User talk:The Glossophile/Currently unnamed

Uhh, do you know that you can't rename your conlang just by snapping your fingers? Rostov-na-don 21:28, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

He can, its called moving The Emperor Zelos 21:30, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

True, but the old page is still there, and it looks ugly when you link something to a deleted page Rostov-na-don 21:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah guys... bummer, I know!

But I would have changed the name (like... every week or so...) even if I'd chosen a decent one from the beginning. I'm pretty unstable when it comes to things like these! :P I'll try not to be sloppy and leave any "leftovers" behind once I get the final name. Thanks for understanding (I hope ^_^)

The Glossophile 23:06, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

If you want to do that, try User:The Glossophile/Currently Unnamed rather than occupying public space. —Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:58, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Why
Why would you make /J/ be written as "Y"? The Emperor Zelos 17:17, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Because my conlang has a very strong polynesian flavour in it, but the sound /j/ doesn't really appear in any polynesian (pacific) language, so I write it the way an english speaker would have written it (since pretty much every language of the pacific uses the english version of the latin alphabet). Furthermore, near-pacific (but not polynesian) languages like japanese and korean use the [y] letter to show the sound /j/ (for example, in romajī) and my conlang is slightly inspired my them, too. That's why!

The Glossophile 18:31, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I say use J for it not Y as Y is more often a vowel

No... I'll keep it that way.

[j] reminds me more of french /ʒ/ or english /dʒ/.

In my conlang /y/ is a consonant (semi-vowel actually - I explain it in the phonology section), so it's ok by me. :)

The Glossophile 20:29, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

You guys... let him/her use whatever for their language... many languages use ‹y› for [j]. I myself don't even use ‹j› anymore..LctrGzmn 02:56, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

[it's him] Thanks for understanding! :) The Glossophile 04:56, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Cases
Hmm, while looking at your case system, I noticed that you do not have any case to mark indirect objects and other stuff not covered by the Nominative and Accusative cases, so I'd suggest you add an Oblique case. Rostov-na-don 21:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've though of that already...

Other cases (like dative, genitive, locative, etc) are marked by the use of a particle (different for each case) plus the noun they modify. There is no need for other cases. The system is polynesian-like: minimum inflections, but great isolation. See languages like Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan and others to understand what I'm talking about.

The Glossophile 00:53, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean inflections, I meant particles used for case marking. You could simplify it down to an Oblique/All situation case Rostov-na-don 11:01, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of using the accusative case of the article or pronoun (alongside the particle marking the case). Maybe I should clarify that the accusative type /ho(i) ~ he(i)/ of the article is also the "oblique", or "all cases" type. The same thing goes with pronouns. The typical accusative stands by itself (no particle), that's what makes it differ. I'm gonna put "oblique" there right now, thanks!

The Glossophile 11:21, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

I changed the nominative/accusative cases to subjective/objective. That should take care of the case problem.

The objective case can denote every possible object -direct/indirect- and express every possible objective case (using the correct particle of course) -genitive/locative/instrumental/etc-. The Glossophile 03:31, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Verbal Things
You know, for a nearly completely isolational language, you are making a plausible, yet complex and inclusive verbal system Rostov-na-don 20:00, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

What was it you found so complex? Especially around verbs... They have only one primitive form (infinitive), they do not conjugated by inflection, only by special particles (just like pretty much every isolating language) to show their tenses, aspects and (rarely) moods. What do you think is "off"? Maybe I'll correct it if I agree with you... :) The Glossophile 08:23, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is "off", and by complex I mean you are making an isolational system that flexes verbs in such a way to make near everything understandable. Yes, you do it like other languages do, but you have a twist to it, making it compact and (what Zelos likes) removing the tones because they aren't needed. It wasn't criticism :( Rostov-na-don 11:25, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood.. :)

I didn't think you were judgmental at all! :)

I just wanted to know what you were thinking, that's all! :)

I did make everything seem simple and easy to comprehend,

because I want to start with something easy to move to "harder"

things after that. Isolating languages have the tendency to be like

that and I honestly love them (especially polynesian ones), that's why

I make one myself! :) And, when it comes to tones, I'm not much of a fan.

It has nothing to do with Zelos (I don't even know what he likes or not and,

frankly... I don't care), I'm just more than happy with simple short and long vowels

and I stick to it. I never had the ambition of introducing it as a "real" (or at least real-like)

language at all, just an "understandable" one, mostly for me... Get it? :)

The Glossophile 16:11, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I get it :) About the tones, I didn't mean you were specifically excluding them for Zelos, but he definately hates tones and clicks.

For vowel length, I don't prefer it over more vowels, but it can come in handy. You mentioned isolational languages to be your favourite. My opinion would be that you can like them, I don't mind, but they have little possibility for more complex stuff (P.S. I love throwing cases together, making abominally complex declinations/conjugations and fine-tuning it to work, but when it comes to the latter, I start moaning about difficulty).

Also, do you have MSN? Rostov-na-don 16:33, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary... I believe they are more than fine examples for more complex meanings and terms (like philosophical or scientific). The reason I like them so much is that, not only they sound very clear, vowel-y and melodic, but they are also very poetic and containing words with multiple (and many times subtle) meanings. For example: I use the verb kailu to mean [hug, embrace]. That's because it derives from the noun kai, which means [sky] and just like the sky "embraces" the earth (on the horizon) the word that means [to embrace] derives from the word [sky]. See? :) That poetic touch and possibility for countless other (future) examples is the reason I "fancy" (:P) it so much! ;)

And yes I have msn, do you want me to type it down for you in this talk page? The Glossophile 16:45, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

If you want to, you can type it down. Rostov-na-don 17:26, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

It's charmak69@hotmail.com

But I don't check on it that often. If you're about to send me smth let me know first!

The Glossophile 18:20, September 19, 2010 (UTC)