![[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 10:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 10:59 am (UTC)You know the 'seven connections between everyone in the world' thing? In Brisbane, it's two. At most. It's very disturbing, I'll have you know.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:04 am (UTC)And if you're thinking "Is that near Nimbin? Does that mean there's lots of pot?" then you'd be right.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:10 am (UTC)VERY disturbing.
Also, what's wrong with pot?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:16 am (UTC)[It's fun to try, but not a big big deal. I'd give it a go at least once, see if you like it. I suspect you wouldn't but experiences should always be tried.]
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:19 am (UTC)And the Bluesfest and the Channon markets always smell of it. No surprise there!
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:24 am (UTC)Also, *friends you*
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:40 am (UTC)You should have seen college on Wednesday night. First of all, there was the Athletics Victory and Awards Dinner, which had the theme of "Between the Flags" - so therefore there were heaps of people utterly smashed and dressed up like lifesavers. Then the fire alarm went off at around 9 o'clock, so all said people swarmed out of college, down the main stairs, and started doing skulls on the stairs (I never know how to spell that). Pretty much immediately, the firies and the security guys from the uni turned up, and instantly started getting propositioned and offered booze by the smashed people. Who were *cough*dressed*cough* as lifesavers.
It was slightly horrifying.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:44 am (UTC)That sounds like one hell of a party. The kind that would make me go 'squick' and hide in my room.
Actually, wait- I did see the tail end of part of it, when I helped Our Hostess carry some books to her room. It did not look pleasant.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:47 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
Date: 2007-10-19 11:24 am (UTC)plus you keep hinting that you're not as sheltered as you look. for all i know you could've spent most of high school doped up while reading whacked out urban fantasy.
speaking of which, B up there is a fan of charles de lindt
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:35 am (UTC)But yeah, I wore school dress code willingly for most of my schooling as protective camouflage, mostly. Which is why, I think, so many people were surprised when I grew a spine in year 11. And started swearing in front of teachers.
Right near the end of year 10, in Food Tech, I got myself out of trouble by swearing up and down to Mrs Quinn that Raf (class clown guy) had done something (I forget what) and I hadn't. The more he protested, the guiltier he looked! He got yelled at, and I got sympathy *evil grin*.
He does, does he [/speculative]?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:38 am (UTC)post-exam frivolities?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 12:20 pm (UTC)i have a laptop. i have large room with two beds which make great DVD-watching couches
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:38 am (UTC)Oh. And yes, I am a fan. I keep trying to convert the
wickeduninformed, but he is so awesome I am forced to resort to frantic, earnest gesturing in a vain attempt to bring my point across.no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:48 am (UTC)I only meant to skim it, but the next thing I knew I'd read half the book and they were going home.
I have a small collection, most of which I haven't been able to read yet. Let me know if you want to borrow any of it.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:05 am (UTC)must be just luck that means i haven't met her yet.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 11:10 am (UTC)Poor luck, I'll wager. She seems like fun.