Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: So, about Ithkuil...

Expand Messages
  • MorphemeAddict
    ... the raw material that makes one advanced or not. Anybody can be trained to some degree. stevo --John Q
    Message 1 of 43 , Jan 20, 2013
      On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:44 AM, John Q <Jquijada21@...> wrote:

      > >> It took me about fifteen minutes to piece together the above Ithkuil
      > >> word after first thinking about the "scene" I wanted to describe. A
      > >> "100% fluent" speaker (e.g., the hypothetical sports announcer)
      > >> would, in theory, be able to come up with such a word ON THE SPOT.
      > >> It is THAT level of fluency which Ithkuil potentially allows, and it
      > >> is THAT level of fluency which I now believe is unattainable.
      > >It saddens me a bit to read this. Do you have solid evidence for your
      > >belief or is it more of an intuitive guess? Surely, you understand the
      > >complexity of Ithkuil the best, but I don't want to easily give up my
      > >hopes that "THAT level of fluency" is attainable. Why do you think it's
      > >impossible?
      > ____________________________________
      > Admittedly an intuitive guess. I doubt such a level of fluency is
      > possible because, being aware of how much mental effort I have to make
      > during the fifteen or so minutes to decompose the semantic elements of a
      > scene like my football example and then tediously map them one by one to
      > the overt components of Ithkuil morphology (including choosing which
      > lexical roots to use, which stems from those roots, which derivation all
      > affixes to employ, and then determine which of the myriad declensions of
      > the 22 mandatory morphological categories for each verb is appropriate,
      > then string it all together morpho-syntactically into a word or phrase or
      > sentence, well...to expect a human being to be able to do that on the fly
      > in a couple of seconds like the hypothetical sports announcer in my example
      > seems like a super-human feat to me. Perhaps, as Stevo says, an advanced
      > human like a trained psychoneticist perhaps could do it. ;-)
      > I don't think a trained psychoneticist would be an advanced human. It's
      the raw material that makes one advanced or not. Anybody can be trained to
      some degree.


      --John Q
    • selpa'i
      I just tried to construct my first Ithkuil sentence ever. I love you. First, I picked the root -Ž- ‘LOVE/AFFECTION/EMOTIONAL BOND’. I chose the stative
      Message 43 of 43 , Jan 23, 2013
        I just tried to construct my first Ithkuil sentence ever.

        "I love you."

        First, I picked the root -Ž- ‘LOVE/AFFECTION/EMOTIONAL BOND’. I chose
        the stative function and stem 1 of pattern 1 because this seems to give
        the most neutral sense of the verb.

        The stem then is: a- + -ž- -> až-

        The mood is factual and the illocution assertive, which would give -wë-,
        but it can be omitted here.

        Apparently, verbs are supposed to have case, too, but I cannot see how
        or which one. Section 5.2 is supposed to explain this, but I can't seem
        to find the actual explanation. Therefore, I just picked the oblique
        case (-a).

        For the Ca slot I picked the -l affix from the huge table (one of the
        two monster tables, the other one being Table 11 for the Cv infixes).


        The word should have penultimate stress (informal designation) and
        falling tone (processual version).

        Next, the "I". The root here is -t-, and the case should be the
        affective case, which has the value -i-, thus "ti".

        As for "you", the root I think is -k-. Using the oblique case, it
        becomes "ka".

        (I know the two "pronouns" can be turned into one, but I'm already
        confused enough to try this :) )

        So now my guess for the final sentence is:

        Ažal ti ka.

        (And just for practice, I think "ažal" would be "ažawël" if I hadn't
        elided the mood/illocution infix)

        The sentence is extremely short, but it took me quite long (and who
        knows how many mistakes I made). Of course I have not memorized anything
        yet, and I'm still getting accustomed to the layout of the grammar page,
        so maneuvering is still slow and cumbersome.

        The semantics of the different stem patterns are still a bit mysterious
        to me. It seems there is no universal rule by which to infer the meaning
        of any root + any stem. Rather, there are a gazillion patterns and each
        root yields stems according to one of those patterns (e.g. the root for
        SQUIRREL follows the same pattern as the one for MAMMAL, and CURIOSITY
        follows EXPERIENCE). So it's not *quite* as random as it first appeared,
        but it still requires a huge amount of (tedious?) memorization. I cannot
        make a predication at this point as to how difficult it will be.

        I have now ordered the print version of the grammar and hope it will
        arrive in around 10 days. Can't wait!

        mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.