The Dailies. July 25

The Dailies. July 25

Did you work on your language today? Create any new rules of grammar or syntax? New progress on a script? New words in your lexicon?

On the other hand, do any excavating or reading or enjoying stuff you’ve already created? Do you have any favorites to share?

How did you conlang today?


7 thoughts on “The Dailies. July 25

  1. So small pluses, bumped into this today:

    Words meaning “yes” often go back to demonstrative pronouns…

    Which would be a rather neat fix for understanding Hushi gahót? and Iehi gah. in Akachenti. Essentially, it would stem from an underlying statement, “Have you eaten your that?” and “It’s not that.”, the latter shifting meaning as a colloquial phrase to mean, “That’s no good.” As in English, someone can say in a horrified tone, “Not that!” and it basically means the same thing.

    And I’ve already figured out how to use variations on dahe and dah in a similar pattern to start creating natural modality as in, Iehi dah. “It can’t be that.” or “It shouldn’t be that.” Literally, it would mean something more like, “It isn’t true and I don’t want it to be.” But it’s a nice little way of moving to proper modality, and the first I’ve really noticed grow out of what I’ve already got.

    So yay. I’ve got an actual closed class of words growing and a clue of their likely etymologies. And I especially like that iehi and isi, are so similar with one meaning, “it’s not”, and the other meaning, “it is”. It kind of makes me rethink my original back formation of se:n for the copula as I already know that -n is a nominalizer, even if the origin of that is still fuzzy for me. But the extremely common adjective ending of -e makes me still think that se: is more likely than iesi or some variant of e before s. But they’re similar, and even if they don’t end up clear twins, I like that they’re similar and show signs of the same underlying pattern.

    There’s also the small matter that -t is also a nominalizer, though it seems to mostly be related to the relative affix, as in gahót. Which would make iehet possibly actually iehe, but there’s the not inconsequential matter of iet and e:t that I mentioned yesterday, which imply that final -t really is part of the root in this case. I have no similar words implying the final -n of some forms is actually part of the copular root.

  2. Today I created two new words:

    • khilodhi (n. masc) shovel; pl khilodhi  
    • tushat (v.t.) to bury; 1sg masc tushadin


    I also revamped the romanization of Lortho based on a comment from Reddit. A user noted that the supscript ʰ made the romanization look ugly. So, for easier reading, I did away with the superscript ʰ and decided to write it as a normal h. If h follows a consonant, the previous consonant is aspirated with the exception of sh. The pronunciation of sh is [ ʃ ].

    With that being said, which looks better?

    1. mashalho (v.i.) to be cold; 1sg masc mashalhin
    2. maʃalho (v.i.) to be cold; 1sg masc maʃalhin  


    Here are sample texts to help see it in action:

    1. lharidikhin kansapthanat hana tharnidikhin dharakhime. konpharinin toshanimela hana semanikhin, “hankhanin malhiro danadanar.” remedhikhi toshani, “dhamalhirianni danadanar.”
    2. lharidikhin kansapthanat hana tharnidikhin dharakhime. konpharinin toʃanimela hana semanikhin, “hankhanin malhiro danadanar.” remedhikhi toʃani, “dhamalhirianni danadanar.”


    1. I think that ʃ is relatively unobtrusive but outside of language/linguistics/conlanging circles people may not recognize it so sh might be a better option anyway. I think they both look nice.

    2. Oooh! Lovely. I like the single glyph for sh just to reduce confusion on what h means in your romanization, and I think it’s more common than most, as there’s still exposure to older English works, though there it means s.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.