Day 9:
nyathanye...papa = for...it was done; double subordination (double in the sense that its subordinated from whatever preceeds it, and also from whatever follows it)
[ kepamootha monyapa [ nyathanye gaba paapa [ bas bepaaratee 'ee gemengoo ke ]]]
kepamootha monyapa nyathanye gaba papaa bas bepaaratee 'ee gemengoo ke
[ke.pa.mo:.Ta mo.ɲap ɲa.Ta.ɲe ga.ba pa:.pa bas be.pa:r.tee ʔe: ge.me.ŋo: ke]
yesterday money [ we [ fish is,be mold
Yesterday, for us, moldy fish was bought.
Day 10:
nabagaba = who?
kepamootha nabagaba monyapa bas bepaaratee 'ee
Who bought this fish yesterday?
kepamootha a nabagaba monyapa bas bepaaratee 'ee
Who is the one who bought this fish yesterday?
Day 11:
kee'ee & gee'ee = is, be, will; answer form
[ke:.ʔe: ge:.ʔe:]
A thaba kee'ee
[a Ta.ba ke:.ʔe:]
I is
I did
A thaba gee'ee
[a Ta.ba ge:.ʔe:]
I is
I will
Day 12:
taba...taba & naba...naba = you why?
A taba kee'ee taba
[a ta.ba ke:.ʔe: ta.ba]
Why did you?
Have been neglecting verbs so I decided to make some vowel-stem verbs which probably come from earlier causative somehow.
Civmu-
To send (a thing)
Nanti-
To injure
Zagva-
To sink (trans.)
I think vowel-stem verbs will behave differently when it comes to the past tense as well. Instead of the usual add lengthened vowel to stem and reduce main stem vowel, the 'causative' suffix will be 'separated' and receive the lengthened vowel:
civmu- > civ-mu- > civ-ómu- (instead of ícvĭmu)
Shil hitsála civómuḥ 's/he sent him/her a flower'
This makes some parts of Qutrussán seem pseudo-nonconcatenative, but it probably hints to an earlier past/perfective marker which was a long vowel of some sort, and maybe that the relic of the causative suffixes were full verbs.
ngév /ŋeːv/ · v. to overturn, to capsize; to fall, to trip jav /ʝav/ · n. river, stream, waterway grigh /gɾiɣ/ · v. to be fated to; to have bad luck befall (s.o.); n. ill omen; bad luck
Last edited by Thrice Xandvii on 13 Dec 2017 21:55, edited 2 times in total.
Shemtov wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017 06:09
Daa Sevǔihk:
Tleviyattan "Whale"
Day 12:
Proto-M̟oḩaic:
/bəɦɨjm/ "Canivorius Mammal"
Daa Sevǔihk:
Hńǔra "Lamp"
Are your languages supposedly spoken in the real world? Because these words sure look familiar
They're not, but my religion teaches that all natlangs have a false cognate with Hebrew, and a language that doesn't will never succeed, so I purposefully incorporate Hebrew words into my conlangs so they will be "legitimate languages" in my religion's reckoning.
Proto-M̟oḩaic:
/ðaʁ/ "Fish"- /dag/
Thrice Xandvii wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017 02:58
...all languages have cognates with Hebrew? Really!?
False Cognates, like Proto-Germanic *Sebun and Hebrew [ʃɛβaʕ] ([β] being an allophone of /b/), Tamil /ʋa:/ and Hebrew /ba/ "To come", Mongolian /ax/ and Hebrew /aħ/ "brother".You have to understand that we believe that there are many "Lost" Hebrew words that are only hinted to in existing texts, like /pat/, "two" which is identified as "in [an] African language" and resembles Proto-Bantu *bàdẹ́ "two".
However, the board discourages the discussion of natreligions; I only brought it up to answer Tuyono's question and to show its influence on my conlangs.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
I mean... Not to get too religious-y here but, isn't that just an unfalsifiable claim? I mean any word (with a broad enough brush) could be thought of as related to a distantly/tangentially related concept if they so happen to share a sound or three!