The clown cuts the tree with an axe

[arriagdall]

akšilo azcetkeihëi alḑälü egpyalä

akšilo: S1-“performing as a clown”-OBJ-ERG
azcetkeihëi: S1-“chopping”-CSV-MSS.ICP-REP-STM
alḑälü: S1-“tree”-CTE-DAT
egpyalä: S2-“axe”-INS

[arriagdall]

I feel like I understand the nature of subjectivity when I write sentences in ithkuil. Essentially, all my translations are imperfect which creates subjectivity, however, I can reach perfection (which is objectivity) through a greater understanding of the morphosemantics of ithkuil.

[lsd]

3SDL:
ï‬²RcdÅmRRM²°Áµz²mo°6²°z°³7yÅ
(plant of 10 meters cut by blows of tool of man whose acting seen giving laugh...)

[arriagdall]

3SDL:
ï‬²RcdÅmRRM²°Áµz²mo°6²°z°³7yÅ
(plant of 10 meters cut by blows of tool of man whose acting seen giving laugh...)

holy damn, how do you pronounce this?

[Aevas]

3SDL:
ï‬²RcdÅmRRM²°Áµz²mo°6²°z°³7yÅ
(plant of 10 meters cut by blows of tool of man whose acting seen giving laugh...)

This is gibberish to everyone except possibly yourself, making it tantamount to trolling. If you want to present your language, you do it in a way that is understandable and parsable by others. I already told you this the other day, so consider this a warning.

[Dormouse559]

Faux-Phrygian
The first version is a very neutral translation, with no assumptions on the surrounding context. The second version adds definite articles to mark the clown and the tree as having been mentioned previously, and it fronts the axe to mark it as new info.

Θεκλαβόρος δαρούκαν κασσίνα τομνέθι.
Theklabóros daroúkan kassína tomnéthi.
[tʰeklaˈboros daˈrukan kasˈsina tomˈnetʰi]
clown-NOM tree-ACC axe-INS cut-3S
The clown cuts the tree with an axe.

Κασσίνα ο θεκλαβόρος τόν δαρούκαν τομνέθι.
Kassína o theklabóros tón daroúkan tomnéthi.
[kasˈsina o tʰeklaˈboros ˈton daˈrukan tomˈnetʰi]
axe-INS DEF.M.NOM clown-NOM DEF.M.ACC tree-ACC cut-3S
The clown cuts the tree with an axe.


New words
θέκαλος (thékalos) m - laugh, laughter (< *ǵeǵl̥h₂os, redup. < PIE *ǵelh₂-)
θεκλαβόρος (theklabóros) - (as adj.) ridiculous, laughable; (as noun) clown, fool, jester (< θέκαλος "laugh" + -βόρος "bearing")
κασσίνα (kassína) f - axe (< Syriac ḥaṣṣīnā)
τόμνο (tómno) v - to cut (< PIE *temh₁-)

I've turned to the reduplicative derivation that I used for θέκαλος on more than one occasion (κέκαλος "acorn", κίκλαν "wagon", πέπανος "crown"), so maybe this is one of the distinctive patterns in Faux-Phrygian's vocabulary. Plus, with roots that have a resonant-laryngeal sequence, I get an irregular combining form (θέκαλος > θεκλα-), which I find pretty fun

Edit: It turns out I had already made a word for "axe"; now I have a pair of synonyms, I guess So you could also use δέἁ (déha), the instrumental of δάς (dás) in those sentences, instead of κασσίνα.

[lsd]

3SDL:
ï‬²RcdÅmRRM²°Áµz²mo°6²°z°³7yÅ
(plant of 10 meters cut by blows of tool of man whose acting seen giving laugh...)

This is gibberish to everyone except possibly yourself, making it tantamount to trolling. If you want to present your language, you do it in a way that is understandable and parsable by others. I already told you this the other day, so consider this a warning.

perhaps you didn't read my reply in the other thread,
or at least you didn't reply to it...

I don't master glosses,
mainly because they're not adapted to what I do...

as this is a language with semantic primitives,
where grammar is limited to a trivialized relationship between primitives,
back translations are more suited to the language
and to the interest we can see in it,
or at least that I can see in it...

for example, if I glossed this translation we'd have something like:

ï²RcdÅmRR M²° Áµz²m o°6²°z°³7yÅ
TREE CUT AXE CLOWN

instead of :

ï²RcdÅmRRM²°Áµz²mo°6²°z°³7yÅ
(plant of 10 meters cut by blows of tool of man whose acting seen giving laugh...

frankly it's not interesting...
the regrammarizations (or anti-reflexes), that are glosses,
erase the semantic work that replaces grammar in 3SDL...

[Iyionaku]

I don't master glosses,
mainly because they're not adapted to what I do...

(...)
for example, if I glossed this translation we'd have something like:

ï²RcdÅmRR M²° Áµz²m o°6²°z°³7yÅ
TREE CUT AXE CLOWN

instead of :

ï²RcdÅmRRM²°Áµz²mo°6²°z°³7yÅ
(plant of 10 meters cut by blows of tool of man whose acting seen giving laugh...

Perhaps you should read up on how glossing actually works, because there is no way that the sentence in 3SDL does not contain any glossable information about the "10 meters" - and if it doesn't, then you can indeed just write it as "tree". Nothing wrong about that.

Yélian

A'gòivei borét an'abár fecun boro.
[ɐˈgɔʊ̯vɛɪ̯ bɔ̈ˈɾeːt ɐnɐˈbaːd̟ ˈɸeːkʉn ˈboːɾɔ̈]
DEF.ANIM=clown fell-3SG DEF.ANIM=tree with axe
The clown cuts the tree with an axe.

New word for this challenge:

borea [bɔ̈ˈɾeː.ɐ] - to cut (a tree), to fell, to chop (wood)
Etymology: from boro "axe", as can be seen quite transparently in this translation challenge.

[Aevas]

...

If you make an exceptionally unconventional conlang, it follows that you also have the responsibility to provide explanations to match this. All I see from you is excuses why you shouldn't have to—or indeed why you're unable to—provide any additional information at all. But it's very simple: Either step up and explain what you're doing, or stop trolling.

[lsd]

I don't quite understand your request,
my translations are always followed by a gloss,
even if it comes in the form of a back-translation
for the reasons I'm not a linguist...

I have never refused to answer anyone...

I don't have the impression that the functiniong of 3SDL is less decipherable than another conlang,
apart from my use of extended Latin...
on the contrary rather than taking the English words in the order of the language I give the components...

[Khemehekis]

What is the meaning of each grapheme/phoneme? Can we have a list, as they gave us for aUI? Or as I give for qh-xh-hw-h-f-dd-s’?

How does the syntax of 3SDL work?

[lsd]

the meaning of each sign is indicated by a word in my back translation,
even if each inscription in extended Latin doesn't fully respect the real idiograms
and is only a theoretical representation of them...

not all primitives are available,
but that doesn't prevent from producing a theoretical assembly...

strictly speaking, there is no syntax,
each primitive is modified by the one that follows it,
there is no central predicate,
all primitives can be considered as predicative of the previous one,
as indicated in the back translations...

[Khemehekis]

So does that mean:

ï‬ plant
² of
R 10
c meters
d cut
Å by
m blows
R of
R tool
M of
² man
° whose
 acting
Á seen
µ giving
z laugh

²mo°6²°z°³7yÅ

Damn, we've run out of words for each character . . .

[lsd]

it is true, because the functioning of 3SDL is done in 5 layers:

- at the lowest the operands, which allow to produce as strokes, the semantic primitives,
- which will be the signs on the second step,
- these signs assemble by simple contact to propose meanings,
basically words of natural languages ​​which claim to refer to reality on this third layer,
- the order of the alignment of these assemblies which depends on the meaning and the forces of attraction of the primitives constructs the fourth layer, not linear,
- all these filaments are connected in a fifth-dimensional rhizome that builds a never-ending global net that attempts to span and link all parts of the universe...

but here there's a sixth layer...
the writings presented that do not completely respect the uniqueness of each primitive,
hesitating between the first and the second layer for lack of a better Latin transcription,
and adding signs of cuttings and marcottings necessary for a linear presentation of the fourth layer...

however each presentation in idiograms or in extended Latin is trying to develop an aesthetic...

the back translations try to give the meaning in English,
even if it means adding connecting words between the words...

I don't see these translations as dissection boards for the 3SDL,
each is an attempt to achieve its own offbeat vision of the world...

indeed much more than the creation of a fictitious linguistic object to present,
I conceive of conlanging as a literary style, which allows self-expression,
where the intermediate stages, like drafts, gain from being hidden, even from myself...