ITT: We create Sup Forums's language

ITT: We create Sup Forums's language

Let's first decide:
>Grammatical gender
>Cases
>Verb tenses
>Irregularities

And let's work on the alphabet and sounds

Gendered nouns are a blight upon humanity.
Also, fuck my phone.

best = north korea
worst = south korea
belaruse = poland
poland = belaruse
finland = mongolia
mongolia = finland
europe = middle east

Do we really need gender?

I recommend some Altaic cases(Mongolian, Turkic, Tungustic) without vowel harmony:

Nom. --
Gen. -(i)n
Dat. -ge(-ke)
Loc. -de(-te)
Acc. -we\
...

And some postpositions(mostly from Kazakh):
Noun in gen. + as(te) = under
tablen aste --> under the table
Noun in gen. + kas(te) = near
boxin kaste --> near the box
Noun in gen. + ish(te) = inside
boxin ishte --> inside the box

>3
>5
>7
>some verbs and nouns

This seems good
We don't want an Esperanto-like language, do we?

I don't know what stems there will be
For example: fuck-

Declension(Altaic type)(present):
sg.(pos.)
I. Fuckem
II. Fuckes
III. Fucket
pl.(pos.)
I. Fuckemez
II. Fuckesez
III. Fucketez
sg.(neg).
I. Fuckemem
II. Fuckemes
II. Fuckemet
pl.(pos.)
I. Fuckememez
II. Fuckemesez
III. Fuckemetez

But, desu, grammatical person is unnecessary, I suppose.

If we remove it(grammatical person) we just can say:

pos. Fuck
neg. Fuckana

-ana is an option of a negative suffix

We should use the Voynich alphabet.

Let's make it purely analytical pls, agglutination a shit.

We'll keep it in mind

Yes, let's talk about sounds and orthography

Accent marks, diacritics, vowels, consonants...

It has to be phonetic, although some consonant clusters and diphthongs don't sound bad

Ok. But what particles and prepositions we should use?

So, what about vocabulary? Can you make some stems? Should this language be flexible, analytical, agglutinative..? What about genders?

We could use altaic ones as long as we isolate them. neg. Fuck ana

There is no preposition in Altaic languages
There's no gender either

We can say both "fuckana" and "ne fuck" for example. No difference, pal

We could derive all vocabulary from nouns: Lustful= lust + adj. marker, To lust= lust + verb marker, Lustfully= lust + adv. marker. This could be valid for all nouns.

Well, someone has to make a few nouns of the new language. And we'll see what particles, suffixes, prefixes we can use

By the way it's also important to create these particles/ suffixes/ inflections(in case of gender) etc.

How about we dont use gendres but have a difference between living and non-living things ?

Yeah, it's a good idea! But we need some nouns, first

There was a Native American language (Winnebago, iirc) that distinguished between something being active, neutral, or passive. So if I was sleeping, you'd use the passive to refer to me, neutral if I was hanging out, and active if I was like working or running a race or something.

Give me one reason

JUST ONE

why I shouldn't learn your language.

You are lazy (maybe).

Keep genders, tenses and irregularities to a minimum.

Praise be to Kek

In practice, I can't imagine how it'll work and what iflexions will be indicators

I might imagine it like this:
We have possessive pronouns: deja(my(living)), dej(my(non-living))
So: tep(a girl), kons(a cat) sait(a gun) = deja tep, dej sait, deja kons...

Looks good, although even if those are temporary terms you are using, having it like this : "dij"(my living) and "dej"(my non-living) might be better to avoid confusion for words starting with "a".

Interesting. That makes sense

Nice observation!
Ok, for example, adjectives:
sona(beautiful(liv.)) - son(non-liv.)
sona tep, sona kons, son sait

what do you think about declension? will it be different for non-liv. and liv. or we use analytical lang without cases?

I think there should be a difference between l. and nl.

I've brought other paradigms(cases) for adjectives(singular):

Nom. sona(liv.) son(non-liv)
Gen. sonais sonis
Dat. sonam sonme
Acc. sonac sonc
...
If we have articles I think it won't be necessary for nouns to have declention
If nouns don't have declention we'll get:
sonam tep(to beautiful girl), sonc sait(beutiful gun(acc.)), sonais kons(of beautiful cat)

That is -- nouns haven't cases. Or we should have declension for nouns?

HURRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRR RREEEEEEEEE DURRREERREEEEEEEEERRR
Am I fluent yet?

no, you just spoke Dutch

I dont think nouns need to have declension, only singular/plural will change it.

Yeah, so it'll be much clearer if we create articles

For example -on-(a)(indifinite sing.) and -isc(a)-(difinite sing.)

Nom. ona(l.) on(n-l.) // isca(I.) isc(n-l.)
Gen. onais onis iscais iscis
Dat. onam onme iscam iscme
Acc. onac onc iscac iscic

onais tep(of a beautiful girl), iscais tep(of the beautiful girl), iscme sait(to the gun)

It turns out that nouns themselves are almost a dormant part

I was thinking about making a difference in declension between stative and dynamic adjectives.

May you show it?

Still trying to figure it out but basically for beautiful which is a stative adjective would be :
Nom : sona (liv) son (nliv)
Gen : sonaj sonj
Dat : sonaet sonet
Acc : sonaer soner
And dynamic would be the one you previously made.

In fact we can replace case system with prepositions(analytical way(de, to, a etc.). But it wouldn't be so exquisite so case system is perfect
What does dynamic adj. look like

(Also I was thinking of making "ae" a diphthong for the the ⟨ɛ⟩ sound.)

Dynamic would be like

Not bad. I'm thinking of long and short vowels, and diphthong as well
ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, ae— a, e, i, o, u, ae:

Now, it's time to create the negative participle..
for example, -nae-
Do we need a verb "to be"?

Also to go with , a "j" at the end of a word makes the "y" consonnant sound.

Yeah, since I also want to make a difference between stative and dynamic verbs.

Needs to involve terrible memes somehow.

Ok! It's clear. But what about verbs? Have you any thouhgts?

All nouns should be masculine, as there are no girls on the internet.

Let's use the verb "dindu"

You mean tenses ? Can we have a retarded amount of them ?

Oh i know, all the static verbs end with -or will the dynamic end with -oz

My paradigm(dynamic)(present sing.):
I(person). dindu
II. dindus
III. dindut
(present plur.)
I. dindume
II. dindute
III. dundunt

Gender = retarded. Don't even make the 3rd person pronoun have separate genders.

Agglutinative languages are the best.

Inflection for nouns is cool, just keep it regular. Inflection for verbs is cool too, keep that regular also.

Verb inflection would not even be needed if we did it like Japanese/Korean and left it up to context.

Don't need to deal with tenses if we can just say a time indication somewhere in the sentence.

Attitudinals (like Lojban) are autistic but pretty fun.

kys

How about we come up with a new alphabet for Iran, since the current one is the definition of getting cucked by Arabs?

My paradigm(static)(present sing.):
I(person). dindu ast
II. dindus ast
III. dindut ast
(present plur.)
I. dindume ast
II. dindute ast
III. dundunt ast

What we have now :
Articles :
-on(a)-(indifinite sing.) -isc(a)-(difinite sing.)
Nominative Ona (living) ; on (non-living) Isca (living) ; isc (non-living)
Genitive Onais ; onis Iscais ; iscis
Dative Onam ; onme Iscam ; iscme
Accusative Onac ; onc Iscac ; iscic

Adjectives :
Stative liv. Stative nliv. Dynamic liv. Dynamic nliv.
Nominative -a - -a -
Genitive -aj -j -ais -is
Dative -aet -et -am -me
Accusative -aer -er -ac -c

Negation particule : -nae-

Damn my formatting didnt go through

Articles :
........................-on(a)-(indifinite sing.)............-isc(a)-(difinite sing.)
Nominative........Ona (living) ; on (non-living) ..Isca (living) ; isc (non-living)
Genitive.............Onais ; onis.........................Iscais ; iscis
Dative...............Onam ; onme.......................Iscam ; iscme
Accusative.........Onac ; onc..........................Iscac ; iscic

Adjectives :
........................Stative liv. .......Stative nliv. .......Dynamic liv. .......Dynamic nliv.
Nominative........-a.....................-.......................-a........................-
Genitive............-aj....................-j.......................-ais.....................-is
Dative...............-aet..................-et....................-am.....................-me
Accusative........-aer..................-er.....................-ac......................-c

Negative particule : -nae-

Fin - thing
Nufin - nothing

Have we double or single negation?
Nae dindu nufin or Dindu nufin

Agglutinative languages are logical. I remember Manchu, Evenki, Old Turkic. These are really easier than Proto-Slavic etc.

Yall niggas REALLY need gfs.

I know. :(

Manchu:
just: mini(my)
Proto-Slavic:
Nom. mojь moja moje
Gen. mojego mojeje mojego
Dat. mojemu mojejь mojemu
..

>Fin - thing
>Nufin - nothing

An example of agglutinative sentence(Kazakh):
anau gimaratka kiru ushin, sizge bilet kerek
anau(that) gimarat(building)-ka(to) kiru(to enter) ushin(for), siz(you)-ge(to) bilet(ticket) kerek(necessary)

Whoa, I didn't know our languages were this related
O yapıya girebilmeniz için size bilet gerek

List of possible tense we could use:
Present
Past
Futur
Tense to describe something that happened before something with the present tense
Tense to describe something that happened before something with the past tense
Tense to describe something that happened before something with the futur tense

Tell me if its confusing.

NO CONSONANTS
ONLY VOWELS

Can there be two forms of "we"?

As in (you and me) and (me and my peers that aren't you). I really wish English had something like that.

The abundance of postpositions as well

For spacial postposition we often use genetive noun with a function word:
Koraptin ishinde(inside the box)
Koraptin astinda(under the box)
Koraptin kasinda(near the box)
...
Korap ushin(for the box)
Korap turali(about the box)
Koraptan(from the box)

so an inclusif we and an exclusif we ?

Yeah, that. You worded it much better.

Koraptin ishinde ne bar? What's there inside the box?

So ?

Hmm it seems like some sh sounds in kazakh is ch in turkish

>korap
Never heard of this
Koraptin ishinde(inside the box)
Kutunun içinde (ç makes the ch sound)
Koraptin astinda(under the box)
Kutunun altında
Koraptin kasinda(near the box)
Kutunun altında
Kutunun içinde ne var?
Lel pretty much the same

Should we have grammatical persons?

Oops, forgot the meme arrows but you get the idea

>making the most boring conlang possible
ok

The usual ones, with an inclusive "we" and an exclusive "we" like wanted and a polite form, i think.

Yeah, there happened some changes in Kazakh phonetics(post-Cuman period):
y --> zh(yapıraq --> zhapıraq, juldız --> zhuldız)
ç --> ş(aç --> aş, şaç --> şaş)
ş --> s(aş --> as, qış --> qıs)

>a polite form
Like in Japanese?

Just learn Greek, lads

and, apparently, there was loss labial synharmonism:
oqudum --> oqudım
yulduzum --> zhuldızım

I mean, in French, the second person of plural can be used as a polite form. In german, it's the feminine third person plural that does it. Like that, you see ?

>Autism: The Thread

Oh, yeah, I've got it! There is the same in Russian. Do you have paradigms(conjugation) for verbs?

You're just jealous you're not part of it.

Of course, in French we have 17 or so different tenses with different conjugation for each person.

>literally everyone could participate by just posting autistic pseudo-linguistic shit
>jealous

So let's see them!

Mode indicatif:
-Présent de l'indicatif
-Passé composé de l'indicatif
-Imparfait de l'indicatif
-Plus-que-parfait de l'indicatif
-Passé simple de l'indicatif
-Passé antérieur de l'indicatif
-Futur simple de l'indicatif
-Futur antérieur de l'indicatif
-Futur proche de l'indicatif

Mode conditionnel
-Conditionnel présent
-Conditionnel passé

Mode subjonctif
-Présent du subjonctif
-Passé du subjonctif
-Imparfait du subjonctif
-Plus-que-parfait du subjonctif

Mode participe
-Participe présent
-Participe passé

Mode gérondif
-Gérondif présent
-Gérondif passé

Mode impératif
-Impératif présent
-Impératif passé

Mode infinitif
-Infinitif présent
-Infinitif passé

And i forgot Conditionnel passé 2nd forme, but it's barely used anymore.

What the fuck is going on ITT?!

Wow! Do you have any examples of conjugation for the new language?

I was thinking about those basic ones :

May you conjugate "dindu"?

And for conjugation, modifying passé simple to fit the new language :
past static:
Singular
I. dindus
II. dindus
III. dindut
plural:
I. dindums
II. dinduez
III. dindurt

past dynamic:
Singular:
I. dindua
II. dinduas
III. dindua
plural:
I. dinduins
II. dinduiez
III. dinduert

Not bad!
But we don't have enough material to create meaningful sentences. What should we improve?

Also I forgot to mention, we have 3 different groups of verbs (without the auxilaries) with different conjugation for each ones, the ones ending in -er, the ones endings in -ir but not all of them and the others.

preposition and syntax