[Storm Knights] Any Linguists On the Board?

[John Morrow]

Somtah. Som+tah, "me" + . "Tah" is an indicator syllable. Attached to "som", it indicates both "I am running" and "I am experiencing running".

[...]

Is that a passive construction? If so, what would make it active?

What I think you really want is "I run".  "I am running" is not passive but it's continuous rather than simple, along the lines if "I am breathing" or "My heart is beating".  It's state oriented rather than action oriented.  You can find a new writer talking about weak verb usage in their writing here.

Somteg. Som+teg. Me + . Teg is also an indicator syllable. Attached to som, it indicates "I am experiencing pain."

(You can attach additional nouns or indicators to show the source. "Ret" means . Somtegret, Som+teg+ret, means "I am experiencing pain because of heat.")

Again, what makes that passive? What would make it active?

I'm not sure that it's strictly passive in a gramatical sense because of how "experience" is being used.  The clear active statement is "The heat is hurting me," in which case the heat is the subject or cause of the pain and "me" is the object of the pain being caused.  The clear passive form is, "I am hurt because of the heat."  While the sentence "I am experiencing pain because of heat" may not be strictly passive, you will notice that it looks a lot more like the passive version of the sentence than the active version.  

It's close enough that this page does call "I am experiencing writer's block" a passive sentence and states, "Technically, passive voice is one where the grammatical subject receives the verb's action; pragmatically, you can identify the passive voice when a sentence employs a form of the verb "to be" – is, am, are, was, were, have, had."  That's not always strictly true, but it's a good rough way to spot it.  This page on passive voice states:

One way to determine whether a sentence is passive or not is to:

- Identify the subject – the actor – of the sentence.

- Identify the verb – the action – of the sentence.

- Examine whether the subject/actor performs the action or is acted upon.

If the subject/actor performs the action of the verb, the sentence is active. ("I am fifty now."   Or   "You are aging.") If the action/verb combo does its work without the subject being much of a part of it, the sentence is passive. ("Aging in this household is happening fast."  Or  "My new age is hated by one and all.")

In the case of "I am experiencing pain because of heat", the actor is "I" and the action is really the pain, not the experience.  As such, the actor is receiving the action, even though this is being hidden behind a grammatically active experience.  If you frame it as an experience to make it active, then you are basically enshrining a passive form of thinking on the language.

I'm not trying to quibble, you and 1of3 both know far more about languages than I. I don't understand why somtah is a passive construct, and the other "verbs" all work, and mean, much the same thing. If I can fix that, I can fix the others.

I think the real problem here is that the noun-oriented nature of what you are working with is leading you to use verbs in an indirect and weak, if not strictly passive, way.  Framing verbs in terms of experiences or states makes them incidental rather than central.  The easiest way to avoid this is to try to avoid forms of "to be" in your examples –- is, am, are, was, were, have, had -- unless you are primarily describing a state of existence, and see how far you can get.

[Daddy Warpig]

What I think you really want is "I run".

The easiest way to avoid this is to try to avoid forms of “to be” in your examples –- is, am, are, was, were, have, had -- unless you are primarily describing a state of existence, and see how far you can get.

So, my English translations make the language seem passive, when it isn't intrinsically passive. That I can fix.

(That is, I can use the same Edeinos words, just describe their meaning better.)

Guideline: When translating into English, choose dynamic phrasing, which better represents the intent of the Edeinos language.

EDIT:

"The heat is hurting me,"

That's actually the meaning I intended for somtegret. I should use it.

[John Morrow]

So, the English translations make the language seem passive, when it isn't intrinsically passive. That I can fix.

Yes, that may be enough but you also need to watch where you are applying your modifiers.  That's where having a clear subject, object, and verb can help.  But you also need to make sure you aren't implying a passive form with your word grouping, applying verb to subject or object consistently (feel free to investigate ergative grammars if you want to see other ways to handle that).

For example, "somtegret" meaning "The heat is hurting me."

That's actually the meaning I intended for somtegret. I should use it.

Wouldn't that be something more like "Retia'somteg" -> the fire causes pain in me?

[John Morrow]

It isn't passive in a technical sense. Don't worry.

While it's not passive in a technical sense, I think it's indicative of passive thinking, which is the cultural implication I was drawing from it.  In writing, it's often talked about as using strong vs. weak verbs and constructions.  Indirect sentence structures that cloud the actor and cause of what's happening tend to suggest a cultural avoidance of credit and blame.  The Japanese, for example, have cultural reasons to avoid identifying blame on any individual, thus you'll hear talk about decisions being made and accidents happening but not so much talk about who really made the decision or what caused the accident.

[John Morrow]

I don't think the words were designed at all. They seemed to be chosen mainly for sounding gutteral, and even that general guideline was broken a lot. (Baruk, Bor Aka.)

Entirely likely, but it's better than some of what I've seen.

Though, in this case, "-iad" is my fault. It wasn't meant to sound English, just to fit in with the general harshness of most extant syllables. It could be iat or iak (or even iya, or one of the other variations you suggested). ("Tu" for "you" runs into the same problem.)

If you and/or your players are native English speakers, "sounding English" is not necessarily a bad thing and it wasn't intended as an insult.  Making a language sound right to your players in superficial ways can actually be a good thing.  For similar reasons, I generally base phonetic patterns on English because that's the language the players who are going to have to pronounce the words I create speak.  

With practice, an American can pronounce "Tokyo" ("Toh-kyo") with two syllables instead of three ("Toh-key-oh") and can also get the length right (both syllables are double-length in Japanese and thus would count as four syllables in a haiku), but most people aren't going to pronounce the "kyo" right in "Tokyo" or "Kyoto" because it's not a normal phonetic cluster in English.  

So I think making your constructed language friendly to speakers of the language of your intended players is a good thing.

[1of3]

Ia is an indicator syllable which indicates that a noun is performing its function. It turns the noun into a verb.

Now, I see a problem. So there are, as you say, different classes of content words. Content words are those that have a meaning, like nouns, verbs, adjectives

Some of your content words are stems (tant), some are clitics (teg). Note teg is not a determiner clitic. I'm not sure you have any determiners.

Now, to stick with your example for a transitive sentence:

For example, the phrase "Somia'tuteg", which means "I am hurting you."

You say that /ia/ turns nouns into verbs. It doesn't do that here. There is no part of the noun class to be verbed. There is only a property clitic (teg) and two pronouns.

From your glossing "is serving", I understood /ia/ as marker for progressive ("is xxx-ing" in English).

[Daddy Warpig]

Now, I see a problem.

You say that /ia/ turns nouns into verbs. It doesn't do that here.

Here's how I've been using "ia."

• "Ia" is an indicator syllable meaning . Indicator syllables must always be attached to some other words to have meaning. By themselves, they are meaningless sounds.

• "Tant" is a noun, an unofficial title, for "one who serves others" (e.g. helping tend someone wounded, helping find food for others, and so forth). When a member of the tribe has been consistent in helping others, they are called a tant. For a tribe of about 150 individuals, there are probably one or two tants.

• "Baruk" is a proper noun, the name of a specific individual.

• "Tu" is a pronoun meaning "you", "som" a pronoun meaning "me".

1.) Tantia [tant+ia; serve + ] "The tant is giving service."

(This is an indefinite subject, an implied "him" or "Baruk". In context, people will understand to whom you are referring.)

2.) Somtantia. [som+tant+ia; I + serve + ] "I give service."

3.) Baruktantia [Baruk+tant+ia; Baruk + serve + ] "Baruk gives service."

4.) Somtantia'tu. [som+tant+ia, tu; I + serve + , you] "I give service to you."

("Tantia" is a whole word. It can be added to proper names or pronouns to form a different whole word, somtantia or Baruktantia. When acting on another person, the "clack" (apostrophe) separates the subject from the object.)

So, that's the "noun to verb" usages. They seem internally consistent, to me. Let's look at another case.

• "Teg" is an indicator syllable meaning .

A.) Somteg. [som+teg; I + ] "I hurt."

B.) Barukteg. [Baruk+teg; Baruk + ] "Baruk hurts."

C.) Tuteg. [tu+teg; you + ] "You hurt."

Now for the problem usage:

D.) Somia'tuteg. [som+ia, tu+teg; I + , you + ] "I hurt you." (Or, "I caused you pain." "I inflicted pain on you.")

Verbs are both actions and experiences. Actions change the person that is doing them or experiencing them. The word for the action is attached to the noun or pronoun of the person acting or experiencing.

In this case, is attached to "you", indicating "you" is experiencing the pain. We indicate who is causing the pain with , which is attached to the person causing it. The clack (represented by an apostrophe) separates the two compound words.

E.) Barukia'tuteg. [Baruk+ia, tu+teg; Baruk + , you + ] "Baruk hurts you."

Same as D, but with a proper noun.

I understand each of those uses, they make sense to me. I know D and E may seem irregular, in the context of the language itself, but all languages have irregular aspects (irregular pluralization, declension, whatever.)

More seriously, this may break the general rule for how languages in general function. Again, you and John know far more about linguistics than I, and this may need more thinking out or may need adjusting. Let me know how I can clarify or fix the problem.

[John Morrow]

It would help to know which words are from the source material and thus you don't want to change.  Could you mark that somehow in your document?

• "Ia" is an indicator syllable meaning . Indicator syllables must always be attached to some other words to have meaning. By themselves, they are meaningless sounds.

It might be best to think of this as a subject marker, in the sense that it marks the noun or pronoun that's making the verb or experience in the sentence happen.

1.) Tantia [tant+ia; serve + ] "The tant is giving service."

(This is an indefinite subject, an implied "him" or "Baruk". In context, people will understand to whom you are referring.)

If "serve" is essentially the verb, then it shouldn't take the subject marker, so a normal sentence would look like:  

Tuia'tantBaruk
[You][Subject] [served by][Baruk]

But since you say the culture is defined by actions and experiences, let's assume that a verb can be modified with the ia, turning it into both a noun and an implied verb, thus you could say:

Tania'Baruk
[Serves][One Who Does/subject] [serves][Baruk]

...rather than saying the somewhat redundant (but also correct)...

Tantia'tantBaruk

In other words, verbs modified by the subject marker "ia" work like pronouns that mean "the one doing the verb", making a repetition of the verb unnecessary where the person is doing the verb that's being used to identify them.  So you'd still have to say:

Tantia'tegBaruk

[Serves][One Who Does/subject] [hurts][Baruk]

This gives you a quirky way to explain turning verbs into nouns the way you've been describing it.

2.) Somtantia. [som+tant+ia; I + serve + ] "I give service."]

I think that would be:

Somia'tant
[subject] [serve]

3.) Baruktantia [Baruk+tant+ia; Baruk + serve + ] "Baruk gives service."

I think that would be:

Barukia'tant
[Baruk][subject] [serve]

4.) Somtantia'tu. [som+tant+ia, tu; I + serve + , you] "I give service to you."

Somia'tant[t]u

[subject] [serve][you]

A.) Somteg. [som+teg; I + ] "I hurt."

Somteg would be "I am being hurt" (this is a sort of passive construct, since there is no active subject noun)
Somia'teg would be "I hurt [someone else]"

B.) Barukteg. [Baruk+teg; Baruk + ] "Baruk hurts."

Barukteg would be "Baruk is being hurt" (this is a sort of passive construct, since there is no active subject noun)
Barukia'teg wouild be "Baruk hurts [someone else]"

C.) Tuteg. [tu+teg; you + ] "You hurt."

Tuteg
Tuia'teg

D.) Somia'tuteg. [som+ia, tu+teg; I + , you + ] "I hurt you." (Or, "I caused you pain." "I inflicted pain on you.")

Verbs are both actions and experiences. Actions change the person that is doing them or experiencing them. The word for the action is attached to the noun or pronoun of the person acting or experiencing.

In this case, is attached to "you", indicating "you" is experiencing the pain. We indicate who is causing the pain with , which is attached to the person causing it. The clack (represented by an apostrophe) separates the two compound words.

E.) Barukia'tuteg. [Baruk+ia, tu+teg; Baruk + , you + ] "Baruk hurts you."

Same as D, but with a proper noun.

Using "ia" as a subject marker and attaching the verb to the object implies that the causation of an action is not the same as experiencing the consequence, but I'm not sure you are going to escape that problem because the reality is that causing pain to someone else is an experience for both, so it's probably better to just consider that implied, rather than attaching it explicitly to the subject or object.  That leaves you with a traditional subject, object, and verb structure.

Taking a look at how Japanese use "wa" and "ga" might be useful (see the earlier link to Japanese particles).

I understand each of those uses, they make sense to me. I know D and E may seem irregular, in the context of the language itself, but all languages have irregular aspects (irregular pluralization, declension, whatever.)

More seriously, this may break the general rule for how languages in general function. Again, you and John know far more about linguistics than I, and this may need more thinking out or may need adjusting. Let me know how I can clarify or fix the problem.

A lot depends on how much effort you want to put into this.  You are probably already putting more effort into it than the original creators of Torg did.  When it sounds good enough for you, it's probably good enough for your players unless you have a linguistics pedant among them or are intending to publish something.

[Daddy Warpig]

It would help to know which words are from the source material and thus you don't want to change.  Could you mark that somehow in your document?

Easily done. In fact, already done. I've gone ahead and italicized them in the document.

(I originally wrote this for other Torg fans, who were familiar with what words were canon and what ones I created. An oversight.)

The list is short: Takta Ker, Edeinos, Jakkat, Rek Stalek, Rek Pakken, Saar, Gotak, and Optant.

Everything else has either been reverse engineered by breaking down those words, and assigning meanings to pieces of them, or just coined by me. All grammatical matters are original to me.

There are many more names in the Living Land Sourcebook (such as Bor Aka and Udatok). Virtually none of them share common syllables with the words I've already reverse engineered. I can reverse-engineer those, but that's a much larger project than I can do right now.

Right now, I'm assuming the unknown syllables represent some of the 2000 or so common words I haven't identified (bone, feather, eat, etc.) So a particular creature—a giant spider–might be hairy+tree trunks+bite+venom. Or whatever suits.

(I'll reply to the rest of your suggestions when I've had time to read and digest them.)

[Daddy Warpig]

1.) Tantia [tant+ia; serve + ] "The tant is giving service."

(This is an indefinite subject, an implied "him" or "Baruk". In context, people will understand to whom you are referring.)

If "serve" is essentially the verb, then it shouldn't take the subject marker, so a normal sentence would look like:

The original idea, which may not work, is that Tant is a noun, "one who gives  charitable service to others."

"Ia" means , so attaching it to the noun makes it a verb.

Tantia is the verb form of tant, "giving charitable service to others" (maybe "performing charity" or "gives, giving").

So, one class of verbs is a series of nouns with the "ia" () indicator attached.

Saar = leader. Saaria = "leads" or "is leading".

Edei = Speaker (i.e. telepath). Edeia = "Speaks", or "is Speaking".

If I can keep this concept, while making the rest of the language coherent, I'd like to.

[salmelo]

As I've been looking over this thread I've had a couple of thoughts. I don't know how useful they'll be, but I thought I'd share them anyway.

First, I haven't any verbs that were not noun+ia. I was having a little trouble wrapping my head around this concept, and I wasn't sure why, but then I figured it out. That doesn't happen in English.

We don't have a noun to verb suffix. There is not, to my knowledge, any way to take a noun and make it a verb in the English language. On the other hand, a great many of our nouns are actually verbs with the er suffix.

The second thought came while I was puzzling over this difference. I think there's a reason why English doesn't turn nouns into verbs the way your doing here. It seems pretty obvious now that I think about it, but I never noticed it before now.

You can't have someone who does something unless you first have something for them to do. There can't be a runner if one cannot run. So, it doesn't make sense to describe run as "what a runner does". Yet, that seems to be exactly what your doing.

Now, I could be wrong of course. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting something. Or maybe I'm not and that's actually perfectly viable. Maybe there's even a real-world language that works that way.

But if I'm not, maybe that's why your having some trouble with passive phrasing and the like. How can you have a culture that centers around doing things, if they don't have any things to do (i.e. verbs)?

[1of3]

The original idea, which may not work, is that Tant is a noun, "one who gives  charitable service to others."
[...]
If I can keep this concept, while making the rest of the language coherent, I'd like to.

It seems like there are two vastly different ways to build sentences, as there are two different classes of content words. Those like tant and those like teg. Both - probably - can be used to build sentences.

The question is: Why are words that are rather similar (I serve you / I hurt you) so different?



It may happen, that those came to the language in different times. Maybe one of those classes was borrowed from another language. Still, I can see no reason why /ia/ would be working differently with both classes.

Assuming the teg construction was original, then speakers might have found it necessary to verbify the nouns of the tant variety they had borrowed. In that case, it's rather unlikely they would use ia because ia might be mistaken for the use in teg sentences.

Say, "I serve you, who causes pain".
somtantia'tuteg

Chaos ensues. That might also be: "I, who belong to the serving ones, cause you pain."

A similar problem occurs, if the teg class were borrowed but that's even more unlikely because you say they are clitics. (By the way, you need to explain how stress functions. Otherwise talking about clitics doesn't make sense.)



To keep it straight and simple: Shuffle all content words into the tant class. These words can function as nouns, verbs or adjectives as need be.
 
Treat ia as a subject marker, as John suggested, or tense marker, as I suggested, and you're fine.

[Daddy Warpig]

It seems like there are two vastly different ways to build sentences, as there are two different classes of content words.

Got it. That makes sense. As written, it seems like two different languages grafted together, which definitely isn't (and shouldn't be) the case. Clearly, one of them has to go.

Shuffle all content words into the tant class. These words can function as nouns, verbs or adjectives as need be.

How would you implement something like that?

[John Morrow]

Treat ia as a subject marker, as John suggested, or tense marker, as I suggested, and you're fine.

If you want freeform word order, you will still really need some sort of marker to differentiate your subject and object (one can be no marker but the other needs to be marked via ending or particle) even if you use the "ia" as a tense marker, which is also an option.  Basically, you need some way to consistently tell your subject, object, and verb apart.

[Daddy Warpig]

If you want freeform word order, you will still really need some sort of marker to differentiate your subject and object (one can be no marker but the other needs to be marked via ending or particle) even if you use the "ia" as a tense marker, which is also an option.  Basically, you need some way to consistently tell your subject, object, and verb apart.

What about pitch? Normal for verb, high for object, low for subject?

Edeinos have long noses, with elongated nasal cavities, that reverberate. They sound like horns, as in the "Ricola!!" commercial. (Not brass instruments, but classical horns. Like the shofar synagogues use.)

All of their speech is marked by the undertone of a wind instrument. In fact, most of their "singing" is just blowing tunes through their "horn".

Altering pitch is a trivial endeavor, and could signal when a word is being used differently.

(Assuming I can implement 1of3's "all words can be verbs or nouns, as the situation warrants" suggestion.)