Ok guys new thread for out own Sup Forums language
Old
Ok guys new thread for out own Sup Forums language
Old
Other urls found in this thread:
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
scribd.com
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
scribd.com
twitter.com
Current progress:
General: pastebin.com
Dictionary: pastebin.com
Feel free to contribute whatever comes to your mind.
I wont repost all the stuff from the old thread here.
I dont feel comfortable with our current marker system.
Can't we find a way to implicate cases with them, rather than "direct objects"
For example "te" as a marker for possesion, which connects the noun it's referring to.
te
Markers from >ko - animate subject
>ke - animate direct object
>fe - animate indirect object
>to - inanimate subject
>ta - inanimate direct object
>fa - inanimate indirect object
>ti - time
>si - place
Yeah there's no way to form the sentence "he buys her a gift" with just the pastebin grammars right?
Or can you do it with the pa marker and a preposition somehow?
On firit ta te (which would be the possesion marker) sit
j = j in jam
y = y in you
But nothing is fixed yet
Okay I didn't understand the zhe marker last thread but I think I'm getting it an ideal like it now
"pabij zhe hotot" I want to fuck it
The extended form of this might be "to yam be pabij ta sit zhe hotot"
It fits in, it just seems to be the correct way to do it.
Sorry. Missed that in the pastebin, and assumed that would be /j/ based on the z-j-n root
Your dictionary is outdated. Here's the newest one pastebin.com
Words added after :
sh r y (German)
shoroy
to scream
r b r (Greek)
robor
to do something continuously for a period of time
g t f (English)
gotof
to go/get out
w f k (English)
wofok
to like somebody/something
nić - thread
n ch - e
nezh
thread
nut nutaaq (Greenlandic)
nutai
new
Please fix the definition of word "d n d".
d n d
donod
to not do/make
Also, what about the name of the language?
If you want to say
>I want to fuck her
Not sure whether the use of "to", shouldn't it be "ko"
Ok forgot those, you're right.
And the name is alright I cause. The idea of a recursive meaning is nice
I guess* lel
I was just using the pastebin markers
Oh ok, I think we should just agree on
Okay so just for practice with zhe
"bivit zhe domot to osit ta asit" -> he considers killing her
or with markers "bivit zhe domot ko osit ke asit"
Right?
Or with a more extended form and different block order
"ko osit be bivit ke asit zhe domot"
Without the zhe domot it would just be "he's killing her" not "he's considering killing her"
Am I doing it rite
I want to fuck her
>ke asit zhe hotot pabij
I giess this might be emphasizing it's the particular girl specifically I want to fuck because she's first in the sentence
More extended it could be
>ke asit zhe hotot to yam be pabij
>ke asit zhe hotot to yam be pabij
Rather should be
>ke asit zhe hotot ko* yam be pabij
Did you guys replace j with c,use s for city's c sound, use k for can's c sound? You should if you didn't.
Yes, seems correct.
But would you link me the pastbin you're using.
I got a little messed up with the pronouns.
You got osit and asit, I'm still using On and Sit from
posted near thread end
We should definitely get rid of this retarded action marker "be"
What if you don't want to have the CV first though?
Well actually I guess I omitted it here on the first example but I didn't mean to
What exactly do you mean
harid ke nigger
>I sell the nigger
just that works but what if you want to say "the nigger, I sell"
>ke nigger be harid
you wouldn't just be able to say "ke nigger harid".
and an extended form anyways is
>ko yam be harid ke nigger
How would you do things like "I want to keep fucking" though? 3 verbs. "want" would belong to the zhe marker, but then you'd have to conjugate "to keep fucking". Maybe in that case you'd conjugate "to fuck" (but to what?) and have another zhe with "to keep". How do you differentiate the zhes?
No work done on relative clauses yet.
Still waiting for original OP to come back, I'm definitely not an expert on all of this.
That's not really what I meant by that
The point is if you remove the be marker how can you put verbs in the middle of the sentence
How is it going friends?
updated pastebin
pastebin.com
dictionary
pastebin.com
im back
i was tired when i made the pastebin so i realize some stuff was not explained very well
i also think this idea is good but people in the prevous thread said it was to complicated and was too much markers to learn
if you want to specify between animate and inanimate you can just use pronouns
for time and space the markers were combined and i was thinking we can make all location words end in s and time words end in s to make it clear
currently there is no way to give orders or say things that require too verbs like i want to, i can, i need
for giving orders i think it using markers del let + 1st person would work
example
be kayas - I kill myself
del be kayas let kill yourself
using pastebin
be firit to osit ta fe dek asit
for possesion we can just use nov
ta venep nov yam be tiding to osit
we can use zhe + marker 2 to simillar to del let
example
zhe öng - to want to
zhe be kayas öng - i want to kill myself
zhe ta venep be tading öng - i want to kick the bear
>currently there is no way to give orders or say things that require too verbs like i want to, i can, i need
Lurk more. I spent half a thread explaining it to everybody.
>I want to commit suicide
kays zhe hotot
>I can cook
kakr zhe
>You need to go
gehn zhe khorog
Update dictionary with keys zhe domot zhe khorog
i just woke up i see now
>for giving orders i think it using markers del let + 1st person would work
Zhe can do this too.
>speak to me
Bebal zhe dolot.
>don't kill me
Bevat zhe donod.
fucking autists
This.
Still waiting here for someone to make a perfectly organized pdf. SWIM ofc
we need to have markers with blocks to make the sentence flexible
how would you say i want to kick the bear
Flexible marker blocks +1
Write a guide m8
, taast mis. tigaam fa .
Tadong ta venep zhe hotot.
ok i see
be zhe hotot tading ta venep
I'd say that is also correct but it's a good practice to keep zhe after the verb it refers to. Otherwise you will get a mess when chaining more than two verbs in a phrase.
>I think I want to kick the bear
Tading ta venep zhe hotot zhe domot.
Ta venep be tading zhe hotot zhe domot.
Tading zhe hotot zhe domot ta venep.
The last one would also be not a good practice though grammatically correct. There stuff more related to one another gets separated by less relevant stuff, doesn't look good.
gl with that
This is gonna be a mess. If you guys wanted to do something structured you might as well start off with Toki Pona and adding new grammatical rules and words to it.
sentences in this language will be divided into blocks
this language will gave a flexible block order
markers will go in front of blocks to specify the information in the block
be - action marker
to - subject marker
ta - direct object marker
fa - indirect object marker
tsi - setting marker
pa pa - subordinate clause/ prepositional phrase marker
po - topic marker (this is meaningless, will probably only be used by weebs)
be to ta fa < with what is the action being done> tsi pa pa
no need to always use all the blocks
you should be able to get information from the context of the conversation
action block
be babol - I/we talk
be bebal - you talk to me/us you
subject block
be babol to yam - I talk
be zajon to yam - be me
direct object block
to osit ta asit be tiding - he kicks her
to kitai venep ta osit be bïvit - the cute bear will kill him
indirect object block
be bibil to osit ta asit fa ïtït venep - he talks to her about bears
be firit to osit ta fe der asit - he buys a gift for her (we need more nouns)
extra information block
pa dap be tidïng ta venep kitai pa be bïvit ta osit - because he kicked the cute bear, the bear will kill him
pastebin.com
dictionary
pastebin.com
the dictionary uses dek for you and for so for is now der
another +1
Still didn't update the dictionary with
p g h (whitu piggu go home)
to return home
What happened to the long vowels we had yesterday?
>be zajon to yam
That would mean "I am" actually, not to mention that yam is reduntant here.
zajon = zojon to yam
Here's the examples from your post rewritten to match the standards that I keep in my posts and try to force on the others:
(be) babl - I talk
(be) baabl - we talk
(be) bebal - you talk to me
(be) beebaal - you (pl.) talk to us
(be) bobl to yam - I talk
(be) zjon to yam - I am
(be) zjan/zjon ta yam - be me
(be) zejan zhe dolot - be me (imperative)
to osit (be) todong/tiding ta asit - he kicks her
to kitai venep (be) bovotok/bivitok ta osit
(I use the suffixes that we had yesterday and now it is also gone because I liked it; the current way of declaring past/future tense is by just randomly using diacritics which is retarded; -ik - past tense, -ok - future tense)
to osit (be) bobol/bibil ta asit ïtïtfa veneep - he talks to her about bears (we don't seem to have plural forms yet, so now we have: just double the last vowel)
to osit (be) forot/firit ta dek fe asit - he buys a gift for her
to osit (be) todongik/tidingik ta kitai venep, (pa) (be) bïvïtok - he kicked the cute bear so it will kill him (I used the diacritics to mark that the subject and the object from the previous part of the sentenced are now reversed)
to osit (be) todongik/tidingik ta kitai venep, (pa) (be) bivitok - he kicked the cute bear so he will kill it
to kitai venep (be) bovotok/bivitok ta osit, (pa) dap (be) tïdïngik - the cute bear will kill him because he kicked it
I respect the flexible word order but I personally prefer to keep things related to one another as close to each other as possible thus all sentences in my posts are in such manner.
we decided not to use it
ok
> be zojon to yam
>be me
be me = zajon, the rest is irrelevant especially to yam
related things go in the same block
fixed it
we have a flexible block order
related things go in the same block
Can we talk about the in-block order. Because I still feel a little sstrange when putting zhe in front of the word rather than behind it.
My mind always compares it with the English "want TO do xyz"
we can try using two markers like pa pa
1. They were nice.
2. They were used only for plural personal pronouns (actually they would be great to use for all the plurals in the way I came up with in one of the examples in my previous post: just double the last vowel of the noun to make plural).
3. It is a typed language, not spoken so even if someone couldn't handle such a little amount of double vowels in spoken language, it's not a problem here.
4. Two instances of the same key are easier to type than shift+key or getting the diacritics whatever way you do this.
>related things go in the same block
>to osit be tiding ta asit
First i in tiding is the subject. To osit is precisely the same subject, just more specified. Thus it goes the closest it can get to the first i, which is right before be tiding block. Same with the second i and ta asit block.
You may have a different approach here and both are perfectly correct because we have a flexible block order. I assume blocks are the things starting with be, to, ta. Correct me if I'm wrong.
updated verb info
verb conjugation
a / ä = 1st person
e / ë = 2nd person
i / ï = 3rd person
u / ü = formal
o / ö = placeholder/infinitive/question
formal can be either 1st, 2nd or 3rd person
who formal refers to will be stated in another part if the sentence
place vowels with verb consonants
CCC
if a verb does not have a subject or a direct object use the placeholder
place holders are also used with question words
for present tense use the first vowel on and
for future tense change the to the second vowel
for past tense change the to the second vowel
be babol - I/we talk (context should tell if I or we)
be babol to yam - I talk
to osit ta asit be tiding - he kicks her
be zojon to yam - be me
to chok be todïng ta venep - who kicked the
bear
there is currently some debate on how to conjugate reflexive verbs
some think we should conjugate for the subject and direct object
> kayas
> mashat
others think it is only necessary to conjugate one
> kayos
> mashot
1. the distinction between singular and plural can be made by looking at the context of the sentence
2. if needed a pronoun can be used to specify singular or plural
3. the methods were made before we had pronouns when we only verbs, now that we have pronouns it is no longer necessary to put all the information in with the verb
4. alot of languages here already use diacritics
5. the tense system we have gives our language a nice unique feature
>a / ä = 1st person
So what exactly does ¨ do?
>be babol - I/we talk (context should tell if I or we)
>be babol to yam - I talk
I see how mobs will come to our threads to type this much unnecessary words and letters to say something as simple as "I talk".
Why not just keep:
>babol - I talk
>baabol - we talk
as it was yesterday?
"Be" is completely unnecessary. I haven't met a single sentence where it would be needed at all. So far I kept it optional in all my posts (while you seem to enforce it in yours) but I think we should consider getting rid of it completely.
When will we finally start to omit the placeholder "o" wherever it doesn't render the verb unpronounceable, as I proposed yesterday? Keep things simple and fast to type.
>the distinction between singular and plural can be made by looking at the context of the sentence
Why the fuck is it so the distinction between singular and plural is made from the context while the distinction between a noun and a verb requires the "be" marker to be placed in front of every verb?
>babol (context should tell if I or we)
What if the whole sentence and the whole context is just "babol"? Is it I or we? Why put two additional words when "a" in "babol" already makes it clear?
>babol - I speak; baabol - we speak
vs
>babol to yam - I speak; babol to nos/nes
1 additional letter is better than 2 additional words.
Also, I'm asking again what has happened to the past and future tense. We used to have -ik and -ok suffixes for that and it worked nice and now they're gone and we have nothing to replace them.
scribd.com
Yes many markers/pronounces can be simplified (abolished), especially the "yam" thing
pronouns* kek
be is needed to form a block
this language has a flexible block order
the action block will have verbs + adverbs + anything else related to the verb
i also thought that be was not needed but i realized that not having be would make things confusing when making more complex sentences
>be babol - I/we talk (context should tell if I or we)
>be babol to yam - I talk
> I see how mobs will come to our threads to type this much unnecessary words and letters to say something as simple as "I talk".
Why not just keep:
>babol - I talk
>baabol - we talk
because the context of the sentence will be able to show the difference between I or we
so far we have only made simple sentences which is why some of the format seems pointless but when making more complex sentences the format will keep the language clear
the method here keeps verbs consistent and easy to spot
(be) babl
(be) baabl
(be) bebal
(be) beebaal
(be) babeelik
(be) bibalok
(be) beebaalok
(be) babol
(be) babol
(be) bebal
(be) bebal
(be) babël
(be) bïbal
(be) bïbal
context will play an important part in determining meaning
>i also thought that be was not needed but i realized that not having be would make things confusing when making more complex sentences
It's a matter of choice whether you use or not (In short sentences).
For the complex ones, of course it will a be a necessity
tenses
> for present tense use the first vowel on and
> for future tense change the to the second vowel
> for past tense change the to the second vowel
> the tense system we have gives our language a nice unique feature
a language needs grammar rules
currently this is incomplete
once the language format is set we can decide on how flexible/strict the rules will be
I'd like to introduce the possession marker "hem".
Which actually is a postfix, attached to pronouns or names.
Yam -> Yam'hem
Dek -> Dek'hem
Sit -> Sit'hem
and so on.
be pabij dek'hem (mother) zhe hotot
...
I'm proud of your progress guys, although I think it's a tad too complex for the average 4channer to learn, keep going
if I can help with something, tell me
this time without animeme pic
be vedir eidis (mirror) zhe hotot, dap be zajn däääzai
Whoever can translate this, will be a happy man
hmm w/e, answer is here
new pastebins
intro to language/ language basics
pastebin.com
information on construction of language
pastebin.com
current dictionary
pastebin.com
>them (masculine) = oheb
>them (femenine) = aheb
So don't we need to add "ta"-marker for these pronouces now? Or you meant "they"?
To yam be pabij ta(/ke) aheb zhe hotot. - I want to fuck them.
Tried to write a poem ;)
Ta nat to yam be watin zhe hotot
Ta nutai nat be dalit to nes
Karet zhe hotot yam'hem ferenen,
Zhabesh, mushai be zijon to sit...
yea i meant they
ta markers are used to build blocks
iki - and
i/k/ik/ki can be used to join two or more nouns together
...
(To) chok be zijon kiiitai faigu?
I want to know it (the language)
We (together) make a(/this) new language
I want to tell you my [not sure about ferenen],
I'm honest to you, [something about sitting and bein cant figure it out lel]
house[ki]door = frontdoor
more or less structured pdf of what he said is here:
scribd.com
And:
---
---
-- ferenen(friends)
--, this is hard
Be vedit ta nimi?
Be fepit fa nimi'hem faigu?
Don't know anything to talk about..
Do you get how it works? It took a while for me to figure it out but it seemed elegant and clean after writing sentences in an extended form.
So what's the status on the proposed "te" dative marker?
Be vadit ta luluco. Be wefik ta luluco?
Why don't you dumb faggots realize that this isn't going to work. You guys are going to stop doing this in like a week or two and everything you've done now will be forgotten.
Be wafik! To asit be zijon kitai
Be zejon togof, be rëkor. Be babel zhe khorog to donot. Bevet
>tfw you can't use google translate
Speak a real language like a non-retarded person does pls
Be wafik ta markers. Ta heb to nes be dalit zhe hotot.
(hmm I had trouble phrasing that. I wanted it to be "I want us to do them" but I think it came out more like "we want to do them")
lel I didn't follow my own suggestion here even
ko* nes