laroon
Junior Member
Keeping the Weave in motion.
Posts: 80
|
Post by laroon on Feb 14, 2012 23:20:40 GMT -5
Yes very much so. That makes a lot of sense. Though I don't see why you're making that many vowel sounds. :3 Besides, this poem is a subset of the language. There are probably many more sounds in this language than what is represented by the dozen or so lines of text. That being said, I'm wondering if you're planning to make all those vowel sounds and other crazy things (beyond the scope of the poem) because they'll be more than just the subset here. My personal opinion is to keep it simple now, so when it gets a little more complicated, it'll be a manageable amount of pieces rather than a hundred different sounds and rules. But I do like what you're thinking. I'm interested to see you make it all work.
|
|
|
Post by dlordoftime on Feb 15, 2012 14:52:35 GMT -5
I actually never planned to have so many vowels for Narayani. As you have said, we should try and keep it fairly simple. Therefore, I have about half a dozen or so rules for pronunciation, that I shall go over a few more times, then type up for your scrutiny. Any criticism is appreciated.
|
|
laroon
Junior Member
Keeping the Weave in motion.
Posts: 80
|
Post by laroon on Feb 15, 2012 16:03:14 GMT -5
I actually never planned to have so many vowels for Narayani. As you have said, we should try and keep it fairly simple. Therefore, I have about half a dozen or so rules for pronunciation, that I shall go over a few more times, then type up for your scrutiny. Any criticism is appreciated. I look forward to your pronunciation rules! I'm thinking of having a series of tenses (and that'd be the form of conjugation for the language). Relatively simple except for irregulars. Anyway, I was thinking of these: 1. Present tense - used for things that are ongoing and are actions that are certain to be done. Can be used for processes that aren't yet finished, but the speaker believes the action will be completed. Immediate future. Like "I'm going to the store today". 2. Past tense - talk about things that have already happened. 3. Future tense - used to talk about things that might occur in the future. The unsureness is present because, well, no one can predict the future. The best you'd be able to say as far as "this will happen" is "I'm sure this might happen." (How's that for confidence? ) 4. Progressive tense - a way to say you're right in the middle of something. Like present tense, but it's more in the moment, rather than in the middle of a larger process. "I eat every day." would be tense 1. "I'm in the middle of eating right this minute." would be tense 4. "I ate yesterday" would be past tense (2) And "I'll eat with you tomorrow" is future. (3) "I'm eating with you tonight", can be either future (3) or present (1). 1 would be used for emphasis as in "and there's no stopping me."
|
|
|
Post by dlordoftime on Feb 16, 2012 14:12:52 GMT -5
I'm going with the idea of Latin, that is, progressive tenses are implied by context, so we have present, future, perfect and imperfect. Exactly what the imperfect is to mean, I am not sure. Presumably, a 'I am going to' future construction is applicable, constructed as 'Go-I + infinitive'. I will do some more work on tenses when I have my Latin reference source later today.
|
|
laroon
Junior Member
Keeping the Weave in motion.
Posts: 80
|
Post by laroon on Feb 16, 2012 17:57:37 GMT -5
The imperfect tense is a continuous action in the past like "I was going to the store the other day.." or "When I was a kid, I used to eat bacon." I'm thinking commands (imperative) will be useful too. I think imperfect in mine will just be implied.
|
|
|
Post by dlordoftime on Feb 16, 2012 19:11:16 GMT -5
I've been taught with German that the imperfect handles our past and past progressive tenses, so for objects that happened a while ago, whereas the perfect tense handles events that have just finished. However, my old french teachers insist that it is for events that used to happen, but now do not. Apparently there is a difference. Whether that is true or not, I shall never know.
And I already have imperative sorted, in the form of 'must' and 'do this!' With vocani, the forms are vocanisa and vocana, translating as I must talk and talk!
|
|
laroon
Junior Member
Keeping the Weave in motion.
Posts: 80
|
Post by laroon on Feb 17, 2012 0:52:15 GMT -5
Yeah imperfect was things that happened in the past over a time period. No definite conclusion to the action. "I was eating a burger yesterday.. when I saw my friend." I saw = preterite (past) while the was eating = imperfect. You could switch the tenses of course with "I was seeing my friend yesterday, when I ate a burger."
As for this, perhaps doing it just like English would break the hazard of having another tense. Or simply have a helping word. Idk. 'I x ate' would be "i was eating" and that x word would be the ticket to making it happen. And then you could even do 'I x eat' cuz you just need that helping word to make it clear. Or just another tense altogether
|
|
|
Post by dlordoftime on Feb 17, 2012 6:40:44 GMT -5
I was originally thinking that the present would handle the simple present and the present progressive tenses, 'I speak' and 'I am speaking', the future would handle the simple future and the future progressive, 'I will speak' and 'I will be speaking', and what is currently the 'imperfect' would handle the past and the past progressive, 'I spoke' and 'I was speaking'. And then you could apply each of these to the perfect tense, to get the present perfect, 'I have spoken', the present perfect progressive, 'I have been speaking', the future perfect, 'I will have spoken', the future perfect progressive, 'I will have been speaking', the past perfect, 'I had spoken', and the past perfect progressive, 'I had been speaking'. And then you can apply the passive to all of the above, to obtain all the ways to conjugate the verb in this way. Of course, I could follow the English, and add in the progressive contruction. But then I would need to differentiate between the present and past participles, speaking and spoken. Right now, the two are the same, vocana. The two ways to use this in a non-adjectival way is to have avi vocana, to have spoken, and ti vocana, to be spoken.
|
|
laroon
Junior Member
Keeping the Weave in motion.
Posts: 80
|
Post by laroon on Feb 17, 2012 9:42:14 GMT -5
Yeah. I'd say it's either those helping words to conjoin with each tense so as to make conjugation of the verb minimal. If you have the usual 6 people (1st person, 2nd, 3rd times 2 for single and plural), multiplied by all your tenses listed (like 10) would give you 60 versions of one verb, easily. I think it'd be simple to do the combination as you have, and then you'd cut it down to about half that number.
|
|
|
Post by dlordoftime on Feb 17, 2012 10:29:28 GMT -5
72 different conjugations, actually. But then they can be negated, brining it up to 144. So, I think my current system is as simple as I can get it without changing how my verbs work.
|
|
laroon
Junior Member
Keeping the Weave in motion.
Posts: 80
|
Post by laroon on Feb 17, 2012 19:51:04 GMT -5
Any idea how to morph one word so many times so the root is still there but the endings as it were would be altered? Not just a few times, but 72(or 144)?
I mean english does pretty well with only a few- take, takes, taken, took, taking.. and everything else is just appended with "have" or "did" or "will" or even "should have" and "would have".That's only... a handful in comparison to 144. o.o
|
|
|
Post by dlordoftime on Feb 17, 2012 20:13:28 GMT -5
That's because English makes use of subject pronouns, so we only have a single inflection in the present tense for regular verbs, and 3 for to be, and there aren't that many for other tenses.
|
|
laroon
Junior Member
Keeping the Weave in motion.
Posts: 80
|
Post by laroon on Feb 18, 2012 3:55:09 GMT -5
I still believe doing the KISS method (keep it simple, sir) is going to benefit better in the long run. I think in mine, I have like.. 5 or 6 version of each verb. Also, Japanese doesn't conjugate their verbs (except for politeness) and they don't even use pronouns all the time. That's where context is vital.
If you have the noun established, you don't need to keep saying the noun over and over; just leave it out. It'd still make sense more often than you think.
|
|
|
Post by dlordoftime on Feb 18, 2012 4:59:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess. But I'm still in the development stage, so I can rectify anything that doesn't seem quite right at any time.
|
|