The CBB

ixals wrote: ↑11 May 2021 22:17 Do the sound developments matter? It's about whether the characters are good choices to represent the meaning of the word. Or do I misunderstand your question?

I think you misunderstand my question, but then I may have been mistaken about the way you are building your language. "Sound developments" refers to the (imagined) sound changes from Proto-Germanic to your language. But maybe you are not even using that method, so my question may be moot.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑12 May 2021 13:18 I think you misunderstand my question, but then I may have been mistaken about the way you are building your language. "Sound developments" refers to the (imagined) sound changes from Proto-Germanic to your language. But maybe you are not even using that method, so my question may be moot.

No, no, I do use sound changes to derive it from Proto-Germanic, it's just that the sound changes/the etymology is not necessary to know for this question imo. A similar example is Chinese has both 牙 and 齒 meaning tooth, so which one would I use for my germlang because I only have one word for tooth? Classical Chinese also had multiple characters for the third person (also some are used for third AND second person simultaneously) but with no difference in gender and number, so which ones would be the most fitting to use for my germlang? I just assigned them randomly now but I am not happy with that so far.

All4Ɇn wrote: ↑12 May 2021 05:20 I really like the second person ones but agree with you with the third person ones. Maybe you could change them to characters relating to men and women to stand in for the masculine/feminine gender split in the singular?

That's a good idea, I also had that for a second. I didn't find anything good though. I thought about using 子 and 女 because there is a 仔, but no 女 with a 亻radical. It wouldn't have been a good idea anyway because I think I need 女 to mean daughter.

Scrap that! While writing this post I accidently found about a variant character of 夫, the third person character which also has other male meanings! It's 伕, so I can use 伕/夫 for the male singular! Now there's only the female version which doesn't really have female connotations.

Ok, this changes everything. Now that 伊 isn't taken anymore, I can use it for the second person for which it was also used and I can get rid of 㑚 which is just some dialectal character. However, I think I'll go ahead and switch 伊 and 儞 because Wiktionary says you (singular), but who knows how correct it is.

俉/吾 - 1SG
俄/我 - 1PL
伊/尹 - 2SG
儞/爾 - 2PL
伕/夫 - 3SG.M
他/也 - 3SG.F
倛/其 - 3PL

This is it, I think. I like it way more this way. Not as happy with the female pronoun as with the other ones yet but it's acceptable. Thanks for your reply which made me look through the characters again though

Oh, so I missed the point completely. The question was not about the sound shapes of the pronouns, but which Chinese characters to use to write them. That, of course, doesn't have anything to do with Germanic diachronic phonology, and as someone who doesn't speak or write Chinese, I can't say anything on that.

The real answer, of course, is that you should use Germanic logograms...

...but unfortunately you'd have to restart the Germanic logogram project again to do so. And I'm guessing it's been pruned...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑12 May 2021 20:19 The real answer, of course, is that you should use Germanic logograms...

...but unfortunately you'd have to restart the Germanic logogram project again to do so. And I'm guessing it's been pruned...

Yeah, this would be the best option of course. I tried it once myself when I first started the project but I couldn't come up with something I like. Maybe one day

ixals wrote: ↑12 May 2021 19:19This is it, I think. I like it way more this way. Not as happy with the female pronoun as with the other ones yet but it's acceptable. Thanks for your reply which made me look through the characters again though

Glad to know I could be of help

Yay or nay? Switch from Nominative-Oblique system to Direct-Oblique system?

Nominative-Oblique system: Direct-Oblique system:

@Ahzoh nay

Nay

I may be a bit late, but. . .
You could try partially merging them both into an asymmetrical system. Either: or
(If you don't want to merge them, then I'd say keep it Nominative-Oblique.)

My conlang is called Shu.

My question is about my word created here. "Bartender (drink pourer at a bar) obital unbăn" The word in Shu translated literally to English is "drink pourer". However there are other places one can pour a drink. Keep it as is, even with it being two words to make one? Yay or Nay?

Yay. Compounds that have a more specific meaning than their components occur in many languages. Think of English blackbird - not every black bird is a blackbird.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑28 Aug 2021 20:02 Yay. Compounds that have a more specific meaning than their components occur in many languages. Think of English blackbird - not every black bird is a blackbird.

I know this is off of the subject we were discussing, but The "windows" that is "Microsoft" should be translated into Shu

Yay, or Nay?

I don't understand.

Titus Flavius wrote: ↑30 Aug 2021 23:47 I don't understand.

I'm gathering that Larryrl means: should he use the English name "Windows" when translating Microsoft's "Windows", or should he use the plural Shu word for "window" instead when he's referring to Bill Gates' product?

Larryrl wrote: ↑30 Aug 2021 22:39

WeepingElf wrote: ↑28 Aug 2021 20:02 tYay. Compounds that have a more specific meaning than their components occur in many languages. Think of English blackbird - not every black bird is a blackbird.

I know this is off of the subject we were discussing, but The "windows" that is "Microsoft" should be translated into Shu

Yay, or Nay?

Re drink pourer: I'd ask you what does Shu culture tell you? English has more words for this particular office than just bar tender. If obital unbăn is a native term for a known occupation, then I'd say yea, keep it as is!

Re Windows: again, I'd ask what does Shu culture tell you? Was Windows invented by a Shu speaker, or is it imported? If the latter, then I'd ask you if Shu culture is welcoming of loan words or are loan words frowned upon? If the former, then the only question is how would a native pronounce "Windows"? If the latter, then how would the language board create a neo-native word for the software?

Also, if it's a borrowing, does it sound similar to any native Shu word? Particularly some humorous body part or comical turn of phrase? Lots of potential room for hilarity there! Perhaps also consider what windows mean within the culture and folklore! If, for example, they're associated with allowing demonic gods to steal away the souls of the dead, then I'd argue this might be a good marketing ploy for Mac OS!

elemtilas wrote: ↑31 Aug 2021 02:19

Larryrl wrote: ↑30 Aug 2021 22:39

WeepingElf wrote: ↑28 Aug 2021 20:02 tYay. Compounds that have a more specific meaning than their components occur in many languages. Think of English blackbird - not every black bird is a blackbird.

I know this is off of the subject we were discussing, but The "windows" that is "Microsoft" should be translated into Shu

Yay, or Nay?

Re drink pourer: I'd ask you what does Shu culture tell you? English has more words for this particular office than just bar tender. If obital unbăn is a native term for a known occupation, then I'd say yea, keep it as is!

Re Windows: again, I'd ask what does Shu culture tell you? Was Windows invented by a Shu speaker, or is it imported? If the latter, then I'd ask you if Shu culture is welcoming of loan words or are loan words frowned upon? If the former, then the only question is how would a native pronounce "Windows"? If the latter, then how would the language board create a neo-native word for the software?

Also, if it's a borrowing, does it sound similar to any native Shu word? Particularly some humorous body part or comical turn of phrase? Lots of potential room for hilarity there! Perhaps also consider what windows mean within the culture and folklore! If, for example, they're associated with allowing demonic gods to steal away the souls of the dead, then I'd argue this might be a good marketing ploy for Mac OS!

I decided to leave it as is. I read that if it is a trademark it stayss as is.

Couple of questions about CT and CT cuneiform. The salient facts:

• The distinction between /t/ and /ɹ/ is largely neutralized when it's not in initial position (or following some consonants).
• I have planned to write CT using a defective orthography, specifically cuneiform that is largely based around glyphs representing CV sequences when in a phonetic mode.
• Following from the above two points, syllables with /t/ are written using the glyphs for those with /ɹ/.
• One of the consonants that I would like to be doubled up is /ɬ/, currently romanized as ś (earlier ł).
• It should be noted that /k/ does not have similar allophony to /t/—it doesn't turn into /ʕ/.

With that in mind:

• With the glyphs for which onset phoneme should I write the /ɬ/-syllables: /l/, /θ/, or /s/?
• Should I go back to ł for /ɬ/?
• Should I write syllables involving /k/ and /ʕ/ using the same glyphs, write syllables involving /k/ and /x/ using the same glyphs, or keep the glyphs for syllables involving /k/, /x/, and /ʕ/ all separate?

Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.

Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.

Whatever you decide, I want to see!
I’d love if you’d do either of these!
I’d be a little disappointed if you do neither.