User:RemosPendragon/Sandbox

I believe this is practice here too.

"Completed" templates:

Construction/rewrite:

Ownership:

Ja sit se syntaksi:
 * Kti

I'd like to note that as an author, whose native language is Finnish, I have added at some points not only English (Eng) to Sarot (Srt) translation but also to Finnish (Fin) translation. I believe this does not make anyone's day worse than it was, even if Finnish isn't really "wide spoken" language. Thank you for your understanding.

Phonotactics
Core of every word is formed as displayed below:


 * (S[V{C}])(C)V(C[VT])(T)


 * C - z, g, b, p, d, h, n and r
 * S - z, ʃ and ʒ
 * T - d and n
 * V - a, e and o

Alphabet


Sarot alphabets. Letter "tsh" is "ʒ" and when turned to latin alphabets "zh" is used.

Grammar
There are 3 cases in Sarot language. These are
 * Nominative
 * Accusative (which resembles genetive)
 * Genetive

Pronouns
Pronouns, like nouns, decline according to case and number. Pronouns, in general, are the most important pieces to form Sarot language, as they affect both nouns (except numerals) and verbs. The usage of pronouns by themselves is not neccessary and not even customary, because it could alter the meaning of a sentence completely.

Sarot language does not recognize "he" vs. "she" (or even "it"!) so all translations with "he/him/his" should be treated as gender neutral. Another feat of Sarot is the fourth person "some", which acts only as singular. As all verbs require person who undergoes the doing in question, fourth person serves as null-person (which is by all means regarded here as "some other") form for verbs. Same for inanimate nouns, which require "owner" when they act as object. For example "I write a book" needs that the book belongs to someone, if it is written for public usage (for example) or for sale, it can be said "I write a book(-which_belongs_to_someone)". It might seem easy enough, but turns out really troublesome when the sentences become more elaborate. For example:
 * Eng - I write my customer 's book ("customer-my book-his write-I")
 * Srt - shoberon-an zoro-ar zorodn-a
 * Fin - asiakkaani kirjaansa kirjoitan

Animate things, when acting as object, do not need owner. However, do note that separation between animate-inanimate things is not always sensible. To note few, a dead animal (or human) is inanimate as are slaves, trees and basically anything that could belong to someone. Then again, sea, wind, sun or fire are animate objects that can not be owned. Wild animals are animate but then again a dog, as a domestic animal, is not.

Subject Pronouns
Still, the pronouns do exist as words on their own. Below is given the chart of pronouns. They are displayed in a form -x/x where -x is the core of each pronoun which is added after verb, and /x which is the end of pronoun itself. For example:
 * I read (something)
 * Shre-a (here "shre" → "to read" in present tense, with "-a" → "I (do)")

Possessive Pronouns
As with all nouns in Sarot, pronouns' accusative form resembles that of genetive. Because of it, pronouns here are presented in a way -x/x where -x is the accusative-noun ending, and /x the end of possessive pronoun itself. Also, because this is the case, Sarot does not recognize invidual possessive-pronoun, but treats it as accusative. For example:
 * My book
 * Zoro-an (here "zoro" → "book", with "-an" → "my")

and
 * I kiss him
 * Aren sharon-a (here "aren" → "him" (literally his), "sharon" → "to kiss", "-a" → I (do))

Meaning you can't use possessive pronoun by itself, except when it is the object of the sentence. See also:
 * I kiss his lips
 * Zab-ar sharon-a (here literally; "lips-of_his kiss-I)

Nouns
Nouns decline in case and number.

When noun acts as an objective, it is in accusative and receives "-gez", if it ends in a vocal, or "-ez", if it ends in consonant, ending.
 * Eng - I eat a man (man-accusative eat-I)
 * Srt - shara-ges hod-a
 * Fin - miestä syön

but when it turns into inanimate object, such as dead man, it follows rules as laid down in pronouns-section, see:
 * Eng - I eat a (dead) man (man-someone's eat-I)
 * Srt - shara-zen hod-a
 * Fin - (kuollutta) miestä syön

To put this clear. In Sarot, all nouns divide into two categories; animate and inanimate. All inanimate things are considered to be owned by someone and all animate ones are not. As said, the fact if object is animate or inanimate is not always sensible and many of those less sensible things delve into Sharodh culture. Here are some rules to ease non-native Sarot speaker to find out if object is animate or inanimate:

Animate
 * Abstract concepts, such as
 * sea, sun and wind
 * wilderness
 * Human (and other races)
 * Wild animals


 * Eng - fire warms me
 * Srt - Anadd pohadn-ez zagzad-ab (here me fire-none's warms-it)
 * Fin - tuli lämmittää minua

Inanimate
 * Tools, clutter and such
 * Domestic animals
 * Dead things
 * Dead human is "someone's" (god's)
 * Abstract concepts, such as
 * forest, farmland

Though. Some animate things may belong to someone in some particular case. For example a river would be animate and may not belong to anyone. However, if someone happens to own all lands around the river from its source to sea, that man may indeed say "my river". Then again, when speaking in state level, all things may belong to someone; "as a king, all things on my lands are mine", but that is well explained and reasonable. If you make a fire for yourself only, you may indeed say "my fire warms me". Then again, if the fire was made for the whole camp, it would be more appropriate to depict as "neutral" property and use -ez/-gez ending. To use 4th person is not considered as "neutral" but more like someone you are not aware of.

Pluralization
In Sarot, words may be depicted in plural as well as in singular. Plural is formed by adding "-z" behind the word. In some cases this can make the word pretty much in-pronouncable. In such cases it is more common to use adverbs such as "many", "lots of" or like. Usually nouns happen to end into vocal, so this should not be a real problem.

Compounds
In Sarot it is possible to form new words by the means of compounds. This rather common practise and utilized especially with foreign words. "Common rabble" may also use compounds of old words instead of new, odd, loan word to describe some things.

Compounds are formed of two parts. First part (the first word of compound) is "core word" and the second part "defining word".
 * bookdog (book about dogs)
 * zororah

Defining part may also be a verb in personless present tense. This is preferred if the noun that could be used instead of the verb seems to be derivation of the verb. Like in the example; "shao" -> "shop" or "shaora" -> "merchant" (likely a man) against "shaod" -> "to sell". See below:
 * bookseller (merchant who deals with books)
 * zoroshaod

In some rare cases it is also possible that compound is formed of two words of which neither seems to be core or defining one. This is considered appropriate if the compound formed this way explains itself, see:
 * world
 * ezzea (here ez -> earth and zea -> air/sky)

Verbs
Sarot verbs conjugate according to mood and tense. They also always get pronoun-ending for actor, but the body of verb itself does not change, therefore Sarot verbs don't exactly conjugate with person (or number that is).

Tense
In Sarot language there are 5 tenses.


 * Present Tense

Present tense divides into two separate forms. First one is "currently ongoing act" such as:
 * Eng - I am eating
 * Srt - hod-a
 * Fin - syön

As you can see, only way to see if the act is ongoing, is from the context. The second purpose is for an act which has not yet concluded but is not neccessarily ongoing at the particular moment, such as:
 * Eng - I only eat chicken
 * Srt - bangiva-zen zha hod-a
 * Fin - syön vain kanaa

It would sound a bit funny to say "I am eating only chicken (at this particular moment)" so one can easily understand the actual meaning of this. However, even if present tense is said to divide into two forms, ongoing and undergoing, it in fact does not. To separate "I walk there" and "I am walking there" is purely a question of context.


 * Future tense

Future tense describe an action which will be done. Then again, in Sarot one cannot just say that something is going to be done, the action always needs actor. For this the fourth person is utilised. For example:


 * Eng - I will eat a chicken
 * Srt - bangiva-an naz- hod-a


 * Eng - chicken will be eaten (by someone)
 * Srt - bangiva-zen naz- hod-ze

So future tense is formed with "naz-" body that is attached in front of the verb. It resembles in a meaning more that of "going to" than "will/shall". For English speaker it is worth of mention that "naz-" is not auxiliary verb, and ever appears when attached to another verb.


 * Imperfect

Imperfect tense works as simple past tense and cannot by its own tell if the action what one did ended or not. To correctly tell if the past action was progressive or not, one needs defining particle. Imperfect is formed by adding "-o-" behind the verb but before the attached pronoun. See:


 * Eng - I ate
 * Srt - hod-o-a


 * Eng - I was eating
 * Srt - ro hod-o-a (here "ro" → "then")

Simply put. In English "I was eating" turns into Sarot "I ate then". By its own the sentence does not make much sense so it is usually followed by another phrase which explains when "then" was or what happened during it / what made one stop eating.


 * Perfect

Perfect tense tells if something is wholly done or not. "I have eaten" turns into "I am done eating" and the action has ended. For native Sarot speaker "I have eaten" would sound odd, if no further detail is given. As perfect tense forms with auxiliary verb "to be", I have eaten would look like "I am eat" or maybe "I be eat". Simply put, you add auxiliary verb "sharod" in front of the verb in present tense "hod-a" and you have a perfect tense.
 * Eng - I have eaten
 * Srt - sharod-a hod-a
 * Fin - olen syönyt

Perfect tense can't tell if the action was absolutely complete, for example; it can't tell if I have eaten everything I have or not. For such, particles are needed. They are added before the auxiliary and actual verb, see:
 * Eng - I have eaten all
 * Srt - zrarn sharod-a hod-a
 * Fin - kaiken olen syönyt

Auxiliary verb takes here the person of the actual verb.


 * Pluperfect

Pluperfect tense denotes that something was already done when something else occured. See "I have red" and "I had red". In Sarot it is not in common usage and is thought to be archaic, or dialectal. Pluperfect is nowadays usually replaced by using imperfect. Pluperfect is formed as perfect, except that the auxiliary verb turns into imperfect. See:


 * Eng - I had eaten (part of/in general) (my) chicken
 * Srt - bangiva-an sharod-o-a hod-a
 * Fin - olin syönyt kanaa


 * Eng - (my) chicken was eaten (partially)
 * Srt - bangiva-zen sharod-o-ze hod-ze
 * Fin - kanaa(ni) oli syöty

Phrase on the right is sort of passive, its actor is 4th person "someone".

Mood
All verbs are generally used in their indicative mood, which is the basic mood. It indicates "current" actions and is in all ways similar to present tense. Other moods include imperative (eat it!) and conditional.


 * Imperative

Imperative expresses command. In Sarot, however, it may also express wish in some cases.


 * Eng - eat (someone's/in general) chicken!
 * Srt - bangiva-zen hod-o
 * Fin - syö (jonkun/yleisesti) kanaa!


 * Eng - eat chicken, please
 * Srt - bangiva-zen hod-za
 * Fin - syö kanaa, ole hyvä

Expression of wish is solely excluded when talking directly to another and using formal second person. To do so is considered over-polite, if formality is not required because of status quo for example. As is the case with 2nd person, one rarely describes one's acts to that particular person, for example:
 * You write a book. You eat. You talk to me.

That is why second person can be used on its own ("-o" ending) to work as imperative. If formal second person is used, the order always turns into suggestion:
 * Eat! -> Eat, please.
 * Hod-o! -> Hod-za.


 * Conditional

Conditional expresses if something is going to happen. It can be used more as a wish "I would like to have a dog" (in Finnish; "haluaisin koiran") and something that is more likely not to happen. Conditional is always in the future or pluperfect tense. See:


 * Eng - I would eat the whole chicken (of mine)
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn az-hod-a
 * Fin - söisin koko kanani


 * Eng - I would have eaten the whole chicken (of mine)
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn az-sharod-o-a hod-a
 * Fin - olisin syönyt koko kanani

Above is for "would". It is formed with "az-" attached to main verb (in future tense) or "az-sharod" in pluperfect tense.

If you want to express the absolute neccessary, it would be done with "should". If you want to express propability, it would be done with "could". Could and should are formed a bit differently from would, you need to use their auxiliary verbs (should -> az-zarod, could -> az-zharod) first with "az-", then use the main verb normally (verb + pronoun). For pluperfect tenses, the auxiliary verb gets "-o-" as normally. See:


 * Eng - I should eat the whole chicken (of mine)
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn az-zarod-a hod-a
 * Fin - minun pitäisi syödä koko kana(ni)


 * Eng - I could eat the whole chicken (of mine)
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn az-zharod-a hod-a
 * Fin - voisin syödä koko kana(ni)

and


 * Eng - I should have eaten the whole chicken (of mine)
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn az-zarod-o-a hod-a
 * Fin - minun olisi pitänyt syödä koko kana(ni)


 * Eng - I could have eaten the whole chicken (of mine)
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn az-zharod-o-a hod-a
 * Fin - olisin voinut syödä koko kana(ni)

Syntax
osv (it looks like ovs because subject is added behind the verb) (tpa osp)

no is ne+word, when I will not eat -> not-will-eat-I

noun pluralization -> -z

Vocabulary
Now don't lose your wits because of following formatting. I'll change it when I find it topical.

Nouns
 * Bangiva - chicken [loan from south, "v" is commonly jumped over]
 * Ez - earth
 * Ezzea - world
 * Pohadn - fire
 * Rah - dog
 * Shaha - woman
 * Shara - man
 * Shao - shop
 * Shaora - merchant / seller
 * Sharohd - people/language of Sharodh
 * Shoberon - customer
 * Zab - lips [only in plural form]
 * Zagza - sun
 * Zea - air (sky)
 * Zoro - book

Verbs
 * Hod - to eat (something)
 * Rag - to own
 * Shabebad - to speak
 * Shabedad - to make noices (utter)
 * Shahann - (to be) born
 * Shahadn - to give birth
 * Shaod - to sell
 * Sharon - to kiss (someone/something)
 * Shep - give
 * Shoberod - to buy
 * Shre - to read (something)
 * Zeod - to act [take action]
 * Zorodn - to write (something)
 * Zagzad - to warm (something)
 * Zagzan - to shine


 * Sharod - to be
 * Zarod - can

I dunno
 * Zrarn - all/everything (abstract) [all water]
 * Zrorn - all/everything (comprehensible) [whole water (bottle/dish)]


 * Ro - then
 * Zherro - and

Example text

 * Eng -
 * Srt -
 * Fin -


 * Eng - (someone's) dog eats (my) chicken
 * Srt - bangiva-an rah-zen hod-ab
 * Fin - koira syö kanaani (here really hard put -> kanani koira syö-se)


 * Eng - your dog eats (my) chicken
 * Srt - bangiva-an rah-on hod-ab (here: chicken-my dog-your eat-it)
 * Fin - koirasi syö kanaani (here similarly -> kanani koirasi syö-se)


 * Eng - your dog will eat (my) chicken
 * Srt - bangiva-an rah-on naz-hod-ab
 * Fin - koirasi syö kanani


 * Eng - your dog ate my chicken
 * Srt - bangiva-an rah-on hod-o-ab
 * Fin - koirasi söi kanani


 * Eng - I have eaten all
 * Srt - zrarn sharod-a hod-a
 * Fin - kaiken olen syönyt


 * Eng - I have eaten the whole chicken
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn sharod-a hod-a
 * Fin - olen syönyt koko kanan


 * Eng - I had eaten everything
 * Srt - zrarn sharod-o-a hod-a
 * Fin - olin syönyt kaiken


 * Eng - I would eat the whole chicken (of mine)
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn az-hod-a
 * Fin - söisin koko kanani


 * Eng - I would have eaten the whole chicken (of mine)
 * Srt - bangiva-an zrorn az-sharod-o-a hod-a
 * Fin - olisin syönyt koko kanani


 * Eng - he is mine (literally: him own -I)
 * Srt - aren rag -a
 * Fin - hän on minun (kirjaimellisesti: hänet omistaa -minä)


 * Eng - is chicken yours (literally: "own-you chicken-ACC no", so it is more like "you own (this) chicken, you do not")
 * Srt - rag-o bangiva-ges ne
 * Fin - onko kana sinun (kirjaimellisesti: omistaa-sinä kana-ACC ei, eli enemmänkin "omistat (tämän) kanan, etkö omistakin)


 * Eng - no it is not (literally: no-own-I)
 * Srt - ne-rag-a
 * Fin - ei ole (kirjaimellisesti: en-omistaa-minä)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 1

 * All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
 * Free and equal in dignity and rights men-ACCUSATIVE born-they. Reason and conscience they-POS/ACC given-by_someone and in a spirit of brotherhood towards one another CONDITIONAL-AUX-they act-they.


 * free and equal in dignity and rights shara-z-ez shahann-abe. reason and conscience arehd shep-ze zherro in a spirit of brotherhood towards one another az-zarod-abe zeod-abe.

For this it is worth of mention, that in Sharodh community slaves, even if actually human beings, are not considered as human beings or treated as such and so the word "man" excludes them. It would be impossible to say "all human beings" in Sharodh, it would fight against the language and culture.