![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
highlyeccentric17:12 me: verbs should totally have gender...
or rather, take on gender
Brenton: Latin verbs are hard enough as they are, Miss. :)
17:13 me: well... if i invented a language, it would have gendered verb forms
Brenton: You would. ;P
17:14 me: what's that supposed to mean?
Brenton: You would.
:)
Grammar lover.
me: gendered and numbered forms, but not person, i think
17:15 Brenton: That is a strange idea, and awesome.
I don't know if it would work,.
me: possessives would take their gender from the possessor
not the object
17:16 Brenton: Neat?
17:18 me: shrugthat's what english does. his, hers. as opposed to french "la sienne,le sien" (the female object possessed by the third person, the maleobject possessed by the person)
Brenton: Ah, right.
I see.
me: but i'd extend it, so that me/mine and you/yours had gendered forms
and maybe i wouldn't give my nouns gender
Brenton:In Latin it's the same- 'meus' is the masculine of 'mine,' it's anajective. So 'mea mensa' means my table, even if the speaker is male.
17:19 me: yeah. no grammatical gender.
so verb forms would be: male, female, unspecified human, object
17:21 and would be available in singular, in plural, in plural exclusive (we not you) and in dual number (we two)
the last two only being available in human forms
17:22 hmm...actually, no. the last two won't be verb forms
Brenton: You've thought about this a LOT. I am impressed.
me: they'll be pronouns
because verbs weren't going to conjugate by person
17:23 Brenton: nods I think I follow. This is deep magic.
17:24 [Damn. Several books I want are out.]
me:pronouns will be: I (m/f), you (m/f/n), you plural (m/f/n), they(m/f/n), they plural (m/f/n), it, it plural, we, we exclusive, dualnumber
17:25 oh, and the we forms will have m/f/n declension. probably by suffix
Brenton: nods Cool. I don't have anything to add to that.
It's very good.
:)
17:27 me:nouns will have no gender. they will decline by number and grammaticalrole, and these roles will be: nominative, accusative, and genitive.the dative and instrumental will be indicated by preposition using theaccusative
Brenton: YES.
YES, and YES.
And the prepositions, they will be clear and unambiguous?
17:28 me: um... i dunno.
i haven't got that far
17:29 there will be the subjuctive
verbs will be available in indicative and subjuctive. the imperative will be expressed by use of a prefix on the infinitive
17:30 Brenton: Oooh, that's a enat idea.
*neat
me: the subjunctive will only be used in dependant clauses.
17:31 it will be clearly distunguishable from all other verb forms. possibly by a prefix
Brenton: That's a good idea.
me:yeah, a prefix. so the verb conjugates the same (suffixes and/or vowelchanges according to gender and number), and mood will be indicated bya prefix
17:32 theinfinitive, accordingling, will appear as the stem with a *prefix*, nota suffix. thereby making it easy to identify the verb stem, and to knowwhat to look up in the dictionary
verbs will be entered in the dictionary according to their stem
17:33 gender and number will be indicated by suffixes
by consonant changes in suffixes, in fact
tense will be indicated by vowel changes in the suffix
17:35 sooo... the use of pronouns for the subject of the sentence will become unnecessary
one won't need to say "he does"
because the verb encodes that already
17:36 Brenton: That last is the same as Latin.
This is an awesome plan.
:)
me: will i need a nominative pronoun, do you think?
Brenton: Hmm. Yes, for emphasis.
me: how does latin tell who the actor is, if there's no gendered verb forms?
17:37 Brenton: I'm not sure I follow you.
17:38 Nominative indicates subject.
me: yes
so... if you can just say "sum", how do you know who the subject is?
if there isn't a gendered form of the verb?
or does it only work for first person?
17:39 damn, i want to invent some verbs and pronouns now
Brenton: sum: "I am"
es: "you are"
est: "he/she/it is"
es: "you are"
est: "he/she/it is"
etc
summus 'we are' estis 'you are' sunt 'they are'
17:40 It declines by number.
*conjugates
me: ok, the problem is only in third person
don't you end up scratching your head going "who is?"
Brenton: In third person, it will be combined with a nominative.
me: ah
right
Brenton: Caesar est imperator.
me: cool :)
Brenton: Caesar is the emperor.
me: eeeee, i want to invent some verbs now!
17:41 Brenton:In third person, if there is no nominative (happens), usually means"he" is--> subject is taken from subject of previous sentence.
me: and some pronouns
what should my pronouns look like?
Brenton: Catullus amo Lesbiam. stultus est.
Gah. I mean "Catullus amat Lesbiam. stultus est."
17:42 == Catullus loves Lesbia. He is stupid.
me: heee, i read that!
Brenton: Except that verb usually goes at the end. But you get the idea.
me: hmmm... what's manly sort of vowel?
Brenton:Pronouns should be kept simple. I realise this is not a languagedesigned to look evolved, but pronouns are always simple words.
[at least, AFAIK]
17:43 manly sort of vowel?
What a weird question
17:44 me: i think u and y. first person male and female pronouns
Brenton: Just the letters, or are you going to add things to them?
17:45 me: first person plural pronouns can be ut, yet and et (m/f/neuter)
first person plural exclusive can be us, yes and es
17:46 first person dual number can be unt, yent and ent
17:47 Brenton: That is going to confuse latinists, but we could do with some more confusing. :P
me: hmm... pronouns... will need to decline as well, won't they?
17:48 Brenton: They usually do.
me: so, that was just the nominatives
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 09:04 am (UTC)With the person left in, it looks like this: ハイリさん は リんご を 食べています。
And without, it looks like this: リんご を 食べています。
Normally you get the second one in the middle of a paragraph where I've already said stuff about Highly, so it's obvious that's who I'm talking about. Or in other situations where the same applies.
Oh - and if anyone who reads Japanese is reading this, I put the spaces in to make it obvious where the words are. I do know that normally there aren't any spaces.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 09:06 am (UTC)grammar nerdery is awesome.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 09:19 am (UTC)Best thing about Japanese? It has the verb at the end of the sentence ALL THE TIME. But almost everything else can move around somehow. And if you see a verb in the middle of a sentence, it's either in a compound sentence or been turned into a noun by chopping it up and adding a suffix, like so:
The verb "to do" is する (suru) - at least, that's what it looks like in the dictionary or 'plain' form. There's about a million other versions, e.g. potential, past, -ing, passive, pretty much everything you can think of. But to turn it into a noun, you just add the suffix こと. So that would be, yes, すること, or 'surukoto'.
Now I think about it, there's a lot of suffixes - like adding -mono makes it a 'thing' - e.g tabemono is food (things you eat), tatemono is a building (a built thing), yomimono is something you read; adding -sugiru means that you're doing too much of whatever verb you added it to...
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 09:47 am (UTC)Also, SUBJECT = HIGHLY writes crazy. Whatever is doing the thing.
Object = Highly writes CRAZY. Whatever the doing is being done to.
I.e, in your sample sentence above, the subject is left off the sentence. It's similar in Latin, where the subject can be contained in the verb.
Catullus amat Lesbiam: Catullus (he)loves Lesbia.
amat Lesbiam: (he)loves Lesbia. I.e, He loves Lesbia.
So, in short: BLAH BLAH BLAH LET ME TALK ABOUT LATIN BECAUSE I LOVE IT SO
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:00 am (UTC)I see your BLAH BLAH BLAH LET ME TALK ABOUT LATIN BECAUSE I LOVE IT SO and raise you a BLAH BLAH I TALK ABOUT JAPANESE BECAUSE THAT'S MORE INTERESTING THAN ACTUALLY DOING MY JAPANESE HOMEWORK.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:03 am (UTC)Grammar Nerds Unite!
Brenton, meet Fresher!Me. Kylee, meet Brenton The Subject Of Much Angst (wait, did you get to observe any of my angst?)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:08 am (UTC)Call me B.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:09 am (UTC)or was that a reprimand to me for actually using your name?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:06 am (UTC)Very messy. They're still looking for their brains, even now. Alone in the desert of verbs, ever seeking.
Talking about things is always more interesting than doing it! It's why I'm better at presentations than essays! Also, your icon is awesome.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:11 am (UTC)Although how one curtsies in jeans, I don't know.
I have a serious thing for Ravenclaw icons - actually HP icons in general, but Ravenclaws are my favourite. And as Amy will tell you, seriously weird Sesame St icons.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:17 am (UTC)That...is...AWESOME. Truly inspiring. I am awestruck by the glory of that icon.
You can curtsey in jeans. Same movement as with a dress, but jeans. Probably looks a little funny, though.
As for Ravenclaw, I'm a Slytherin. Highly, I dare you to disagree with me.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:30 am (UTC)*Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
Date: 2007-10-19 11:37 am (UTC)Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
Date: 2007-10-19 11:39 am (UTC)Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
Date: 2007-10-19 11:41 am (UTC)Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
Date: 2007-10-19 12:19 pm (UTC)did i hear somewhere that they have no tenses? how is time represented?
Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
Date: 2007-10-19 12:32 pm (UTC)Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
Date: 2007-10-19 12:34 pm (UTC)we got into a long debate about that at AEMA... obviously one has to have an idea of the future even w/out a future tense, but is it *different* to the idea in a future tense?
i translate AS verbs as present as often as humanly possible, rather than inserting future tenses on the grounds of common sense. everything seems to much punchier if it's in the present.
Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
Date: 2007-10-19 01:08 pm (UTC)They do have tenses, or at least they have a past and a present tense (present can double as a future tense). What is odd is that many adjectives also have tenses, and if you are describing something in the past, you put the adjective rather than the verb in the past tense. For example, instead of saying "Dinner was good", you would say something that translates roughly as "Dinner is gooded".
Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
Date: 2007-10-19 01:13 pm (UTC)german declines according to number and case (role in sentence)
and that's... weird. but cool.
Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:Re: *Jumps into the grammar nerd fray*
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-20 07:21 am (UTC)you are scary fabulous, Miss
but isn't "they" plural by nature?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-20 07:23 am (UTC)or something.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 01:13 pm (UTC)how sad is that?
but I take my hat off to you; I had not considered that as an option.