Guild of Linguists

Click here to edit subtitle

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > The Language Room > New Analyses of Words (no, not -those- Words...)

KathTheDragon
Site Owner
Posts: 381

In the process of compiling an updated dictionary for the Guild site, I've spotted some possible new or alternative analyses of some words, as opposed to those listed in Kh'rees' dictionary where analyses are given. Here's what I've got so far.


  • vax (only attested in the compound korvax) - could be seen as a verb. This is assuming, of course, that the note of (adjective) listed in Kh'rees' dictionary was put there by him, and not by either of the sources he references (particularly the DLG, which I do not have access to). If this word is definitely an adjective, then
  • térú and térúš - the meanings of these two words are speculative, and apparently based on the assumption that térúš is an adverb derived from térú. But, this doesn't make much sense, as térúš is prefixed by b'-. I'd expect a noun or a verb there. For térú, an adjective probably works - but so does a 1sg verb.
  • tokitu - I've maintained for a long time that this is a typo for dokitu, and that the whole word as attested - kotokituen - should instead be read kodokituen, as a 3sg past [stative] to a root kitu "determine".
  • toran - this could be connected to tor "4, four", since there are 4|0|0|0 (torlan) torans in a full circle.
  • stofa - probably a misspelling of cofa
  • tenaš - this is divided as te-naš by Kh'rees, but a division tena-š is equally possible (giving us an adverb here)
--

Moula KI: 00005310
DI KI: 00205116
deviantART: kathaveara
tumblr: kaththedragon

Grand Master of the Guild of Linguists


October 19, 2015 at 9:14 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Korov’ev
Member
Posts: 160

Regarding vax, it sholud be noted that in korman, the part that is rendered as "Descriptive" in English is actually the word "existence", which does suggest that what is rendered as "Linking" means something else ("reference"? "location"?).

The same can be said about nía, which as an adjective interferes with (and OOC I doubt RAWA waisted time coining synonyms while leaving about 2/3 of the Swadesh list empty - also the reason why I don't trust Crossw. too much).


Maybe térú(š) has to do with "understand, comprehend"?

--

  46116   —  D’ní notesFontsGoodies
.fa  mEstav  Kat  Kenen  xanril  fUru

October 19, 2015 at 12:45 PM Flag Quote & Reply

KathTheDragon
Site Owner
Posts: 381

Good point, Korov'ev, with man. Apparently I'd got it into my head that man was a verb...


With nía, it definitely seems to be an adjective. For the meaning of "new, blank" Kh'rees cites the DLG, and in the attestations he cites the DLG (kor'neeah "Blank Book"), and the BoA and Rawa (kortee'neeah "Blank (new) Books").

--

Moula KI: 00005310
DI KI: 00205116
deviantART: kathaveara
tumblr: kaththedragon

Grand Master of the Guild of Linguists


October 19, 2015 at 1:09 PM Flag Quote & Reply

KathTheDragon
Site Owner
Posts: 381

Oh, another analysis

  • vola - might be literally "indeed" based on its attestation in Gehn's journal, where it begins a sentence. "Yes" sounds rather strange in that context.
--

Moula KI: 00005310
DI KI: 00205116
deviantART: kathaveara
tumblr: kaththedragon

Grand Master of the Guild of Linguists


October 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Korov’ev
Member
Posts: 160

Damn. The DLG (which I have) is English-to-D'ni only and has (note the difference in spelling):


Linking - adj. vahkh

Linking Book - n. Kor'vahk

--

  46116   —  D’ní notesFontsGoodies
.fa  mEstav  Kat  Kenen  xanril  fUru

October 19, 2015 at 2:05 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Korov’ev
Member
Posts: 160

It also has:


Blank - adj. nee-ah

Blank Book - n. kor'nee-ah

Determine - v. to-ki-tuh

Simple - adj. ten

Simply - adv. ten-esh

--

  46116   —  D’ní notesFontsGoodies
.fa  mEstav  Kat  Kenen  xanril  fUru

October 19, 2015 at 2:17 PM Flag Quote & Reply

KathTheDragon
Site Owner
Posts: 381

I assume that "it" is the DLG?

--

Moula KI: 00005310
DI KI: 00205116
deviantART: kathaveara
tumblr: kaththedragon

Grand Master of the Guild of Linguists


October 20, 2015 at 9:41 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Korov’ev
Member
Posts: 160

Indeed. The DLG also has "Bah'ro".

Can't wait for the Official Dictionary...

--

  46116   —  D’ní notesFontsGoodies
.fa  mEstav  Kat  Kenen  xanril  fUru

October 20, 2015 at 11:09 AM Flag Quote & Reply

KathTheDragon
Site Owner
Posts: 381

Absolutely. In the meantime, we have to work with what we've got.

--

Moula KI: 00005310
DI KI: 00205116
deviantART: kathaveara
tumblr: kaththedragon

Grand Master of the Guild of Linguists


October 20, 2015 at 2:51 PM Flag Quote & Reply

KathTheDragon
Site Owner
Posts: 381

While transcribing the Gateroom texts, I found myself wondering if rinæltav (in rekortí) and inæltav (in relem) might actually be the same word, the latter being a scribal error for the former. The parallelism between the two texts is otherwise perfect, suggesting that these two should be the same. For the identification of the latter as being in error, see the other examples of words prefixed with the definite article, especially r'ráwé and reúša. These show that Gehn's scribes had the reduction of re- before r, but not vowels. r'rinæltav follows this rule, while r'inæltav does not (we would expect reinæltav here). This implies that r'inæltav is a mistake for r'rinæltav.

--

Moula KI: 00005310
DI KI: 00205116
deviantART: kathaveara
tumblr: kaththedragon

Grand Master of the Guild of Linguists


October 21, 2015 at 8:22 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Khreestrefah
Member
Posts: 96

It seems rather arbitrary to decide there are two mistakes on the Gate in order to make four forms seemingly more "consistent" with each other.  And if the text really is this corrupt, how can you choose which of the forms are the errors.  Another view could be that reooshah retains the e because of the greater difference in vocalic position than in r'erem, r'inaltahv, r'ahchah, etc. (Note that Yeesha says reahno, but that could be because she has a hard time pronouncing schwa immediately followed by a vowel, as probably many English speakers would).  


If the forms r'rinaltahv and r'inaltahv are really intended to be the same word, then why not suppose r'rinaltahv has the mistake, which the artist made because he had the word r'ríway in front of him just two lines above.


The use of volah 'yes' where one could also use "indeed" in English does't sound strange to me.  They both sound a little pompous at the beginning of a sentence that just continues the thought of the previous one; but I think that is the effect that the D'ni is intended to have.

November 22, 2015 at 4:04 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Khreestrefah
Member
Posts: 96

My thinking about b’tayroosh is that it probably somehow qualifies mukhon ‘complex’. I’m inclined to favor an augmenting rather than a limiting adverbial, since saying in a prayer that the universe is “somewhat complex” seems rather equivocal (though I indicate both possibilities in the dicitonary). If b’tayroosh is adverbial then it does seem to be doubly “marked” having both the suffix -(e)sh that is added to adjectives to form adverbs, and the preposition b' that can be prefixed to number-words to form adverbs.

 

The preposition of course has a wide spectrum of uses, the core meanings probably being that of (animate) recipient or (inanimate) goal, but with pragmatic elaborations that include extent (where the goal is a more or less accurate “benchmark” ); direction or purpose (where the goal is still to be achieved); or even possession (where there is an implication of prior receipt). If we suppose for the sake of argument that tayroo means somenthing like ‘infinite’, then perhaps b’tayroo actually means ‘approaching (the) infinite’ and b’tayroosh means ‘in a manner approaching the infinite’. But this still seems to have a feeling of redundancy in the D’ni.

 

One way around this might be to suppose we have two layers of adverbialization in the actual syntax. Note that the analysis above assumes that mukhon is a predicate adjective to the verb lemahrnem ‘you have create’ i.e. the basic sentence is “you have created this universe very complex” (cf. English "the tailor made the sleeves too long" ). But another possibility woulb be to use an adverbial phrase “you have created this universe very complexly” where "complexly" refers literally to the manner of creation instead of the quality of the result.

 

In English we can turn a whole adjectival phrase into another adverb, or as this is usually expressed: adverbs can modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. Thus in English “their happiness is extreme” is related to “they are extremely happy”; “now that they are married they are happy” (or “their marriage is happy” ) to “now they are happily married”; and “now that they are married their happiness is extreme” to “now they are exremely happily married.” In a normal D’ni sentence we might expect the adverbials to just be “tacked on” one after the other:

 

lemahrnem met misho mukhonesh b’tayroo

‘you have created this universe [extremely] complexly’

 

But in the Prayer we have an embedded sentence in a forked construction: “it [is amazing] to me how [extremely] complexly you have created this universe” where the adverbial has been moved forward to come immediately after the pronoun dho ‘how’ that now governs it. The placement of the suffix -sh at the end of the phrase dho mukhon b’tayroo ‘how [extremely] complex’, and thereby turning the whole phrase into an adverbial, may be a D’ni way of keeping the construction unambiguous.

 

 

November 22, 2015 at 7:27 PM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.

Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.