KathAveara ~ March 9th, 2013, @ 9.01pm
This is getting more and more like a blog covering my attempts to decipher this language. No help, no colleagues... Just me.
But loneliness aside, I am finding useful information. For example, I have uncovered a reasonably simple syllable structure to the language, which is directly attested by both songs. It is as follows: (C(A))V(F), where C is any consonant, A (for approximant) is r or w, V is any vowel, and F (for final) is one of n, x, r, s, l, m. However, the data would suggest that the A element is mutually exclusive with the F element; each syllable can only have three elements. Naturally, if C is r or w, the A element will not be r or w respectively. However, it is unknown which consonants may not take an A. Presently, it can be assumed that only plosives may have an r, and only j has taken a w. Also, word finals will be syllable finals, but likely excluding x, which is probably only present if the cluster ks is followed by another consonant. This is only attested in expidani and related words.
End log (I've been watching too much Star Trek. Heck, who's even going to read this but me?)
---
KathAveara ~ March 11th, 2013, @ 9.56pm
I have been doing some work on verbs and nouns recently, and have come up with a most beautiful theory regarding them. As far as I can tell, there are three kinds of verbs, which I shall call types I, II, and III for simplicity.
Type I verbs end in -ani in the infinitive. These are verbs like revilani. Next are type II verbs, which end in a -Ci syllable, where C is any consonant. These are verbs like apici. Finally are type III verbs, which end in -CAi syllables, where C is any consonant, and A is r or w (subject to change as my syllable theory changes. Basically, this is the CAV syllable). My only example is ajwi, which is tentatively a verb.
A note: these classifications liable to change as new information comes in regarding the words.
At the moment, my theory of verb-to-noun derivation is as follows: type I verbs lose their -i. Type II verbs lose their -i and gain -an. Type III verbs lose their -i and gain -a.
I believe I have also uncovered a verb form: specifically, either a 2nd person singular active, or a 3rd person singular passive. However, both my examples are type I verbs, nani and comensani, which lose their -i and gain -in (it is useful to think of inflections in terms of the stem, which appears to be found be losing the -i of the infinitive).
The imperative does seem to be generated be losing -i and gaining -a.
---
KathAveara ~ March 12th, 2013, @ 10.08pm
Next is a simple theory of type I nouns: those in -a. There are two cases for all nouns: simple, and genitive (compare English nouns). There are two numbers, singular and plural. The simple singular ends in -a. The simple plural ends in -e. The genitive forms are similar, but feature an additional -i. Thus, we have this table:
| Type I | Singular | Plural |
| Simple | -a | -e |
| Genitive | -ai | -ei |
Thus, for ajwa, joy, we would have the following:
| Type I | Singular | Plural |
| Simple | ajwa | ajwe |
| Genitive | ajwai | ajwei |
---
Laroon ~ March 18th, 2013, @ 3.28pm
It's nice to see someone else on these forums. I check them regularly enough and I must admit I was surprised to see some new activity.
I am of the mind that though this language can be nice and complex, it is not useful in the long run to make it so. After all, it looks like in the past year, only 3 people have shown much interest in this language. If you make it complex, people will try it for a bit, then give up and find something more mainstream.
However, if it's simple (I mean, quite simplistic like Esperanto), then it'll be easier for people to learn who are looking for a nice friendly language to learn.
Let's be honest - D'Ni language is far more interesting for the community than Narayan. But with Narayan, we can make a simpler one to draw interest from others.
As for making it match with Jack Wall's song and lyrics, I have two points for this -
First, it can just be a loose translation with the English to make it flow better across the translation gap.
Second, it seems like if he wanted to do more with this language, he would have done something with it by now. I feel we should cut our losses and progress on our own with this.
Thoughts?
---
KathAveara ~ April 26th, 2013, @ 10.47pm
Nice to see someone else here too!
All languages are actually equally complex. Speaking as a creator of many languages, I will tell you that no matter what you do, complexity will arise as the language evolves. Therefore, it is a fallacy to try and make a nice simple language. What this means is that if the grammar is simple, the syntax is a nightmare. However, if the syntax is very lax, you'll have a boatload of inflection.
And don't start on Esperanto! That was a very bad attempt to create an aux-lang. It's derivation system was so irregular, it is painful, and it was horribly Euro-centric.
As for D'ni... There is so little left to translate. What we don't yet know has had us stumped for years. It probably won't change unless we get loads more linguists from the community.
Yes, I never intended to follow the translation word-for-word. It never works like that. An example from a lang I'm working on: To call someone insane is to tell them to eat their horse. *Shrugs*
And I only went to Jack for the lyrics, not the translation. I just cannot hear what they sing right at the end.
However, I have enlisted some people from a far-away forum to pit their wits against Narayani. They areall far more experienced than me, and should be able to make significant head-way. All they'll have are the two songs, and the translation of the Myst III song.
---
KathAveara ~ April 28th, 2013, @10.00pm
And apparently, no-one;s interested. Oh well.
By the way, I strongly suspect that the form of Narayani used here in the song is not identical to normal Narayani. Yes, it's very similar, but you are allowed to screw around with word order, and employ vast amounts of syllable reduction. After all, I don't hear the 'de' before the 'yamani' in the sung lyrics.
---
KathAveara ~ April 28th, 2013, @ 10.28pm
So, another probable type I noun would be latista, meaning 'lattice tree'. It declines as so:
| Type I | Singular | Plural |
| Simple | latista | latiste |
| Genitive | latistai | latistei |
