos have forgotten the word "dead" themselves?

To him it will appear as they do not make a difference between the things he calls rotten and the things he calls dead. That's very common, when you compare two languages. French, for example, uses the same word for flower and blossom. Of  course, French people are well equipped to understand the difference and express it, if they need to. It's just not usually done in the language. It surely doesn't mean that French people think about botany in another way than English people.

A researcher will perceive that dead things are either called rotten or non-living. I guess that he will make up the following theory: "Edeino language started with a word meaning both rotten and dead. For greater precision, speakers made up 'non-living', as well."

Of course, the edeinos might still know the word for "dead" but only use it as a swear word.

Quote from: 1of3;512090To him it will appear as they do not make a difference between the things he calls rotten and the things he calls dead. That's very common, when you compare two languages. French, for example, uses the same word for flower and blossom. Of  course, French people are well equipped to understand the difference and express it, if they need to. It's just not usually done in the language. It surely doesn't mean that French people think about botany in another way than English people.

To spin off a bit of a tangent, language does shape thought though. Even at a very simple level, if the word for "flower" is masculine in one language, and feminine in another, speakers of those two languages will have different perspectives on flowers, and if prompted, will use very different adjectives to describe flowers. I'm thinking about the sort of things described here: HOW DOES OUR LANGUAGE SHAPE THE WAY WE THINK? (http://edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html)

QuoteThe normal greeting in Kuuk Thaayorre is "Where are you going?" and the answer should be something like " Southsoutheast, in the middle distance." If you don't know which way you're facing, you can't even get past "Hello."

The result is a profound difference in navigational ability and spatial knowledge between speakers of languages that rely primarily on absolute reference frames (like Kuuk Thaayorre) and languages that rely on relative reference frames (like English).2 Simply put, speakers of languages like Kuuk Thaayorre are much better than English speakers at staying oriented and keeping track of where they are, even in unfamiliar landscapes or inside unfamiliar buildings. What enables them — in fact, forces them — to do this is their language.

QuoteFor example, when asked to describe a "key" — a word that is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish — the German speakers were more likely to use words like "hard," "heavy," "jagged," "metal," "serrated," and "useful," whereas Spanish speakers were more likely to say "golden," "intricate," "little," "lovely," "shiny," and "tiny." To describe a "bridge," which is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish, the German speakers said "beautiful," "elegant," "fragile," "peaceful," "pretty," and "slender," and the Spanish speakers said "big," "dangerous," "long," "strong," "sturdy," and "towering."

Your link is also quite fascinating, especially this:

QuoteOne way to answer this question is to teach people new ways of talking and see if that changes the way they think. In our lab, we've taught English speakers different ways of talking about time. In one such study, English speakers were taught to use size metaphors (as in Greek) to describe duration (e.g., a movie is larger than a sneeze), or vertical metaphors (as in Mandarin) to describe event order. Once the English speakers had learned to talk about time in these new ways, their cognitive performance began to resemble that of Greek or Mandarin speakers. This suggests that patterns in a language can indeed play a causal role in constructing how we think.

I had known about differences in color perception, spatial awareness and arithmetics. I will look into grammatical gender and attributes. Very interesting. Thank you.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;510333I would especially appreciate commentary from linguists or anyone in associated fields (or just non-English speakers in general). Any helpful contributions are welcome.

I'm not a linguist but I took some linguistics in college, have read some books on linguistics and language universals (I highly recommend The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Encyclopedia-Language-David-Crystal/dp/0521736501/) as a good general introduction book).  A few comments:

You write:

"Edeinos grammar is highly flexible and informal, built around an unwritten and oral language, optimised for short sentences."

I don't see any reason for this.  Modern literate people rely heavily on readings and writing to remember things but that's not necessarily true for oral culture.  Works such as the Illiad, Odyssey, and Beowulf were originally transmitted orally (mnemonic tricks used in them are among the evidence of this origin) and other works that we think of as books, including parts of the New Testament and Koran were initially transmitted orally, not in writing.  If anything, the capacity to speak and remember complex things diminishes with literacy.  Also, you'll notice that many of the Indo-European languages have actually simplified over time, losing word forms, sounds, and even classes of words such as dual pronouns (http://www.wmich.edu/~medinst/resources/IOE/inflpron.html) (e.g., English is essentially a pidgin and French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese are a sort of Latin for Dummies).  Similarly, Japanese shows evidence of vowel-harmony for vowels that were lost in the language.

"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."

I see two problems here.  

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.  Consider:

Bob Fred Give Money

...or...

Killed Joe Ralph

What do they mean?  Without knowing which is the object or subject, one can't really tell.  Take a look at the noun forms for proto-Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nouns) or the inflection of adjectives (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php/Inflection_of_adjectives) to tie them to the nouns that they modify.

The second problem is that even in languages that heavily tag their words with linguistic markers to have a standard word order (http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/syntax.html), both with respect to the order of Subject, Verb, and Object (e.g., SVO, SOV, VSO, and so on) and how noun phrases are organized with respect to the order of Adjective, Noun, and Relative Clause (e.g., ANR, RAN, RNA, and so on) and they tend to branch in a certain direction.

Bottom line is that no standard word order doesn't work unless you do more work here.

Another big problem is that I'm not seeing any verbs or ways to convert a noun into a verb form.  You need verbs, and that raises a whole other set of issues to deal with.  

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

I would certainly second the recommendation of the Language Construction Kit (http://zompist.com/kit.html) and you can check out a bunch of other pages (http://conlang.org/) related to the conlang (constructed languages) hobby, including Rick Morneau's excellent essays on language (http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/essays.html), including his Lexical Semantics (http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/lexical_semantics.html) monograph, and Pablo David Flores' How to Create a Language (http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/nyh/how__all.html).  I also recommend taking a look at the Swadesh word list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swadesh_list) as a possible baseline vocabulary.  Ogden's Basic English list (http://www.manythings.org/vocabulary/lists/l/words.php?f=ogden) is also useful as a baseline.

Quote from: 1of3;512098I had known about differences in color perception, spatial awareness and arithmetics. I will look into grammatical gender and attributes. Very interesting. Thank you.

One of the biggest assumptions modern people make concerns precision.  We assume that one can now exactly what time it is, exactly how long something is, exactly how much something weighs, or even the exact date that something happened on and that wasn't always true.

Quote from: John Morrow;512169One of the biggest assumptions modern people make concerns precision.  We assume that one can now exactly what time it is, exactly how long something is, exactly how much something weighs, or even the exact date that something happened on and that wasn't always true.

That's actually a big part of Torg's Social axiom (something like a GURPS "Tech Level" for social developments.) The shift from relative measurement (my pace or a cubit), to standardized local measurements (the king's pace), to an ad hoc set of standardized measurements (British system), to an integrated and designed set of measurements (SI, 1 cubic centimeter of water = 1 gram, 1 calorie is the energy necessary to raise one cc of water one degree Celsius). The shift from relative time (Roman hours), to exact but local time (local noon), to time zones. All of these are part of Social developments.

So, your observation is correct and is actually built into the framework of the game.

(Yes, the development of various technologies played a role, like precise timepieces and railroad schedules. They're still Social developments. The common assumption is that sufficiently advanced magical, spiritual, or psychic powers could drive the same advances.)

(This gets into varying models of Axiom advancement, a topic never covered in the original material. I've got my one conjectures and descriptions, but those are House Rules. I may touch on them another time.)

Quote from: John Morrow;512165I'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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512165Another 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?

Quote from: John Morrow;512165Modern 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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512165

Quote from: Daddy WarpigString 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.)

Quote from: John Morrow;512165There 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.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512204What 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?

QuoteI 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.

QuoteHere'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.

Quote from: 1of3;512209

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512204What 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 (http://goo.gl/RYpGI)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512204I 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 (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/sequence.htm) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconcatenative_morphology), which is a feature of Semitic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages).

You may want to take a look at particles in Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_particles) 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".

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512204Any 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 (http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ikos/EXFAC03-AAS/h05/larestoff/linguistics/Chapter%203.(H05).pdf) 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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512340That'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.)

Quote from: John Morrow;512340So 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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512340You 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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512340You 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.

QuoteOf 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_language) would.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512358I 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.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512358In 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).

Quote from: 1of3;512364"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.

Quote from: 1of3;512364Edei = 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 (http://peedeepages.com/talislanta/pdf/4e_d20/final/optimized/talislanta_fantasy_roleplaying.pdf).  While I think the baseline here is better than many, it may also have some serious flaws to it.

Quote from: 1of3;512364Not necessarily. "edei" might not be a transitive verb. In this case an ergative language wouldn't bother. (An active language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512373The 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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512367I 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.

Quote from: 1of3;512374I 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?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512375Somtah. 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.

Quote from: 1of3;512379I 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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512373which 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.

Quote from: John Morrow;512373I'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.)

Quote from: John Morrow;512373

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512204They 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.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512375Somtah. Som+tah, "me" + . "Tah" is an indicator syllable. Attached to "som", it indicates both "I am running" and "I am experiencing running".

[...]

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

What I think you really want is "I run".  "I am running" is not passive but it's continuous rather than simple, along the lines if "I am breathing" or "My heart is beating".  It's state oriented rather than action oriented.  You can find a new writer talking about weak verb usage in their writing here (http://www.kirkusmacgowan.info/2012/01/05/i-was-writing-passive-sentences/becomingbetterwriter/kirkus/).

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512375Somteg. 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 sure that it's strictly passive in a gramatical sense because of how "experience" is being used.  The clear active statement is "The heat is hurting me," in which case the heat is the subject or cause of the pain and "me" is the object of the pain being caused.  The clear passive form is, "I am hurt because of the heat."  While the sentence "I am experiencing pain because of heat" may not be strictly passive, you will notice that it looks a lot more like the passive version of the sentence than the active version.  

It's close enough that this page (http://baneofyourresistance.com/2010/02/26/dont-be-passive-get-active/) does call "I am experiencing writer's block" a passive sentence and states, "Technically, passive voice is one where the grammatical subject receives the verb's action; pragmatically, you can identify the passive voice when a sentence employs a form of the verb "to be" – is, am, are, was, were, have, had."  That's not always strictly true, but it's a good rough way to spot it.  This page on passive voice (http://baneofyourresistance.com/tag/passive-voice-causes-writers-block/) states:

QuoteOne way to determine whether a sentence is passive or not is to:

- Identify the subject – the actor – of the sentence.

- Identify the verb – the action – of the sentence.

- Examine whether the subject/actor performs the action or is acted upon.

If the subject/actor performs the action of the verb, the sentence is active. ("I am fifty now."   Or   "You are aging.") If the action/verb combo does its work without the subject being much of a part of it, the sentence is passive. ("Aging in this household is happening fast."  Or  "My new age is hated by one and all.")

In the case of "I am experiencing pain because of heat", the actor is "I" and the action is really the pain, not the experience.  As such, the actor is receiving the action, even though this is being hidden behind a grammatically active experience.  If you frame it as an experience to make it active, then you are basically enshrining a passive form of thinking on the language.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512375I'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, and mean, much the same thing. If I can fix that, I can fix the others.

I think the real problem here is that the noun-oriented nature of what you are working with is leading you to use verbs in an indirect and weak, if not strictly passive, way.  Framing verbs in terms of experiences or states makes them incidental rather than central.  The easiest way to avoid this is to try to avoid forms of "to be" in your examples –- is, am, are, was, were, have, had -- unless you are primarily describing a state of existence, and see how far you can get.

Quote from: John Morrow;512388What I think you really want is "I run".

Quote from: John Morrow;512388The easiest way to avoid this is to try to avoid forms of “to be” in your examples –- is, am, are, was, were, have, had -- unless you are primarily describing a state of existence, and see how far you can get.

So, my English translations make the language seem passive, when it isn't intrinsically passive. That I can fix.

(That is, I can use the same Edeinos words, just describe their meaning better.)

Guideline: When translating into English, choose dynamic phrasing, which better represents the intent of the Edeinos language.

EDIT:

Quote from: John Morrow;512388"The heat is hurting me,"

That's actually the meaning I intended for somtegret. I should use it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512390So, the English translations make the language seem passive, when it isn't intrinsically passive. That I can fix.

Yes, that may be enough but you also need to watch where you are applying your modifiers.  That's where having a clear subject, object, and verb can help.  But you also need to make sure you aren't implying a passive form with your word grouping, applying verb to subject or object consistently (feel free to investigate ergative grammars if you want to see other ways to handle that).

For example, "somtegret" meaning "The heat is hurting me."

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512390That's actually the meaning I intended for somtegret. I should use it.

Wouldn't that be something more like "Retia'somteg" -> the fire causes pain in me?

Quote from: 1of3;512379It isn't passive in a technical sense. Don't worry.

While it's not passive in a technical sense, I think it's indicative of passive thinking, which is the cultural implication I was drawing from it.  In writing, it's often talked about as using strong vs. weak verbs and constructions.  Indirect sentence structures that cloud the actor and cause of what's happening tend to suggest a cultural avoidance of credit and blame.  The Japanese, for example, have cultural reasons to avoid identifying blame on any individual, thus you'll hear talk about decisions being made and accidents happening but not so much talk about who really made the decision or what caused the accident.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512387I 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.)

Entirely likely, but it's better than some of what I've seen.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512387Though, 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.)

If you and/or your players are native English speakers, "sounding English" is not necessarily a bad thing and it wasn't intended as an insult.  Making a language sound right to your players in superficial ways can actually be a good thing.  For similar reasons, I generally base phonetic patterns on English because that's the language the players who are going to have to pronounce the words I create speak.  

With practice, an American can pronounce "Tokyo" ("Toh-kyo") with two syllables instead of three ("Toh-key-oh") and can also get the length right (both syllables are double-length in Japanese and thus would count as four syllables in a haiku), but most people aren't going to pronounce the "kyo" right in "Tokyo" or "Kyoto" because it's not a normal phonetic cluster in English.  

So I think making your constructed language friendly to speakers of the language of your intended players is a good thing.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512382Ia is an indicator syllable which indicates that a noun is performing its function. It turns the noun into a verb.

Now, I see a problem. So there are, as you say, different classes of content words. Content words are those that have a meaning, like nouns, verbs, adjectives

Some of your content words are stems (tant), some are clitics (teg). Note teg is not a determiner clitic. I'm not sure you have any determiners.

Now, to stick with your example for a transitive sentence:

QuoteFor example, the phrase "Somia'tuteg", which means "I am hurting you."

You say that /ia/ turns nouns into verbs. It doesn't do that here. There is no part of the noun class to be verbed. There is only a property clitic (teg) and two pronouns.

From your glossing "is serving", I understood /ia/ as marker for progressive ("is xxx-ing" in English).

Quote from: 1of3;512438Now, I see a problem.

You say that /ia/ turns nouns into verbs. It doesn't do that here.

Here's how I've been using "ia."

• "Ia" is an indicator syllable meaning . Indicator syllables must always be attached to some other words to have meaning. By themselves, they are meaningless sounds.

• "Tant" is a noun, an unofficial title, for "one who serves others" (e.g. helping tend someone wounded, helping find food for others, and so forth). When a member of the tribe has been consistent in helping others, they are called a tant. For a tribe of about 150 individuals, there are probably one or two tants.

• "Baruk" is a proper noun, the name of a specific individual.

• "Tu" is a pronoun meaning "you", "som" a pronoun meaning "me".

1.) Tantia [tant+ia; serve + ] "The tant is giving service."

(This is an indefinite subject, an implied "him" or "Baruk". In context, people will understand to whom you are referring.)

2.) Somtantia. [som+tant+ia; I + serve + ] "I give service."

3.) Baruktantia [Baruk+tant+ia; Baruk + serve + ] "Baruk gives service."

4.) Somtantia'tu. [som+tant+ia, tu; I + serve + , you] "I give service to you."

("Tantia" is a whole word. It can be added to proper names or pronouns to form a different whole word, somtantia or Baruktantia. When acting on another person, the "clack" (apostrophe) separates the subject from the object.)

So, that's the "noun to verb" usages. They seem internally consistent, to me. Let's look at another case.

• "Teg" is an indicator syllable meaning .

A.) Somteg. [som+teg; I + ] "I hurt."

B.) Barukteg. [Baruk+teg; Baruk + ] "Baruk hurts."

C.) Tuteg. [tu+teg; you + ] "You hurt."

Now for the problem usage:

D.) Somia'tuteg. [som+ia, tu+teg; I + , you + ] "I hurt you." (Or, "I caused you pain." "I inflicted pain on you.")

Verbs are both actions and experiences. Actions change the person that is doing them or experiencing them. The word for the action is attached to the noun or pronoun of the person acting or experiencing.

In this case, is attached to "you", indicating "you" is experiencing the pain. We indicate who is causing the pain with , which is attached to the person causing it. The clack (represented by an apostrophe) separates the two compound words.

E.) Barukia'tuteg. [Baruk+ia, tu+teg; Baruk + , you + ] "Baruk hurts you."

Same as D, but with a proper noun.

I understand each of those uses, they make sense to me. I know D and E may seem irregular, in the context of the language itself, but all languages have irregular aspects (irregular pluralization, declension, whatever.)

More seriously, this may break the general rule for how languages in general function. Again, you and John know far more about linguistics than I, and this may need more thinking out or may need adjusting. Let me know how I can clarify or fix the problem.

It would help to know which words are from the source material and thus you don't want to change.  Could you mark that somehow in your document?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512820• "Ia" is an indicator syllable meaning . Indicator syllables must always be attached to some other words to have meaning. By themselves, they are meaningless sounds.

It might be best to think of this as a subject marker, in the sense that it marks the noun or pronoun that's making the verb or experience in the sentence happen.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;5128201.) Tantia [tant+ia; serve + ] "The tant is giving service."

(This is an indefinite subject, an implied "him" or "Baruk". In context, people will understand to whom you are referring.)

If "serve" is essentially the verb, then it shouldn't take the subject marker, so a normal sentence would look like:  

Tuia'tantBaruk
[You][Subject] [served by][Baruk]

But since you say the culture is defined by actions and experiences, let's assume that a verb can be modified with the ia, turning it into both a noun and an implied verb, thus you could say:

Tania'Baruk
[Serves][One Who Does/subject] [serves][Baruk]

...rather than saying the somewhat redundant (but also correct)...

Tantia'tantBaruk

In other words, verbs modified by the subject marker "ia" work like pronouns that mean "the one doing the verb", making a repetition of the verb unnecessary where the person is doing the verb that's being used to identify them.  So you'd still have to say:

Tantia'tegBaruk

[Serves][One Who Does/subject] [hurts][Baruk]

This gives you a quirky way to explain turning verbs into nouns the way you've been describing it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;5128202.) Somtantia. [som+tant+ia; I + serve + ] "I give service."]

I think that would be:

Somia'tant
[subject] [serve]

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;5128203.) Baruktantia [Baruk+tant+ia; Baruk + serve + ] "Baruk gives service."

I think that would be:

Barukia'tant
[Baruk][subject] [serve]

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;5128204.) Somtantia'tu. [som+tant+ia, tu; I + serve + , you] "I give service to you."

Somia'tant[t]u

[subject] [serve][you]

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512820A.) Somteg. [som+teg; I + ] "I hurt."

Somteg would be "I am being hurt" (this is a sort of passive construct, since there is no active subject noun)
Somia'teg would be "I hurt [someone else]"

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512820B.) Barukteg. [Baruk+teg; Baruk + ] "Baruk hurts."

Barukteg would be "Baruk is being hurt" (this is a sort of passive construct, since there is no active subject noun)
Barukia'teg wouild be "Baruk hurts [someone else]"

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512820C.) Tuteg. [tu+teg; you + ] "You hurt."

Tuteg
Tuia'teg

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512820D.) Somia'tuteg. [som+ia, tu+teg; I + , you + ] "I hurt you." (Or, "I caused you pain." "I inflicted pain on you.")

Verbs are both actions and experiences. Actions change the person that is doing them or experiencing them. The word for the action is attached to the noun or pronoun of the person acting or experiencing.

In this case, is attached to "you", indicating "you" is experiencing the pain. We indicate who is causing the pain with , which is attached to the person causing it. The clack (represented by an apostrophe) separates the two compound words.

E.) Barukia'tuteg. [Baruk+ia, tu+teg; Baruk + , you + ] "Baruk hurts you."

Same as D, but with a proper noun.

Using "ia" as a subject marker and attaching the verb to the object implies that the causation of an action is not the same as experiencing the consequence, but I'm not sure you are going to escape that problem because the reality is that causing pain to someone else is an experience for both, so it's probably better to just consider that implied, rather than attaching it explicitly to the subject or object.  That leaves you with a traditional subject, object, and verb structure.

Taking a look at how Japanese use "wa" and "ga" might be useful (see the earlier link to Japanese particles).

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512820I understand each of those uses, they make sense to me. I know D and E may seem irregular, in the context of the language itself, but all languages have irregular aspects (irregular pluralization, declension, whatever.)

More seriously, this may break the general rule for how languages in general function. Again, you and John know far more about linguistics than I, and this may need more thinking out or may need adjusting. Let me know how I can clarify or fix the problem.

A lot depends on how much effort you want to put into this.  You are probably already putting more effort into it than the original creators of Torg did.  When it sounds good enough for you, it's probably good enough for your players unless you have a linguistics pedant among them or are intending to publish something.

Quote from: John Morrow;512843It would help to know which words are from the source material and thus you don't want to change.  Could you mark that somehow in your document?

Easily done. In fact, already done. I've gone ahead and italicized them in the document.

(I originally wrote this for other Torg fans, who were familiar with what words were canon and what ones I created. An oversight.)

The list is short: Takta Ker, Edeinos, Jakkat, Rek Stalek, Rek Pakken, Saar, Gotak, and Optant.

Everything else has either been reverse engineered by breaking down those words, and assigning meanings to pieces of them, or just coined by me. All grammatical matters are original to me.

There are many more names in the Living Land Sourcebook (such as Bor Aka and Udatok). Virtually none of them share common syllables with the words I've already reverse engineered. I can reverse-engineer those, but that's a much larger project than I can do right now.

Right now, I'm assuming the unknown syllables represent some of the 2000 or so common words I haven't identified (bone, feather, eat, etc.) So a particular creature—a giant spider–might be hairy+tree trunks+bite+venom. Or whatever suits.

(I'll reply to the rest of your suggestions when I've had time to read and digest them.)

Quote from: John Morrow;512843

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;5128201.) Tantia [tant+ia; serve + ] "The tant is giving service."

(This is an indefinite subject, an implied "him" or "Baruk". In context, people will understand to whom you are referring.)

If "serve" is essentially the verb, then it shouldn't take the subject marker, so a normal sentence would look like:

The original idea, which may not work, is that Tant is a noun, "one who gives  charitable service to others."

"Ia" means , so attaching it to the noun makes it a verb.

Tantia is the verb form of tant, "giving charitable service to others" (maybe "performing charity" or "gives, giving").

So, one class of verbs is a series of nouns with the "ia" () indicator attached.

Saar = leader. Saaria = "leads" or "is leading".

Edei = Speaker (i.e. telepath). Edeia = "Speaks", or "is Speaking".

If I can keep this concept, while making the rest of the language coherent, I'd like to.

As I've been looking over this thread I've had a couple of thoughts. I don't know how useful they'll be, but I thought I'd share them anyway.

First, I haven't any verbs that were not noun+ia. I was having a little trouble wrapping my head around this concept, and I wasn't sure why, but then I figured it out. That doesn't happen in English.

We don't have a noun to verb suffix. There is not, to my knowledge, any way to take a noun and make it a verb in the English language. On the other hand, a great many of our nouns are actually verbs with the er suffix.

The second thought came while I was puzzling over this difference. I think there's a reason why English doesn't turn nouns into verbs the way your doing here. It seems pretty obvious now that I think about it, but I never noticed it before now.

You can't have someone who does something unless you first have something for them to do. There can't be a runner if one cannot run. So, it doesn't make sense to describe run as "what a runner does". Yet, that seems to be exactly what your doing.

Now, I could be wrong of course. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting something. Or maybe I'm not and that's actually perfectly viable. Maybe there's even a real-world language that works that way.

But if I'm not, maybe that's why your having some trouble with passive phrasing and the like. How can you have a culture that centers around doing things, if they don't have any things to do (i.e. verbs)?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;512847The original idea, which may not work, is that Tant is a noun, "one who gives  charitable service to others."
[...]
If I can keep this concept, while making the rest of the language coherent, I'd like to.

It seems like there are two vastly different ways to build sentences, as there are two different classes of content words. Those like tant and those like teg. Both - probably - can be used to build sentences.

The question is: Why are words that are rather similar (I serve you / I hurt you) so different?



It may happen, that those came to the language in different times. Maybe one of those classes was borrowed from another language. Still, I can see no reason why /ia/ would be working differently with both classes.

Assuming the teg construction was original, then speakers might have found it necessary to verbify the nouns of the tant variety they had borrowed. In that case, it's rather unlikely they would use ia because ia might be mistaken for the use in teg sentences.

Say, "I serve you, who causes pain".
somtantia'tuteg

Chaos ensues. That might also be: "I, who belong to the serving ones, cause you pain."

A similar problem occurs, if the teg class were borrowed but that's even more unlikely because you say they are clitics. (By the way, you need to explain how stress functions. Otherwise talking about clitics doesn't make sense.)



To keep it straight and simple: Shuffle all content words into the tant class. These words can function as nouns, verbs or adjectives as need be.
 
Treat ia as a subject marker, as John suggested, or tense marker, as I suggested, and you're fine.

Quote from: 1of3;513159It seems like there are two vastly different ways to build sentences, as there are two different classes of content words.

Got it. That makes sense. As written, it seems like two different languages grafted together, which definitely isn't (and shouldn't be) the case. Clearly, one of them has to go.

Quote from: 1of3;513159Shuffle all content words into the tant class. These words can function as nouns, verbs or adjectives as need be.

How would you implement something like that?

Quote from: 1of3;513159Treat ia as a subject marker, as John suggested, or tense marker, as I suggested, and you're fine.

If you want freeform word order, you will still really need some sort of marker to differentiate your subject and object (one can be no marker but the other needs to be marked via ending or particle) even if you use the "ia" as a tense marker, which is also an option.  Basically, you need some way to consistently tell your subject, object, and verb apart.

Quote from: John Morrow;513347If you want freeform word order, you will still really need some sort of marker to differentiate your subject and object (one can be no marker but the other needs to be marked via ending or particle) even if you use the "ia" as a tense marker, which is also an option.  Basically, you need some way to consistently tell your subject, object, and verb apart.

What about pitch? Normal for verb, high for object, low for subject?

Edeinos have long noses, with elongated nasal cavities, that reverberate. They sound like horns, as in the "Ricola!!" commercial. (Not brass instruments, but classical horns. Like the shofar synagogues use.)

All of their speech is marked by the undertone of a wind instrument. In fact, most of their "singing" is just blowing tunes through their "horn".

Altering pitch is a trivial endeavor, and could signal when a word is being used differently.

(Assuming I can implement 1of3's "all words can be verbs or nouns, as the situation warrants" suggestion.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;513370(Assuming I can implement 1of3's "all words can be verbs or nouns, as the situation warrants" suggestion.)

Been done before. Without anyone planning for it, too.

Pitch or tone can work fine. There is one think, you need to decide on: What happens if there is only argument in the sentence, that is, what if the verb is intransitive?

In English we use the same forms for the more active argument in transitive sentences and for the only one in intransitive sentences. We call that argument a subject or nominative case. E.g.

I see him.
I walk.

Such languages are called accusative languages or nominative-accusative languages.


Other languages (around 40% of the world's) do it the way round. The would say:

I see him.
Me walk.

So the more passive part in the transitive sentence and the only argument in the intransitive sentence are in the same case. These are called ergative languages or absolutive-ergative languages.

Absolutive is the case of the agent in the transitive sentence, ergative the case of the patient in the transitive and the single argument in the intransitive sentence.


Those two types are common. They manage to tell agent and patient apart where need be, and keep the rest simple. There are some languages that are more precise.

If there is only one argument, it gets either case depending on whether the argument is more of a doer or more of an object. Those are called active languages.


There is some more stuff you could do. For example, perception might generally be backwards (not "I see it" but "It appears to me"). Forces of nature (weather verbs) often have yet other rules. (That's why I said, those are fun.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;513370What about pitch? Normal for verb, high for object, low for subject?

It would work, but are you ever going to speak it?  

Pitch doesn't have to be simply tones but can include tone shifts (Chinese, Vietnamese) and tone accenting (Japanese).  In Japanese the tone shifts to mark accenting, which is done by stressing the syllable in English.  So you don't have to tone mark everything, though you could certainly do that if you want it to be a bit alien.  You could simply have starting and ending tones or tone shift markers.  If you want to play with tone, you should take a quick look at how tones work in Chinese for possible inspiration.

Quote from: 1of3;513451Been done before. Without anyone planning for it, too.

My point wasn't "it can't be done", but rather "how would you do that?"

It's not a contradiction, but a request for more information.

What would it look like, how would it function, etc.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;513676My point wasn't "it can't be done", but rather "how would you do that?"

There is not much to be done, really. English is closer to it than other languages that I can speak for instance. Instant conversion of nouns to verbs is quite common in English. (Calvin and Hobbes would say: "Verbing weirds languages.")

The question is: How can you really be sure that nouns and verbs are distinct classes of words, instead of being one class that can be used as both nouns or verbs in sentences?

Of course, words of different classes might look differently. When I invent a verb like "verelefantieren" in German, people could look at it and know it's a verb because there is quite a lot of verb stuff in it (ver-ieren). English is different. If I make up a word "blump" you couldn't say, whether it's "a blump" or "a blump thing" or "blump someone".

Now, just imagine you can do this with almost every content word and you're good to go.

Of course, you might ask what "to tree" actually means, when you know that "tree" is the noun for those kinds of plants that grow real big and have wooden stems and all. If you do it in a regular manner, you could get something like Lojban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban) or predicate logic. In Lojban, for example, "to tree" would be "be a tree", "to father" would be "be a father to somebody". Natural languages will often not be so regular. Sometimes the noun is what you use to do the action, sometime it's what you create with the action, sometimes it's the actor.

So let's stick with your word "tant". That could be "serve" as in "a person who serves"/"persons who serve" or "to serve regularly". "resk" could be "to be warm" or "something/somebody warm".

Quote from: John Morrow;513663It would work, but are you ever going to speak it?

No. God no. Never, never. No. I hope not.

So, to synthesize the suggestions from the thread:

1. The language forms words by agglutinating shorter words.

2. All words are assumed to be verbs, unless marked otherwise.

3. The differences between the noun and verb form are marked by pitches, or pitch shifts, as is the difference between the subject and object of a sentence.

4. When used descriptively (adjective or adverb), the descriptive word is agglutinated to the described word. (This is part of #1, I think, I just wanted to make it explicit.)

5. The language is word order insensitive. The pitches serve to signify VSO order.

The practical upshot of this is that writing the language is fairly easy, just take the correct words and arrange them as you like. Then, translate your meaning into a clear English sentence. So long as the translation is given directly after, it's easy to understand.

This means there aren't a lot of complicated rules for writing the language, a big plus. A lot of complicated rules for speaking, but that's alright in an entirely oral language.

(Question: Under the above rules, can I still use ia to mean or ? Does that make it a tense? Would that mean that I need other specific tense syllables?)

EDIT: Re tenses

How about a generic present (ia), past (iad), future (iak). Then they distinguish between, say present perfect and present continuing by pitch shifts.

Instead of present, ia could also signify progressive.

There are basically three main areas that languages use to modify their verbs: Tense, aspect and mode.

Tense: From my point of view, when does it happen?
Aspect: Looking at the action itself, in what state is it?
Mood: How "real" is the statement?

Those are also called TAM markers. Not all languages require marking all of these, and sometimes some combinations are not possible.


Tense: Past, present, future. Or past, non-past. Or far-past, past, present, future, far-future. Or whatever you want to make up.

Aspect: Is it going on at the moment (progressive)? Is it over (perfective)? Is it just starting (incohative)? And so on. There are several more, and you can easily invent your own. Personally I'm very fond of should-be-over-but-is-still-going-on.

Mood: English has indicative, subjunctive and imperative, you can do much more, if you like. Seperate markers for wishes, thought experiments. Some languages make a difference in statements between seen-it-myself and heard-it-from-other-people.


Also politeness might end up in verb forms. Or whatever you think your saurians should totally take into account, whenever they form a sentence.

Quote from: 1of3;513877Instead of present,

That was a cogent and clear explanation of some complex concepts. Thank you for breaking it down for me.

Quote from: 1of3;513877Tense: Past, present, future. Or past, non-past. Or far-past, past, present, future, far-future. Or whatever you want to make up.

Nothing ever dies on Takta Ker. It is the Living Land. When a creature's (or person's) life force/spirit leaves its body, it enters the Web of Life.

This is an invisible net of psychic energy that connects all living things in the cosm. (And, in this cosm, even rocks and minerals are alive. Again, the Living Land.) The still-embodied can communicate with those who have recently joined the Web.

There is also the Deep Web, where the "gods" (Edeia Ker) live. As time goes on, disembodied spirits move into the Deep Web, where they can no longer be communicated with.

So, tenses:

• Unremembered Past (Things only those in the Deep Web can relate first hand. Anyone telling of such things right now is repeating hearsay.)

• Past

• Present

• Future

All tenses have specific syllables.

Quote from: 1of3;513877Aspect: Is it going on at the moment (progressive)? Is it over (perfective)? Is it just starting (incohative)? And so on. There are several more, and you can easily invent your own. Personally I'm very fond of should-be-over-but-is-still-going-on.

I'm sure there are many, but the most unique ones are:

• Envisioned Future. (Anything the Gods have prophesied about, and so is certain to happen at some future date. "Envisioned" because these come as visions to Optants.)

• Unenvisioned Future. (Anything that may happen in the future, which hasn't been prophesied.)

Technically, "envisioned" and "unenvisioned" could be applied to present, past, or forgotten past events. In practice, they are mainly used to refer to that which has not yet happened.

Like many other things, aspects are indicated tonally.

Quote from: 1of3;513877ia could also signify progressive.

If I understand correctly, I have been using it to mean "present continuous". "Ia" generally means just that (it's the default present tense meaning), though other aspects of the present tense can be indicated tonally.

Quote from: 1of3;513877Mood: English has indicative, subjunctive and imperative

I'll have to think on those some more.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;513890I'm sure there are many, but the most unique ones are:

• Envisioned Future. (Anything the Gods have prophesied about, and so is certain to happen at some future date. "Envisioned" because these come as visions to Optants.)

• Unenvisioned Future. (Anything that may happen in the future, which hasn't been prophesied.)

Technically, "envisioned" and "unenvisioned" could be applied to present, past, or forgotten past events. In practice, they are mainly used to refer to that which has not yet happened.

Like many other things, aspects are indicated tonally.

You might want to denote the tones in writing in some manner. Three capital letters in superscript might be considered classic.

As for envisioned/uenvisioned, I would rather consider those mood. That distinction might be moot, however. The name TAM is used because these three concepts are often inseperable in a given language.

QuoteIf I understand correctly, I have been using it to mean "present continuous". "Ia" generally means just that (it's the default present tense meaning), though other aspects of the present tense can be indicated tonally.

I'm not sure there is a "default aspect" in English present tense. Compare Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tense-aspect-mood#English).

Quote from: 1of3;513895I'm not sure there is a "default aspect" in English present tense. Compare Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tense-aspect-mood#English).

It's the default meaning in Edeinos. A nuetral pitch "ia" indicates present continuing. Other aspects are indicated with varying tones.

(And, as a first guess, most moods are indicated by adding syllables to the verb. "Command" has meaning by itself, as a noun, so it can be added as a modifier to the verb form of another word. Command-run would be the imperative mood.)

If you are still using tone, you might want to look at the Wikipedia article on linguistic tones/pitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_(linguistics)).  It's fairly comprehensive and worth a look.

Quote from: John Morrow;515278If you are still using tone, you might want to look at the Wikipedia article on linguistic tones/pitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_(linguistics)).  It's fairly comprehensive and worth a look.

I'm in the middle of revising the language writeup, based on yours and 1of3's feedback. If you like, you can check out some of the recent revisions (still in progress, obviously): http://goo.gl/RYpGI (http://goo.gl/RYpGI)

My current project, in connection with the revision, involves scouring all the available material for names/words, and trying to assemble a list of the common sounds (as you suggested earlier): getting a list of the consonant/vowel sounds and a list of common sounds.

As for tones, this is something I put together the other day to try and explain some of the differences of edeinos culture and language.

EDIT: In retrospect, the following is a bad idea. Interesting, but it fails to capture the feel of the Living Land. It might suit an alien race from a sci-fi setting, but not the primitive eidenos. So, it won't be part of the language, or language writeup.

Performing and Experiencing the Edeinos Language

In Storm Knights, Edeinos culture is based around action and experience. By religious and cultural tenets, worshippers are encouraged to engage in many different experiences, so they have tales to relate and experiences to share with Lanala.

For the edeinos, speaking is one such experience, and their language is far more active than most. In fact, Edenal (the name of the language) is performed, more than spoken.

The edeinos language has three components: spoken words, tones and pitches, and bodily movements. Basic information is conveyed verbally, and shifts in tone or pitch, or bodily movements and gestures, modify the basic meanings.

The language is tonal, often describe as sing-song. Just as English has a natural rhythm, and speech that takes the language's rhythm into account is more pleasing to hear (and writing which does so more pleasing to read), edeinos wording is chosen such that the tones form harmonies or tunes. From a young age, edeinos learn to sing their spoken words.

Many movements are a formal part of edeinos language. Such movements including changes in head position, movement of the arms, shifting their upper body, placement or movement of feet and tail, even shifts in position, closer or further away from listeners. These movements are also chosen to work in concert with the spoken words and melodies of the language.

All three parts of the language work together to communicate the meaning, but they also work together to form a pleasing performance. Edeinos literally perform their language.

Edeinos language is sung, it is danced. Just to talk in Edenal is a performance, and listening means experiencing that performance.

Two edeinos speaking together is like a duet. Agreement with each other is harmonious, disagreement dissonant. You can often hear the mood of an edeinos conversation.

In tribal debates, the harmonies clash and the movements are harsh and abrupt. Over time, as a consensus is reached, the melodies begin to form counterpoints, begin to come together in a pleasing whole, and the movements of individual speakers synchronize. A tribe in agreement is like a ball, where the whole group is dancing together.

Edeinos are an active, driven, passionate race (as all Jakatts become, once they convert). Even their language is an experience, an activity for all involved. It is not, and cannot be passive.

Details

There are three methods of conversing in the edeinos language: Conversational, Formal, and Ceremonial. Conversational is the default mode, it is used for most things. Formal mode is used for matters of severe import. Ceremonial mode is used when praying.

In casual conversation, gestures are muted, often very subtle. In Formal conversation, these are larger, more pronounced, more obvious.

During Ceremonial speech (such as praying, for example), edeinos gestures are large, heavily emphasized, and the movements cover a wide area.

In Conversational mode, those not familiar with the tongue may notice the gestures and different tones, but may not appreciate the effort and artistry put into the communication. But in full-blown Ceremonial speech, they cannot fail to notice that the language is a performance.

For a worshipper of Life, everything is an experience to be savored. Even the simple act of speaking to one another is transformed into something active, something artistic, something that gives joy.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;515282My current project, in connection with the revision, involves scouring all the available material for names/words, and trying to assemble a list of the common sounds (as you suggested earlier): getting a list of the consonant/vowel sounds and a list of common sounds.

I have some software, written in Perl (not necessarily great Perl, since I hacked it together for my own use) that analyzes the sounds in word lists and then can use that analysis to put new words together.  The larger the list of words, the better it works.  Let me know if you are interested in either (A) the software or (B) running your list through it to get an analysis.  What it does is breaks up words into consonant and vowel clusters, how frequently they happen, and what the valid following vowel or consonant clusters are.  It was designed to produce a high percentage of usable random words, which is a big problem that many random word generators have.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;515282The edeinos language has three components: spoken words, tones and pitches, and bodily movements. Basic information is conveyed verbally, and shifts in tone or pitch, or bodily movements and gestures, modify the basic meanings.

If you haven't already read it, Harry Harrison's book West of Eden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_of_Eden) might be worth a look.  The book is an alternate history with evolved dinosaur lizard people and their language includes body motions as well as sounds.  One of the plot points in the books involves the language and how the lizards use it.

Edenal is literally a musical language. Each syllable is sung with a tone, and the tonal shift between syllables indicates several things. Whether the tone was higher, lower, and so forth all has informational content.

It isn't just that tones are necessary with a language that is word-order insensitive. It's that being word-order insensitive allows the language to be flexible musically. You chose the order of syllables based on what tune they will form when sung.

Agglutination comes into this as well. The language is based on encoding ever more information into a single word: tall-(as)-tree-spider-(with)-scarlet-abdomen-(that)-hunts-(from)-hiding. That would be one word (the parenthesized relationships established by tonal shifts or being implied by association).

By each word being capable of arbitrary or quite long lengths, it turns a word into a melody or tune. You get more musicality from longer words than from shorter words.

A flexible word order allows the speaker to form enjoyable melodic words, and a longer word length allows for more complex tunes within a single word. Both of these aspects play into a musical language.

EDIT:

So, what does it sound like? It varies according to the impression the speaker intends to convey.

A rebuke will be low pitched, and ominous (The Imperial March). A religious story will be solemn and respectful (like a hymn). A story of loss may be dirge-like. A story of a happy event will be upbeat.

Music evokes emotion in the listener. And edienos are skilled at chosing their words, pitches, and word order to evoke the desired mood.

In many ways, speaking in Edenal is like Jazz Improv. You form the melodies and tunes as you go along, off the top of your head, and suit them to the mood you intend to evoke. Which is why agglutination and word-order insensitivity are key aspects of the language: they allow for a wider range of musical expression.

And the more expressive the speech, the more evocative its performance, the more it meets the Edeinos cultural and religious imperative: to act and to experience, then to relate those to others.

(Yes, John, I'd be very interested in either option, WRT your Perl script. Once I've chosen the consonants and vowels, and built acceptable syllables, then transliterated the extant words into those, I'd be happy to have you run it through the script, or to run the script myself. Whichever you're more comfortable with.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;515343(Yes, John, I'd be very interested in either option, WRT your Perl script. Once I've chosen the consonants and vowels, and built acceptable syllables, then transliterated the extant words into those, I'd be happy to have you run it through the script, or to run the script myself. Whichever you're more comfortable with.)

I sent you the Perl scripts to the address in your signature.

Quote from: John Morrow;515353I sent you the Perl scripts to the address in your signature.

Thanks, very much.

I'm looking for a technical term. I can duplicate the sound physically, but don't know how to reflect it in explicit terminology.

If you say the English word "Hah", it produces a short outburst of air. A snort is the same sort of sound, only expelled through the nose: short, sharply expelled. A grunt is similar, as is barking ("ruff" used to imitate a dog.)

All these different sounds share similar characteristics. Is there a category for such sounds? If so, what is the term?

(Why? Each, or the majority, of Eidenal syllables are said with this same outburst of air.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;515791I'm looking for a technical term. I can duplicate the sound physically, but don't know how to reflect it in explicit terminology.

If you say the English word "Hah", it produces a short outburst of air. A snort is the same sort of sound, only expelled through the nose: short, sharply expelled. A grunt is similar, as is barking ("ruff" used to imitate a dog.)

All these different sounds share similar characteristics. Is there a category for such sounds? If so, what is the term?

(Why? Each, or the majority, of Eidenal syllables are said with this same outburst of air.)

To the extent you are referring to the breathiness of the sounds you describe, I believe you want to say they are aspirated.
Aspirated consonants from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspiration_(phonetics)).

Quote from: Ram;515837To the extent you are referring to the breathiness of the sounds you describe, I believe you want to say they are aspirated.

I believe you are correct, Ram. Thank you for that.

(Some more linguistic description for critiquing.)

Phonology of Eidenal

Eidenal is an entirely spoken language. It depends on eidenos anatomy (snout, nasal chamber, throat, etc.), these determine what sounds ("phonemes") can be made. Even so, not all possible phonemes are meaningful in the language.

Different languages draw upon different subsets of the anatomically possible phonemes. Of such differences are accents made of.

(All eidenos speak the same language, though tribes from different continents have their own unique accents.)

Different languages have different "libraries" of phonemes, so speakers of different languages will "hear" the same foreign phoneme in different ways. The same Eidenal phoneme might sound like a "B" to an English speaker, a "D" to a German, and "T" to a Slav. In reality, none of these are exact representations, all merely approximate the Eidenal original.

Transcription is the process of representing phonemes with written symbols. As Eidenal lacks a written language, all transcriptions rely on using Core Earth languages to represent alien sounds. Transcriptions will vary greatly, depending on the language Eidenal is transcribed into.

There are many and varying ways of spelling Eidenal words. Especially during the first years of the Invasion, there will be no systematic study of Eidenal and no standard transcriptions. Spellings vary, and all are correct.

Even so, "Storm Knights" material will use an internally-consistent method, for the ease of the reader. This method assumes using English for the transcriptions.

Eidenal Morphemes

Eidenal is a gutteral tongue, favoring sharp, hard consonants and short, staccato syllables. Generally speaking, most morphemes follow a CVC (consonant, vowel, consonant) pattern ("bor"), and a few rare ones are VCV ("eide", "ei" being a single vowel sound). When agglutinating syllables together, the last consonant of the leading syllable is usually elided. CVC+CVC becomes CV(C)CVC.

Aspiration is the sudden spurt of air that accompanies, for example, the "P" in the English word park. Nearly every syllable of Eidenal is aspirated, even consonants that are not usually aspirated in English.

Eidenos speak from the diaphragm, each syllable is a short, sharp outburst of air. This peculiar method of aspiration has no real equivalent in English.

Close analogues are the word "Hah!", a grunt of pain, or the word "ruff" (when used to mimic a barking dog). Eidenal is described as a language of grunts, contributing to the perception of the Eidenos as a race of primitives.