The CBB

I worked on conjunctions in Zhilaa Runju.

cii means "and" without anything too special going on.

ebe is more like "and also" - it implies that what comes after it is surprising in relation to the first part, or that the connection between the two parts isn't obvious.

These can be used to connect both verb and noun phrases.
rim would end up translated as "and", but it can only be used with verb phrases describing events, and means they happened the same time.

There are two words for "but", tian and ize. I'm still not sure what the difference is. I think one will add new contrasting information, and the other will limit the previous part of the sentence - something like X but not Y. I should find a better way to explain it but I have work tomorow Also the word for "or" is still boring but I can't think of things to do with it beyond the obvious.

I have discovered a new sound rule in Old Albic, the "phangcva rule". In Old Albic, there is a dissimilation rule affecting aspirated stops which resembles Grassmann's Law in Greek: of two aspirated stops, the first loses the aspiration. So /thakh/ becomes /takh/. But there is an exception: if the first aspirate is in free position (i.e., immediately before a vowel) and the second in a cluster (followed by a consonant), the second one is deaspirated. This happened in the word phangcva 'hand; five' for which this rule is named: /phaŋkhwa/ > /phaŋkwa/. (The word is a cognate of PIE *penkwe 'five'.)

I decided that the simple indicative past in Pelsodian is formed by adding just -t to the original form.

Here's an example:

egy dormot “I slept” (<dormo)
tĕ dormist “You slept (<dormis)
lĕ dormitt “He/She/It Slept” (dormit)

This form could be seen as either influence from Hungarian, which has -t or -ott/-ett, or simply extending -t from forms like Vulgar Latin *fabul-a-sti "you spoke." In the plurals, /t/ is added to /n/, which is the simple past tense plural marker here (1PP on -> ont).

Another griuskant translation of a literature source is published, and therefore it is added to the Frathwiki bibliography page.

Total griuskant books: 1 textbook, 3 storybooks.

A feature that I think makes Onschen distinctive is its ability to use conjugated verbs (as opposed to a bare verb root) to express possessiveness by turning them into nouns. For instance, there is a verb root ѕер ['d͡ʒer] and one of its conjugations, лунѕера [lun̪d͡ʒe'ra], is glossed as 3.ERG-NFUT-save-1.ABS, roughly meaning "they save me/us". When the agentive suffix -(и)нше is added it creates a noun meaning "my/our saviour".

More examples:

ѕер- "to save, to rescue, to remove from strife"
ѕеринше "saviour" / ѕеро "salvation"
лунѕеранше "my/our saviour" /ѕерао "my/our salvation"
лунѕеренше "your saviour" / ѕерео "your salvation"
лунѕерчинше "their saviour" / ѕерчо "their salvation"

ӯсц- "to speak"
ӯсцнше "speaker" / ӯсцо "language"
лунӯсцанше "my/our speaker" / ӯсцао "my/our language" (The alternative name for Onschen)
лунӯсценше "your speaker" / ӯсцео "your language" or "foreign language"
лунӯсцчинше "their speaker" / ӯсцчо "their language" or "foreign language"

тіол- "to help, to assist"
тіолинше "assistant" / тіоло "aid, help, asssitance"
лунтіоланше "my/our assistant" / тіолао "my/our aid"
лунтіоленше "your assistant" / тіолео "your aid"
лунтіолчинше "their assistant" /тіолчо "their aid"

грӣіс- "to watch over, to spy"
грӣісинше "guardian, soldier" / грӣісо "safety, security, protection"
лунгрӣісанше "my/our guardian" / грӣісао "my/our safety"
лунгрӣісенше "your guardian" / грӣісео "your safety"
лунгрӣісчинше "their guardian" / грӣісчо "their safety"

I've finally finished working on and testing Hafar's verb voices. And in this process i have found that it is a pain to translate just about any phrase into Hafar.

Launched a new blog where I review clongos.

Why oh why do your posts say "clongo!" For what purpose do you change the abbreviation!?

Thrice Xandvii wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 08:22 Why oh why do your posts say "clongo!" For what purpose do you change the abbreviation!?

Such is the way of linguistic drift. I just prefer to call them "languages" myself.

Thrice Xandvii wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 08:22 Why oh why do your posts say "clongo!" For what purpose do you change the abbreviation!?

Pretty sure there's a joke somewhere.

Thrice Xandvii wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 08:22 Why oh why do your posts say "clongo!" For what purpose do you change the abbreviation!?

I use “morfofo” for morphophonological processes. Words in -oCo are the best.

DesEsseintes wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 10:56

Thrice Xandvii wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 08:22 Why oh why do your posts say "clongo!" For what purpose do you change the abbreviation!?

I use “morfofo” for morphophonological processes. Words in -oCo are the best.

I may be a product of my time, and I understand what Des is talking about when he says "morfofo", but when I see it, I can't help but think back to Oprah's (and others') "vajaijai" in reference to the "vadge". Also "morfofo" makes me think of "muff", another referent to the vadge.

As for "clongo", well, we've been given a link offering conlang criticism that rhymes with "Congo". Whatevs. Whether they're called "conlangs" (what we in the day used to call 'em), or "clongos" (is the term even actually catching on-go ?), some of us would like to see fully fleshed-out langs beyond just phonological sleight of hand, or others, langs manifest in fleshed-out worlds/cultures.

After a bit of a vacation from conlanging, I started working on my new Tirina grammar again yesterday. I've got some phonology, morphology, and a good chunk of a chapter on nouns together; when I finish the chapter on nouns ("finish", I say, as if one could ever finish such a thing) I might post it up and let you all have a look. (on an orthogonal note, apparently ProWritingAid thinks my writing is too complex. Look, it's a reference grammar. It's supposed to have technical terms in it)

My old Tirina grammar is just... so sadly out of date. It's interesting from the perspective of seeing how much Tirina has changed over time... but every time I look at it, it's all "oh, skip that section, skip that section, I completely forgot I was going to do that at one point, OK here's the useful bit". It's completely useless to anyone but me, because I'm the only one who knows which parts of it are out of date!

Fluffy8x wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 05:39 Launched a new blog where I review clongos.

I don't see where you're actually "reviewing" all the hoary, slatty beaches that have ever wronged you over the course of your life.

Unless I missed a key memo, a clongo (also klongo) is really a not very civil word for a maniser. Of course, manising (like womanising) is a very uncivil behaviour to engage in!

Might want to take that into consideration especially when reviewing other peoples' invented languages. They may not appreciate their works being associated with a gutter slang name.

Fluffy8x wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 05:39 Launched a new blog where I review clongos.

You can do whatever you want with the name, of course, and feel free to ignore this first sentence, but for whatever small amount it's worth, I'm personally not a fan of the sound of the word "clongo", and I can't imagine why you would use that word instead of the more recognizable and generally accepted "conlang", especially if you're trying to attract readers to your blog. However, I have never, ever heard anyone use "clongo" as a derogatory term for a woman. I've never heard anyone use it at all, actually. The only evidence I can find for "clongo" being used that way is a single Urban Dictionary entry from 2009. My point is that, if you really want to call them "clongos", I don't think anyone will read that and think you're using a derogatory term, especially since you have the words "constructed languages" in the description of your blog.

Also, looking at your blog, I might be missing something, but I'm not entirely clear on how you choose conlangs to review. Although in your third post you say you do know the creator, and that the creator requested the review, two of the posts say "Requested by no one". Do the creators of the first two conlangs you reviewed know that their languages have been featured on your blog? Did they give you permission to review their work?

shimobaatar wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 19:47 Also, looking at your blog, I might be missing something, but I'm not entirely clear on how you choose clongos to review. Although in your third post you say you do know the creator, and that the creator requested the review, two of the posts say "Requested by no one". Do the creators of the first two clongos you reviewed know that their languages have been featured on your blog? Did they give you permission to review their work?

Koten-1 and Phoenixian were chosen by looking around /r/conlangs and picking interesting languages. Timah was requested through the blog comments.

As for your second question, yes, I replied to them on the subreddit. I didn't ask for permission, but the creators of those languages didn't seem to mind that I reviewed their work.

Fluffy8x wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 20:21

shimobaatar wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 19:47 Also, looking at your blog, I might be missing something, but I'm not entirely clear on how you choose clongos to review. Although in your third post you say you do know the creator, and that the creator requested the review, two of the posts say "Requested by no one". Do the creators of the first two clongos you reviewed know that their languages have been featured on your blog? Did they give you permission to review their work?

Koten-1 and Phoenixian were chosen by looking around /r/conlangs and picking interesting languages. Timah was requested through the blog comments.

As for your second question, yes, I replied to them on the subreddit. I didn't ask for permission, but the creators of those languages didn't seem to mind that I reviewed their work.

I would definitely ask permission in the future, or at least be open to taking down reviews if the creators ask you to. I know that I, personally, wouldn't want to have any of my languages reviewed in this way, and I'm sure I'm not alone. That said, and as you've already seen, I'm sure plenty of conlangers will have no problem with their work being the subject of reviews, so don't be discouraged if a few people say "no". Best of luck with your blog!

shimobaatar wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 20:40 I would definitely ask permission in the future, or at least be open to taking down reviews if the creators ask you to. I know that I, personally, wouldn't want to have any of my languages reviewed in this way, and I'm sure I'm not alone. That said, and as you've already seen, I'm sure plenty of conlangers will have no problem with their work being the subject of reviews, so don't be discouraged if a few people say "no". Best of luck with your blog!

Just curious: is there something specific about how I review conlangs that you don't like, or do you not like having your conlangs reviewed in general?

Fluffy8x wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 20:44

shimobaatar wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 20:40 I would definitely ask permission in the future, or at least be open to taking down reviews if the creators ask you to. I know that I, personally, wouldn't want to have any of my languages reviewed in this way, and I'm sure I'm not alone. That said, and as you've already seen, I'm sure plenty of conlangers will have no problem with their work being the subject of reviews, so don't be discouraged if a few people say "no". Best of luck with your blog!

Just curious: is there something specific about how I review conlangs that you don't like, or do you not like having your conlangs reviewed in general?

Oh, no, sorry, it's nothing personal or about your style of review. It's hard to explain, so I'll just say that when it comes to feedback, I prefer the format of threads on boards like this one. Also, all of the information on my conlangs that's out there at the moment is outdated, and I wouldn't say I'm exactly proud of it.

shimobaatar wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018 19:47I'm personally not a fan of the sound of the word "clongo" . . . I have never, ever heard anyone use "clongo" as a derogatory term for a woman. I've never heard anyone use it at all, actually.

I agree with you as to gustibuses --- if anything the word "clongo" sounds even worse than "conlang"!

As to the latter, first, I'm glad you haven't heard it used that way before! I never heard it before seeing it in this thread, either. So naturally, as did you, I looked it up and found that slang reference. To me, that's as good a reason as any to nòt use it in this context.

First of all, no one's ever heard of it, except I guess the folks over at Urban Dictionary. (I did find an obscure reference to "clong" as political slang for a line in a speech that falls flat --- clongo would be an adverbial form and in similarly poor taste for an already misunderstood, often ignored and at times malaligned Art!) So, no one would even know what search term to use to find the reviews in question! And if she did stumble across the blog, she'd naturally look it up and find a rather offensive term.

Just my opinion, but the OP chose perhaps rather less than auspiciously when it came to blog titles!