The Conlang FAQ

Devised vocabulary/unintentional constructions

adapted from an April 1, 1997 post by B. Philip Jonsson
On March 27, 1997 Valeska Scholl wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Paul Kenneth Roser wrote:
Just out of curiosity...a small portable water container is called...?
Oh...the metal kind. In that case, it'd be a bucket. Pail, in my "dialect", is more of an archaic word, or something used in nursery rhymes (and, no, I can't spell ;) )
Since we're playing this game, what do people call that metal thing you cook bacon & eggs in on the stove?
Pan. "Skillet" is only used when the person you're talking to isn't sure what you mean...or, you can specify "frying pan." I've heard some of my grandparents use "griddle," but that sounds terrible old-fashioned and "hick" to me.

Also, on a completely non-related topic, I was wondering about something (like this is new). When I was translating a piece I liked (which I'll give at the bottom of the email), I ran across an interesting feature of my language which I hadn't realized was there. When translating "because", I tried to use my standard form, "a'de'" ...however, the moment I wrote it down, I stopped, thinking to myself, "You can't do that in Ley Arah!" After a few moments' thought, I realized that "a'de'" carried the connotation of active causality (?) -- i.e., "because of this action which is happening/happened/will happen", and the sentence, in English, was about a state of being, not an action. Thus, it felt extremely wrong to use the "active" form of "because"....so I invented a new word to express the passivity of "because of this state [of being] which was/is/will be".

Question One: Has anyone else invented/come across a similar construction in their languages?

It does exist in some natlangs. Sanskrit would use different cases: instrumental + passive verb -- thus essentially ergative construction -- for active, ablative for passive causation.

I believe one could distinguish "caused by" and "because of" in English. Not so? I would definitely include the distinction in my langs, now that I'm aware of it :-)=@

Question Two: Has anyone else had features of their languages just jump out at them unexpectedly, like that did to me?

All the time. I even find that computer-generated vocabulary can be subjected to internal reconstruction, running into similarities between words that I would take as a sign of etymological relationship if I'd seen them in a natlang. I used to believe that Wanic root structure was (S)(C)(R)V(W)(v)(R)(v)(F)C(W)(V), where:

        S = sibilant
        C = consonant
        R = sonorant
        V = vowel (full vowel)
        W = semivowel (includes liquids)
        v = reduced vowel
        F = fricative

Rather complicated. Patterns were showing that the original root form must have been (C)V(R)C. I found several cases where roots of reasonably related meaning shared the same (C)V(R)C core, so that the rest looked like affixes and infixes. And this was in randomly computer-generated vocabulary! Scary, eh?

It also frequently happens that I don't quite grasp the ramifications of rules or possible nuances of grammar in my own langs...

This thing with tense (or rather aspect) on nominal forms is intriguing... In Funus it has been possible to derive nominals from perfective verb forms, but nominals that are perfective in themselves? IMTAT!

Okay, last thing: The piece I was translating (if anyone else wants to take a stab at it)
        "First they came for the Jews,
        And I did not speak out
        Because I was not a Jew.

        Then they came for the Communists,
        And I did not speak out
        Because I was not a Communist.

        Then they came for the trade unionists,
        And I did not speak out
        Because I was not a trade unionist

        Then they came for me
        And there was no one left
        To speak out for me."

In Funus:

({'}=[?], {g}=[N], {q}=[g]} -- this usage of {q} and {g} is the reverse of earlier transcriptions!)

        nedet yora'ni't nereh Yidoy
        wadigsep huwisa'h
        debey hudisep Yaday

        geleb yora'ni't nereh Ye'e' Lubuw
        wadigsep huwisa'h
        debey hudisep Ye'e' Labuw

        geleb yora'ni't nere'h Reza'k Zozer
        wadigsep huwisa'h
        debey hudisep Reza'k Zuzar

        gefed yora'ni't nere'hu
        wadigsep qa'us lidla'z
        renet wisa'hu

        at:first they+have:come to:get Jews
        and+not:been me+speaking
        because me+not:be Jew

        Communist = together-owner
        trade unionist = belong:council-worker

        later they+have:come to:get+me
        and+not:been nobody staying
        to:come speak (for) me.

Return to Conlang-related topics|Back to FAQ page

Copyright © 1997, Paul M. Hoffman,
Last updated: July 20, 1997