highlyeccentric (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
highlyeccentric) wrote2007-10-19 05:54 pm
highlyeccentric) wrote2007-10-19 05:54 pm
ever thought language was stupid? felt like improving it? make your own!
17:12 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
no subject
WR is weird. disorganised, although i hear it's getting a makeover.
and you know what a + b + c = a major in, don't you?
no subject
no subject
no subject
totally do-able.
no subject
And to re-do my preenrolment, because I listed Written Record under English, don't ask me why.
no subject
any angst, this (http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/medieval/staff_heyworth.html) is the person to talk to. all medieval staff details here (http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/medieval/staff.html)
no subject
this crosslists - it's Pilgrim to Backpacker: Travel Histories.
no subject
harrass JP if there's a course you think ought to be crossed which isn't- he'll crosslist practically everything.
no subject
no subject
no subject
As for what is and isn't crosslisted to Med. Studies, nearly everything is. I have a list of MDST, HSTY, ENGL and religion studies on mine for next year, and all of them cross-listed.
no subject
I signed up because it sounded interesting and now I feel guilty for buying into the American obsession that's taking over this uni. Oh well, it still sounds interesting, and I reckon that Written Record and Origins of Japanese Tradition make up for it.
no subject
I don't think the uni is becoming that obsessed. But it probably is a good idea to study the growth/development/politics of the world's remaining superpower. Practical uses for humanities and all that.
S'long as we still have our Centre for Medieval Studies and can study Old E
English here, I don't mind what they do with the rest of the university.
no subject
no subject
no subject