Categorizing Etihus

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
Post Reply
User avatar
Sew'Kyetuh
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 07 Aug 2015, 23:08

Categorizing Etihus

Post by Sew'Kyetuh » Fri 14 Aug 2015, 19:35

I am trying my absolute best to describe and explain things with the least amount of ambiguity here, but somehow and somewhere things get lost in translation, usually from me missing such a tiny bit of information and suddenly a wave of assumptions spring up from the readers. This is my 6th-7th attempt, each time I think I find better ways to put forth the information.

Please help me. I am here to ask for help, and learn, not be belittled and ridiculed as stupid. I understand everything in this post might be exactly as I say it due the fact I am still learning. But this is not the first time I've tried. If you can't or don't wish to help, please simply mention so or do not comment.

This post looks long, but trust me, it needs to be. If you try responding without reading the whole thing, you might either get confused or angry for some reason.

OVERALL: I need help linguistically categorizing my conlang. All others before have failed, and there is debate about how to go about it. This includes professional linguists and those who are taking linguistic courses in college as a major for study.


CON-HISTORY: Etihus is a conlang used in my conworld Meer'Et, Etihus was a language specifically created for the various natives to use, spoken, written, and signed. It was designed to be universal, hard to evolve, and understood by all the caste-races and all the nations. So this means in Meer'Et, there is only one form of major communication based in Etihus. Some changes have occurred over its history, but the world technologically and socially developed quickly before entering a long period of static, like the dark ages.


ACTUAL HISTORY: I created Etihus before I knew some details about linguistics. My goal was to create a language a priori for my fantasy. I didn't know very much about other languages, but I knew enough that I hated English for being a pathetic method of human communication. So I built my conlang in ways to try and help fix some of these issues while borrowing some ideas from a very old conlang of mine.

So far, it had been very easy to explain and describe to people without linguistic background. I started studying linguistics early this year so that I could find languages similar to mine so that I could better explain it. It was too hard to do alone but I found conlanging, as a term and community for the first time. So I studied conlanging and looked at what others had made and I was amazed at how many people were making their conlangs so close to English. In fact, I began to think that Klingon, Quenya, and Dothraki were all heavily based on English.

Then I learned that I knew more about basic linguistics than I thought through my middle-high school education in English. I learned English as a language. It wasn't that these conlangs were strongly based in English, mine was just that alien! I had accidentally created a conlang alien from language itself instead of just my native natlang.

It became increasing difficult to find terminology to apply to my conlang. To those who know and study linguistics, it is an incredible battle that leaves everyone befuddled or astonished. After a few months of study, I finally found the first one: oligosynthetic. Since then I came across more but that hasn't made it easier.

[hr][/hr]

So, how hard can this be? Well, nobody can even figure out what morphosyntactic alignment it uses. Most people believe that MSA doesn't even apply to Etihus.

[hr][/hr]

My view on current linguistics:
Spoiler:
As a side-note, through conlanging and the time I put into trying to explain my conlang, I have come to seriously question linguistics as it is currently taught. I realize that language as a study is not just an observable science, it's an art. Language is something we build, construct, morph, mold, assemble, and disassemble. It has more in common with culinary arts and technology than it does history or math. But all linguistic study has a biased focus on natlangs. That said, I believe that current linguistics is inadequately and incorrectly describing the actual usage of [human] language.

If linguistics really has a handle on how human communication actually works, then new languages and conlangs that fit outside the spectrum of its function should be impossible.



FEATURES OF ETIHUS:

• Type of writing system: Semaphonetic* (see below)

• Writing direction: top to bottom in vertical lines left-to-right

• There is no use of consonants or vowels as a basis for the language

• "Pro-dropping" of verbs

• Oligosynthetic language – 60 root-morphemes

• More than 6 million possible words under 4 syllables

• Less than 10 grammar rules

• No nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, case, gender, etc. are distinguished

• The numeric system is not a base (base 10, base 12, etc.) and revolves around completely different principles

• Several words can be created that have no analogous meaning in English

• Easier and faster to learn, write, read, and understand than English

• No Passive Voice

• Grammatically the subject is always the agent

• Syntactic ambiguity is impossible

[hr][/hr]

[hr][/hr]

FUNCTIONALITY OF ETIHUS

Now for the hardest part and the latest attempt. I think the best way to start is to simply say that Etihus technically has no letters. That, I hope, helps clear up a lot of misunderstandings. Instead, it uses semaphonemes, a term I invented to help explain this conlang.

A semaphoneme is a unit of semantics that is collectively a sememe, phoneme, and grapheme. The conlang aUI by Dr. John W. Weilgart utilizes semaphonemes. A letter, free morpheme, and a grapheme all-in-one. This is what Etihus is built on, "letter-words".

Etihus does have an "alphabet" but it is not a true alphabet by linguistic definition. Instead the conlang organizes each of the 40 semaphonemes in an order from greatest to least, plus about 20 more affixes not part of the "alphabet".



The second part to Etihus is that it arranges information in an exact and linear fashion from the most important core followed by supporting descriptions. Morphology and syntax share the same rules in this regard. The concept of nouns, verbs, adjectives/adverbs, pronouns, all of that is thrown out. Words in Etihus do not have their part of speech attached. Any complications or ambiguity created by them are gone. By technicality, every word in Etihus is broken down into simply raw concepts.

Words are created by merging semaphonemes (So there is no CVC, CCV, etc. format, consonants and vowels aren't "used" and the speakers of the conlang would not know what a consonant or vowel was). Instead, there is complete freedom between the semaphonemes. Each semaphoneme can function as any part of speech in any part of a word. The main principle is that a semaphoneme following one will describe it, and the one following that will describe those two, etcetera ad infinitum.

I'll give an example using English only, just to explain the functionality:

If you write: house-big in Etihus, you are describing a house that is big since the concept of "big" follows "house". In Etihus grammar, you have only stated the existence of a single object (not an object and an adjective), a big house. But if you reversed it to big-house, now you are using "house" to describe the concept of "big". You have basically stated "big as a house". Now you have still only mentioned a single raw concept in Etihus, and you can use "big-house" as your subject and agent.

If you really wanted to attach linguistic terms, basically every word in Etihus is usually a "noun", but entire concepts, even arguments, can be completed using only a single word or word-phrase. Etihus does use the S-V-O layout in the event it needs to, but there is not always a verb or an object present, and what in English or most languages use the V and O can be completed in 'only' the S with Etihus.

The first word in every sentence is always the subject and agent. It is then followed by that which describes it. Action/performances by the S in this regard is married into the same category as adjectives and adverbs as descriptives. If you want to describe an action (verb) that the subject/agent is performing.

This was a list of sentences I was asked to translate. They do use very raw concepts (Etihus by its nature is a very exacting language, but these suffice for the notion being described)

Spoiler:
Image

"Why is zkhli-kye uncommon?"
-- "Zkhli-kye" is uncommon [in speech] because it can sound closely related to "zkhli kye", which means something different.

"Zkhli-kye" is spoken as if it were nearly one word, which describes the window's breakage as a passive sentence. But separating them without the hyphen, now you are describing the window is performing the act of breaking as an active sentence. Now it is possible to speak this separation in the form of a pause between words. It is acceptable in writing (because the space between the words is clear) but uncommon in speech as you can see.

"Sec" (meaning the/this/that) as a word is an exception of the directionality of descriptives and helps create specificity. By attaching another word to it, sec allows a changed shift in the flow of description. So by using "Sec-kye zkhli" you are describing the window's breakage.

"Why does zkhli-kye sound too much like zkhli kye, but cuffari-tikhm not too much like cuffari tikhm?"
-- The word tik means "down". So cuffari tik would be: "dog down" or "going down", essentially falling. Adding "hm" as a suffix turns tik into an active verb, describing the direction of down as a directional verb, "going down", essentially falling.

Cuffari tikhm as an active sentence with an active verb suffices, the dog is performing the action of moving in a downward direction.

Cuffari-tikhm as a passive sentence with an active verb inherently means the same thing, the dog is performing the act of moving downward upon itself... though it does open the door to specifying "the dog's fall" in a more complex sentence.

With added information, the two would split and the specifics would have to be worded differently. If we are talking about the dog being pushed and now falling or to describe the dog's fall, cuffari-tikhm would be the preference. As opposed to the dog ducking for cover after being shot at, cuffari tikhm would become the preference.
Last edited by Sew'Kyetuh on Fri 14 Aug 2015, 19:47, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by qwed117 » Fri 14 Aug 2015, 19:46

make the text smaller, I can barely read it.
First of all
MSA requires us to see at least two different sentences, a transitive sentence, and an intransitive sentence. Based on the current blather that you have posted, it just seems like you're bragging about Etihus.
So please post those sentences.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
Sew'Kyetuh
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 07 Aug 2015, 23:08

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by Sew'Kyetuh » Fri 14 Aug 2015, 19:49

qwed117 wrote:make the text smaller, I can barely read it.
First of all
MSA requires us to see at least two different sentences, a transitive sentence, and an intransitive sentence. Based on the current blather that you have posted, it just seems like you're bragging about Etihus.
So please post those sentences.
Sew'Kyetuh wrote: Please help me. I am here to ask for help, and learn, not be belittled and ridiculed as stupid. I understand everything in this post might be exactly as I say it due the fact I am still learning. But this is not the first time I've tried. If you can't or don't wish to help, please simply mention so or do not comment.

This post looks long, but trust me, it needs to be. If you try responding without reading the whole thing, you might either get confused or angry for some reason.
^ Exactly why I typed that.

And thanks for the warm welcome. I was asked to post information on my conlang.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by qwed117 » Fri 14 Aug 2015, 19:54

Based on the sentences you have given, it's nominative,
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
Sew'Kyetuh
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 07 Aug 2015, 23:08

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by Sew'Kyetuh » Fri 14 Aug 2015, 20:01

qwed117 wrote:Based on the sentences you have given, it's nominative,
Its not quite that simple. Most of the sentences I gave don't have any verbs.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by qwed117 » Fri 14 Aug 2015, 20:12

How would the statement "the men fixed the broken window" and "the broken window hurt the man's hand"
Also, are spaces interpreted as glottal stops?
Last edited by qwed117 on Sat 15 Aug 2015, 01:49, edited 2 times in total.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
alynnidalar
roman
roman
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun 17 Aug 2014, 02:22
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by alynnidalar » Fri 14 Aug 2015, 20:42

So OP and responders can avoid retreading the same ground fruitlessly, it might be helpful to link a previous thread about Etihus on CWS.

About halfway down there is a collection of translated sentences.

(I assume the basic principles of the language haven't changed since that thread, right? Don't want people to draw conclusions based on translations that are no longer accurate.)
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by qwed117 » Fri 14 Aug 2015, 22:17

Based on my current knowledge, it seems as if
Etihus is
  • oligosynthetic
  • Nominative-Accusative with no split
  • Hyperstrict-SVO
  • No animacy
  • Lacks positive copula
  • No double negatives
  • There are two types of verbs "hm" and empty.
    • It's essentially english regular verbs vs. irregular verbs
I want to know if you looked at the thread on glossing. If you glossed your phrases it would make more sense.
Spoiler:
Image
Last edited by qwed117 on Sat 15 Aug 2015, 01:47, edited 2 times in total.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5997
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 01:27

Actually, I don't really think this conlang is really that alien to human languages... I think and rather confident that alot of these features are already shared in other languages... maybe in ones we haven't discovered yet...
Last edited by Ahzoh on Sat 15 Aug 2015, 01:38, edited 3 times in total.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by qwed117 » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 01:29

Ahzoh wrote:Actually, I don't really think this conlang is really that alien to human languages...
At first, I was confused, it looked like someone tried making English grammar, without english words. His only problem is that he can't gloss his own words.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5997
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 01:32

qwed117 wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:Actually, I don't really think this conlang is really that alien to human languages...
At first, I was confused, it looked like someone tried making English grammar, without english words. His only problem is that he can't gloss his own words.
Glossing would help. I'm also skeptical that any language could function with less than 10 grammar rules... or I don't know what a "grammar rule" is in this context. Perhaps it is not related to the concept of syntax?

I'm also skeptical that it wouldn't have vowels or consonants... unless this language is only written and not spoken?
I hated English for being a pathetic method of human communication.
What many people new/not familiar to linguistics believe...
Last edited by Ahzoh on Sat 15 Aug 2015, 01:57, edited 7 times in total.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by elemtilas » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 01:49

qwed117 wrote:make the text smaller, I can barely read it.
First of all
MSA requires us to see at least two different sentences, a transitive sentence, and an intransitive sentence. Based on the current blather that you have posted, it just seems like you're bragging about Etihus.
So please post those sentences.
Easy tiger! Let's not chew the heads off the newcomers!

Why "blather"? I mean, apart from him perhaps not being aware of any better terminology to use in describing his conlang. I do agree, however, that there does seem to be a touch of the fanfarone -- the To those who know and study linguistics, it is an incredible battle that leaves everyone befuddled or astonished sort of language. That I can see, but perhaps this is more due to his admitted difficulties in describing what he's got more than trying to pull one over on everyone. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

Agree though: example sentences, well glossed etc., would be very helpful.

Definitions of the terms he has devised (semaphoneme, etc) would also be helpful.
Ahzoh wrote:Actually, I don't really think this conlang is really that alien to human languages... I'm think some of these features are already shared in other languages...
Agreed. It will probably end up being not all that alien, once its author comes to grip with it and we get a good description! But on the other hand, it does seem to have some unusual features -- these semaphonemes possibly; this one I want to know more about: The numeric system is not a base (base 10, base 12, etc.) and revolves around completely different principles (though I think our Mr Gorenc will be disappointed that we can not count to 10 in Etihus!!); this will also be interesting: Several words can be created that have no analogous meaning in English, as English itself is chock full of these kinds of words, plus I find these kinds of conlinguistical explorations and ruminations the most interesting of all aspects of lexicon building.

Agreed also about the vowel and consonant thing. Words are created by merging semaphonemes (So there is no CVC, CCV, etc. format, consonants and vowels aren't "used" and the speakers of the conlang would not know what a consonant or vowel was). This sounds perhaps more like an imperfect understanding of what they are -- after all, if this conlang's speakers practice oral language (have some way of creating meaningful sound waves by means of altering the flow of an airstream through some parts of their respiratory system) then, yes, they will have vowels and consonants. The rest of his description seems to indicate that they do in fact have them -- they just don't understand what they are. In all honesty, a three year old doesn't know what they are either, yet she can use them very effectively and properly!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by qwed117 » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 02:04

elemtilas wrote:
qwed117 wrote:make the text smaller, I can barely read it.
First of all
MSA requires us to see at least two different sentences, a transitive sentence, and an intransitive sentence. Based on the current blather that you have posted, it just seems like you're bragging about Etihus.
So please post those sentences.
Easy tiger! Let's not chew the heads off the newcomers!

Why "blather"? I mean, apart from him perhaps not being aware of any better terminology to use in describing his conlang. I do agree, however, that there does seem to be a touch of the fanfarone -- the To those who know and study linguistics, it is an incredible battle that leaves everyone befuddled or astonished sort of language. That I can see, but perhaps this is more due to his admitted difficulties in describing what he's got more than trying to pull one over on everyone. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

Agree though: example sentences, well glossed etc., would be very helpful.
This is roughly what I had to read. I like a steady size, not to heavily emphasized. This is a bit too much, especially when its the entire post; don't you agree? The emphasis is kinda unnecessary; if anything it backfired by me being unable to read it. We didn't get a phonology. Also this guy thinks vowels are "englishy". Pray tell me that that was only when you were 12. 'Cuz you look a great deal older than that.

This is what i'm referring to as blathering
Spoiler:
As a side-note, through conlanging and the time I put into trying to explain my conlang, I have come to seriously question linguistics as it is currently taught. I realize that language as a study is not just an observable science, it's an art. Language is something we build, construct, morph, mold, assemble, and disassemble. It has more in common with culinary arts and technology than it does history or math. But all linguistic study has a biased focus on natlangs. That said, I believe that current linguistics is inadequately and incorrectly describing the actual usage of [human] language.

If linguistics really has a handle on how human communication actually works, then new languages and conlangs that fit outside the spectrum of its function should be impossible.
First of all, your refusal to believe something doesn't make it any more false. Second, I'm chalking an awful lot of stuff to mistakes. Is "lobo" the same as "loba"? Do they have different contexts?
Last edited by qwed117 on Sat 15 Aug 2015, 02:17, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by elemtilas » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 02:17

qwed117 wrote:This is roughly what I had to read. I like a steady size, not to heavily emphasized. This is a bit too much, especially when its the entire post; don't you agree? The emphasis is kinda unnecessary; if anything it backfired by me being unable to read it. We didn't get a phonology. Also this guy thinks vowels are "englishy". Pray tell me that that was only when you were 12. 'Cuz you look a great deal older than that.
Honestly, didn't faze me at all. For me anyway, there were nowhere near enough gratuitous italics to cause any issue in that direction. The letters didn't appear to be overlarge either...

Yes, we didn't get a phonology -- but there are many other things we didn't get yet either. This is also his first post on the description of the conlang, combined with a heartfelt cry for help with describing it! Hopefully that will come about by and by. And hopefully we can offer more help than untimely criticism. You may yet be proven right, but let's at least try to understand what's going on here first!
This is what i'm referring to as blathering
Spoiler:
As a side-note, through conlanging and the time I put into trying to explain my conlang, I have come to seriously question linguistics as it is currently taught. I realize that language as a study is not just an observable science, it's an art. Language is something we build, construct, morph, mold, assemble, and disassemble. It has more in common with culinary arts and technology than it does history or math. But all linguistic study has a biased focus on natlangs. That said, I believe that current linguistics is inadequately and incorrectly describing the actual usage of [human] language.

If linguistics really has a handle on how human communication actually works, then new languages and conlangs that fit outside the spectrum of its function should be impossible.
Yes, this is perhaps a bit over the top! I would rather ask for an in depth explanation / defense of the allegations before charging him with the terrible crime of blathphemy, however!!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by qwed117 » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 02:29

elemtilas wrote:though I think our Mr Gorenc will be disappointed that we can not count to 10 in Etihus!!
I for some reason find this hilarious. And mildly saddening.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by elemtilas » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 02:31

qwed117 wrote:
elemtilas wrote:though I think our Mr Gorenc will be disappointed that we can not count to 10 in Etihus!!
I for some reason find this hilarious. And mildly saddening.
[:'(] [:'(] [:'(]

He will just have to start up a collection of conlangs that can't be counted to ten in! [o.O] [O.o] [O.O]


Hmmmm...

Surely there's some remote island in every otherworld's vast Ocean where people have been isolated for something like thirty thousand years and have evolved curious & neurotic tabus concerning the numbers 3, 8 and 10. And the letter W...
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Trailsend
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2010, 04:22

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by Trailsend » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 03:14

Hello Sew'Kyetuh! Welcome to the board.

I'm going to dig in here a little and see if I can lend any insight. Before I do, I want to mention a few things that will lend clarity to the discussion.

The methodology I'll be using is descriptive. A descriptive analysis of a language is fundamentally based on the language's behavior. That is, you take a whole bunch of data—examples of things you can say in certain situations, things that you can't say in certain situations, things that you can't say in any situation, etc.—and then you try to find the simplest, most-useful framework that describes how the language works.

This means that all the claims I make about the language have to be based on an observation about the data, and not intuitions, or presupposed principles, or literal translations, etc. Because of this, if you think any parts of my analysis are inaccurate, the most useful thing you can do is provide more data—examples that don't fit the analysis. I'll help where I can by mentioning what sorts of examples would serve to corroborate or invalidate parts of the analysis, but feel free to ask about any parts I miss.

In general, the idea is to just let the language do its thing, and then find the most useful way to talk about what it's doing.

Let's begin!

1. Syh kye sgh.
The girl hit the boy.

2. Sgh kye syh.
The boy hit the girl.

These two sentences almost certainly show that word order is the mechanism for distinguishing agents (who does the verb) from patients (who gets verbed). We know that, in (1), it was the girl doing the hitting (and not the other way around) because syh comes before kye, and sgh comes afterward.

This supports what you said about Etihus having SVO basic word order.

To start picking at morphosyntactic alignment, we'll need to look at sentences that involve fewer participants, like this one:

3. Cuffari tikhm.
The dog ducked.

In this sentence there is only one participant (the dog), whereas in (1) and (2) there were two participants (the boy and girl). Interestingly, in this sentence cuffari is handled the same way that syh was in (1), and sgh was in (2)—it gets placed before the verb, not after.

My first question: Would the following sentence be grammatical, or ungrammatical? ("Grammatical" means that to an Etihus speaker, the statement would sound correct and natural, whereas an "ungrammatical" sentence sounds incorrect, "funny". I saw him at the bus stop is a grammatical statement in English, but Me saw he at the bus stop is ungrammatical.) If it is grammatical, does it mean the same thing as (3), or something else?

4_. Tikhm cuffari.
???

(Note: I've put a _ after the number 4 to indicate that I'm not sure yet whether the sentence is grammatical or not. I'll fill in the blank once we find out—ungrammatical sentences will get marked with an asterisk *.)
任何事物的发展都是物极必反,否极泰来。
cntrational
roman
roman
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon 05 Nov 2012, 03:59

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by cntrational » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 07:37

[Linguistics] has more in common with culinary arts and technology than it does history or math.
So I can create delicious masterpieces and advanced technology without actually learning cooking or engineering?

Brilliant!
HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sat 16 May 2015, 17:48

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by HoskhMatriarch » Sat 15 Aug 2015, 20:48

Please discuss your language more. I find it interesting to read about. I also think it's quite a bit like English. For example, the the adjectives and order:

cold ice: ice that is cold
icecold: cold as ice

Also, how do people differentiate the passive voice and active voice hyphen thing in speech? No language is written before it's spoken, and many languages aren't written at all.

I'd really like to see the phonology too. I'm guessing it has a glottal stop from your videos, but I'd still like an inventory of the rest of the sounds in the language to see how they're different from English and what processes apply to them. I'm guessing the glottal stop is the only thing different from English and there isn't even an [x] or anything.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
User avatar
Sew'Kyetuh
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 07 Aug 2015, 23:08

Re: Categorizing Etihus

Post by Sew'Kyetuh » Sun 16 Aug 2015, 18:55

Mr. Gorenc was the one who invited me here. After we got over the language barrier, he was rather astonished to have found that I created an entirely new counting system and invited me to come here to explain it and my conlang to you.
Post Reply