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

Re: Conlang Profanity

Expand Messages
  • Tony Harris
    I believe there is actually a book, available in eBook form and possibly free online, about tabuaj vortoj in Esperanto, which would include all about how to
    Message 1 of 24 , Jul 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I believe there is actually a book, available in eBook form and possibly
      free online, about "tabuaj vortoj" in Esperanto, which would include all
      about how to curse. I'm away from home at the moment, but if you can't
      find it easily I can see what I can dig up.

      I'd have to make a list of Alurhsa profanity, but the ones that come to
      mind off the top of my head are:

      keçlá - f'ing, an adjective used to indicate extreme disgust and anger
      with something. Probably related to keçë (bastard, a child born out of
      wedlock).

      rïshád - bullsh*t, litterally "master of nonsense"

      You can also throw the suffix -ágh (which draws the stress to itself) on
      the end which is an extremely insulting depeciative. So "rïshádágh"
      works out to "f'ing BS". -ágh is usable on almost any word if you want
      to make your displeasure/disgust known.

      Then there is actually an insulting, or depreciative 2nd person pronoun
      and person form of the verb, so you can for example say something like
      "äçán!" (from the verb äçâ, to depart, leave, go away, get out) which
      would have the effect of something like "get the f' out of here!".


      On 07/28/2013 09:56 PM, Don Boozer wrote:
      > I'm writing a review of Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa
      > Mohr (published by Oxford Univ Press, 2013) for Fiat Lingua (
      > http://fiatlingua.org). However, as part of that review I'm planning on
      > looking at it's implications and uses for constructing languages, worlds,
      > and cultures. And, as part of that, swearing in existing conlangs (both
      > well known (e.g., Esperanto, Dothraki) and personal ones).
      >
      > With that, if anyone would like to share any profanity, vulgarisms, "vain
      > oaths", etc., that they have included in their conlangs or con-cultures, I
      > would be happy to hear about them. If anyone is familiar with Esperanto
      > swearing, that would be interesting as well. I've dug around on the web and
      > on the Conlang-L archives, but it doesn't appear there is an overabundance
      > of people willing to talk about this area of conlanging (or at least hasn't
      > been for a few years).
      >
      > The article is due on Fiat Lingua for Sept. 1.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Don Boozer
    • Emanuelo Arbaro
      ... Yes, I have it : http://emmanuel-wald.pagesperso-orange.fr/interlinguistique/Tabuaj_vortoj_en_Esperanto.doc . I donÆt know if you can read Esperanto; if
      Message 2 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Le 28/07/2013 22:56, Don Boozer a écrit :
        > If anyone is familiar with Esperanto
        > swearing, that would be interesting as well.

        Le 29/07/2013 08:50, Tony Harris a écrit :
        > I believe there is actually a book, available in eBook form and
        > possibly free online, about "tabuaj vortoj" in Esperanto, which would
        > include all about how to curse. I'm away from home at the moment, but
        > if you can't find it easily I can see what I can dig up.

        Yes, I have it :
        http://emmanuel-wald.pagesperso-orange.fr/interlinguistique/Tabuaj_vortoj_en_Esperanto.doc
        . I don’t know if you can read Esperanto; if you can’t, I can make a
        summary for you.

        Emanuelo.
      • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
        ... This Wikipedia article about Esperanto profanity is actually quite good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_profanity In Moten, I haven t built much
        Message 3 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On 28 July 2013 22:56, Don Boozer <librarian.don@...> wrote:

          > I'm writing a review of Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa
          > Mohr (published by Oxford Univ Press, 2013) for Fiat Lingua (
          > http://fiatlingua.org). However, as part of that review I'm planning on
          > looking at it's implications and uses for constructing languages, worlds,
          > and cultures. And, as part of that, swearing in existing conlangs (both
          > well known (e.g., Esperanto, Dothraki) and personal ones).
          >
          > With that, if anyone would like to share any profanity, vulgarisms, "vain
          > oaths", etc., that they have included in their conlangs or con-cultures, I
          > would be happy to hear about them. If anyone is familiar with Esperanto
          > swearing, that would be interesting as well. I've dug around on the web and
          > on the Conlang-L archives, but it doesn't appear there is an overabundance
          > of people willing to talk about this area of conlanging (or at least hasn't
          > been for a few years).
          >
          >
          This Wikipedia article about Esperanto profanity is actually quite good:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_profanity

          In Moten, I haven't built much profanity yet (it's a difficult area to
          develop and I'm not even sure what is considered profanity in Moten). I do
          have a few words though:
          - _dloamas_ and _dloazes_, both based on _dloa_: "pear", with the masculine
          and feminine diminutive suffixes _-mas_ and _-zes_. They both basically
          mean "fatso" (i.e. pear-shaped), respectively for men and women;
          - _kamas_, from _ka|se_: "man" and the masculine diminutive suffix _-mas_
          again, is a disparaging term of address towards men. The feminine
          equivalent is _ezes_ (from _e|lon_: "woman" and _-zes_).

          I don't have anything else yet, and have no idea what expletives even look
          like in Moten. I do know, however, that the diminutives are commonly used
          to indicate distaste or contempt (basically a sarcastic use of their
          meaning of endearment).
          --
          Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

          http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
          http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
        • Allison Swenson
          This is something I keep meaning to devote a day or two to in Tirina, but haven t yet. So I ve really only got a couple that I know of... one proper profanity
          Message 4 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            This is something I keep meaning to devote a day or two to in Tirina, but
            haven't yet. So I've really only got a couple that I know of... one proper
            profanity and one that's just horribly insulting.

            tensad - I'm not solid on the exact meaning, but in context it's used as a
            pretty direct equivalent of f***ing (as an adjective). The literal meaning
            is most likely something similar as well. Pretty standard. :)

            satoda - lit. "liar". In this culture, being "truthful" is extremely
            important. (for certain values of "truthfulness", anyway) You can deceive,
            you can mislead, you can misdirect, but you *never* speak a direct lie.
            That's just... not done. So to accuse someone of being a liar, of telling a
            deliberate and intentional untruth, that's a deathly insult.

            sator - lie or falsehood--"satoda" is derived from this. Accusing someone's
            speech of having satormir in is slightly less horrific than outright
            calling them a liar, but not really much better. Even using a term like
            "ton sader" (lit. "not true") is pretty harsh. What you actually do is say
            that a statement is a "ton idcas"--"not a certainty". It's allowing for an
            amount of hedging, basically saying "Of course I'm sure that any falsehood
            in what you said was clearly a complete accident and you would never think
            of telling untruths, but there is a slight possibility that something in
            what you said might not directly align with reality..."

            Which is in itself a somewhat untrue statement, as obviously you think
            they're a lying liar who lies, but so goes it.


            On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
            tsela.cg@...> wrote:

            > On 28 July 2013 22:56, Don Boozer <librarian.don@...> wrote:
            >
            > > I'm writing a review of Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa
            > > Mohr (published by Oxford Univ Press, 2013) for Fiat Lingua (
            > > http://fiatlingua.org). However, as part of that review I'm planning on
            > > looking at it's implications and uses for constructing languages, worlds,
            > > and cultures. And, as part of that, swearing in existing conlangs (both
            > > well known (e.g., Esperanto, Dothraki) and personal ones).
            > >
            > > With that, if anyone would like to share any profanity, vulgarisms, "vain
            > > oaths", etc., that they have included in their conlangs or con-cultures,
            > I
            > > would be happy to hear about them. If anyone is familiar with Esperanto
            > > swearing, that would be interesting as well. I've dug around on the web
            > and
            > > on the Conlang-L archives, but it doesn't appear there is an
            > overabundance
            > > of people willing to talk about this area of conlanging (or at least
            > hasn't
            > > been for a few years).
            > >
            > >
            > This Wikipedia article about Esperanto profanity is actually quite good:
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_profanity
            >
            > In Moten, I haven't built much profanity yet (it's a difficult area to
            > develop and I'm not even sure what is considered profanity in Moten). I do
            > have a few words though:
            > - _dloamas_ and _dloazes_, both based on _dloa_: "pear", with the masculine
            > and feminine diminutive suffixes _-mas_ and _-zes_. They both basically
            > mean "fatso" (i.e. pear-shaped), respectively for men and women;
            > - _kamas_, from _ka|se_: "man" and the masculine diminutive suffix _-mas_
            > again, is a disparaging term of address towards men. The feminine
            > equivalent is _ezes_ (from _e|lon_: "woman" and _-zes_).
            >
            > I don't have anything else yet, and have no idea what expletives even look
            > like in Moten. I do know, however, that the diminutives are commonly used
            > to indicate distaste or contempt (basically a sarcastic use of their
            > meaning of endearment).
            > --
            > Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
            >
            > http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
            > http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
            >
          • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
            ... Interestingly, Moten speakers seem to have a similar way of thinking about lying and calling others on it. Basically, in Moten one will never say to
            Message 5 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On 29 July 2013 14:30, Allison Swenson <jlona42@...> wrote:

              >
              > satoda - lit. "liar". In this culture, being "truthful" is extremely
              > important. (for certain values of "truthfulness", anyway) You can deceive,
              > you can mislead, you can misdirect, but you *never* speak a direct lie.
              > That's just... not done. So to accuse someone of being a liar, of telling a
              > deliberate and intentional untruth, that's a deathly insult.
              >
              > sator - lie or falsehood--"satoda" is derived from this. Accusing someone's
              > speech of having satormir in is slightly less horrific than outright
              > calling them a liar, but not really much better. Even using a term like
              > "ton sader" (lit. "not true") is pretty harsh. What you actually do is say
              > that a statement is a "ton idcas"--"not a certainty". It's allowing for an
              > amount of hedging, basically saying "Of course I'm sure that any falsehood
              > in what you said was clearly a complete accident and you would never think
              > of telling untruths, but there is a slight possibility that something in
              > what you said might not directly align with reality..."
              >
              > Which is in itself a somewhat untrue statement, as obviously you think
              > they're a lying liar who lies, but so goes it.
              >
              >
              >
              Interestingly, Moten speakers seem to have a similar way of thinking about
              lying and calling others on it. Basically, in Moten one will never say to
              someone else that they are lying, or that what they said is a falsehood
              (_luma_ in Moten). Rather, they will say that what someone said is
              different (_imungi_, which literally means "to differ"), or will even
              simply disagree with them (_i|sigaj_, which happens to literally mean "to
              differ" as well, but is somewhat different from _imungi_ when the subject
              is animate). The last one will usually be preferred, as making statements
              about oneself is considered much more defensible than making statements
              about others, although the first one is also a common way to reply "no" in
              Moten (and is softer than actually saying "no").
              The opposite is also true, by the way: in Moten, one does not say that
              someone else is speaking the truth (_isis_). Rather, one simply agrees with
              them (_sujedezun agem_, literally "to have the agreement"). Here again, the
              idea is to make the statement about oneself, rather than about others.
              --
              Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

              http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
              http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
            • H. S. Teoh
              On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 07:40:17PM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote: [...] ... [...] In my alien conlang, it s considered deeply insulting to say that someone has
              Message 6 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 07:40:17PM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
                [...]
                > Not a vulgarism by any stretch, but it is considered slightly
                > insulting to call one of the blaowmen "suuart" (swarthy, black), or
                > blaqe (dark black). Their skins are a bluish-black (i.e., blaowe). For
                > what it's worth, it's also slightly insulting to call one of the
                > blaqmen "blancke" (pure white, very pale). That word is reserved for
                > the local Daine, who are quite pale. And yeah, that wasn't a typo:
                > blaqe means both "black" and "white".
                [...]

                In my alien conlang, it's considered deeply insulting to say that
                someone has more than one eye (they are a 1-eyed species). Due to the
                way the grammar works, there are no standalone pronouns, only
                periphrases involving the word _buf_ "body", or other body-part words;
                so the following statement is considered especially insulting since it
                implies some sort of horrific aberration of the body:

                buftek mo'ipfi
                buf-tek mo-ipf-i
                body-2SG.POSS multi-eye-ATTR
                You're a monster! (Lit. your body [i.e. you] is many-eyed!)

                Of course, _mo'ipf_ itself means "monster" (lit. many-eyes), and is used
                pejoratively to refer to any alien (to them) species.

                Other pejoratives include _hraglett_ [xR\V'glETt] "3-jointed", referring
                to species like humans whose knee-joints bend forwards, a very grotesque
                sight to them, whose knee-joints bend backwards.

                Besides pejoratives, other oaths include threatening to grab someone's
                eye/eyestalk (their single eye is mounted on a long, delicate eyestalk
                that extends from their tailbone curving up above their spherical body):

                gruŋgemi ipfteku
                gruŋ-en-mi ipf-tek-u
                hands-1SG.POSS-V eye-2SG.POSS-PAT
                I'll kill you! (Lit. I'll grab your eye(stalk)!)


                T

                --
                The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body. This means that only left-handed people are in their right mind. -- Manoj Srivastava
              • Adam Walker
                One in Gravgaln translates as aesthenia. Also anything to do with suicide. In B-G-2-3 there is one that translates to Dark of night and a gap in the floor.
                Message 7 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  One in Gravgaln translates as aesthenia. Also anything to do with suicide.

                  In B-G-2-3 there is one that translates to "Dark of night and a gap in the
                  floor."

                  Trealkairni uses "Mother's name" as an oath, and kival which is a sort of
                  pig-like animal as an insult.

                  Alalliawulian uses "individual" as a rather nasty insult.


                  On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Don Boozer <librarian.don@...> wrote:

                  > I'm writing a review of Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa
                  > Mohr (published by Oxford Univ Press, 2013) for Fiat Lingua (
                  > http://fiatlingua.org). However, as part of that review I'm planning on
                  > looking at it's implications and uses for constructing languages, worlds,
                  > and cultures. And, as part of that, swearing in existing conlangs (both
                  > well known (e.g., Esperanto, Dothraki) and personal ones).
                  >
                  > With that, if anyone would like to share any profanity, vulgarisms, "vain
                  > oaths", etc., that they have included in their conlangs or con-cultures, I
                  > would be happy to hear about them. If anyone is familiar with Esperanto
                  > swearing, that would be interesting as well. I've dug around on the web and
                  > on the Conlang-L archives, but it doesn't appear there is an overabundance
                  > of people willing to talk about this area of conlanging (or at least hasn't
                  > been for a few years).
                  >
                  > The article is due on Fiat Lingua for Sept. 1.
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  > Don Boozer
                  >
                • Douglas Koller
                  ... Shades of $B0c$&(B, perhaps? Kou
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:18:28 +0200
                    > From: tsela.cg@...
                    > Subject: Re: Conlang Profanity
                    > To: CONLANG@...

                    > Interestingly, Moten speakers seem to have a similar way of thinking about
                    > lying and calling others on it. Basically, in Moten one will never say to
                    > someone else that they are lying, or that what they said is a falsehood
                    > (_luma_ in Moten). Rather, they will say that what someone said is
                    > different (_imungi_, which literally means "to differ"), or will even
                    > simply disagree with them (_i|sigaj_, which happens to literally mean "to
                    > differ" as well, but is somewhat different from _imungi_ when the subject
                    > is animate). The last one will usually be preferred, as making statements
                    > about oneself is considered much more defensible than making statements
                    > about others, although the first one is also a common way to reply "no" in
                    > Moten (and is softer than actually saying "no").

                    Shades of 違う, perhaps?

                    Kou
                  • Garth Wallace
                    On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Douglas Koller ... Just what I was thinking.
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Douglas Koller
                      <douglaskoller@...> wrote:
                      >> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:18:28 +0200
                      >> From: tsela.cg@...
                      >> Subject: Re: Conlang Profanity
                      >> To: CONLANG@...
                      >
                      >> Interestingly, Moten speakers seem to have a similar way of thinking about
                      >> lying and calling others on it. Basically, in Moten one will never say to
                      >> someone else that they are lying, or that what they said is a falsehood
                      >> (_luma_ in Moten). Rather, they will say that what someone said is
                      >> different (_imungi_, which literally means "to differ"), or will even
                      >> simply disagree with them (_i|sigaj_, which happens to literally mean "to
                      >> differ" as well, but is somewhat different from _imungi_ when the subject
                      >> is animate). The last one will usually be preferred, as making statements
                      >> about oneself is considered much more defensible than making statements
                      >> about others, although the first one is also a common way to reply "no" in
                      >> Moten (and is softer than actually saying "no").
                      >
                      > Shades of 違う, perhaps?

                      Just what I was thinking.
                    • Roger Mills
                      From: Douglas Koller (Christophe) ... Shades of 違う, perhaps? And shades of Malay/Indonesian _kurang_ less as a softener of
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From: Douglas Koller <douglaskoller@...>



                        (Christophe)
                        > Interestingly, Moten speakers seem to have a similar way of thinking about
                        > lying and calling others on it. Basically, in Moten one will never say to
                        > someone else that they are lying, or that what they said is a falsehood
                        > (_luma_ in Moten). Rather, they will say that what someone said is
                        > different (_imungi_, which literally means "to differ"), or will even
                        > simply disagree with them (_i|sigaj_, which happens to literally mean "to
                        > differ" as well, but is somewhat different from _imungi_ when the subject
                        > is animate). The last one will usually be preferred, as making statements
                        > about oneself is considered much more defensible than making statements
                        > about others, although the first one is also a common way to reply "no" in
                        > Moten (and is softer than actually saying "no").

                        Shades of 違う, perhaps?

                        And shades of Malay/Indonesian _kurang_ 'less' as a softener of negatives-- kurang enak 'not very tasty', kurang tahu 'I don't know" in lieu of tidak.... which is considered too blunt. Same with _belum_ 'not yet' in certain cases-- belum pernah lit. not yet ever for 'never', softer that tidak pernah.

                        Kash does this to some extent, but a smart telepath can always ferret out the real thought behind e.g. kundak uñat 'not very tasty' when you're actually thinking 'that was disgusting food!!'
                      • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                        ... Damn! I ve been exposed! ;) Seriously, yes, 違う was the main inspiration :) . The main difference is that the two verbs that somewhat relate to it:
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 29 July 2013 17:48, Douglas Koller <douglaskoller@...> wrote:

                          > Shades of 違う, perhaps?
                          >
                          > Kou
                          >

                          On 29 July 2013 18:27, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:

                          > >
                          > > Shades of 違う, perhaps?
                          >
                          > Just what I was thinking.
                          >

                          Damn! I've been exposed! ;) Seriously, yes, 違う was the main inspiration :)
                          . The main difference is that the two verbs that somewhat relate to it:
                          _imungi_ and _i|sigaj_, behave somewhat differently from 違う, especially
                          with an animate subject. With an inanimate subject, both mean "to differ,
                          to be different". _Imungi_ adds the shade "wrong, incorrect" or
                          "unexpected" to that, while _i|sigaj_ marks plain difference. With an
                          animate subject, _imungi_ indicates that the person in question is not the
                          right one (i.e. wrong for the job, or not the person one was expecting),
                          while _i|sigaj_ takes on the meaning "to disagree" (a bit like "to differ"
                          can do as well).

                          The interesting thing, to me, is that you can never say that a person "is
                          wrong" in the sense that it usually has in English. The closest is to
                          disagree with that person, or say that their statement is incorrect, which
                          is OK in familiar settings, but a bit brusque in formal ones (although less
                          brusque than simply saying "no").

                          By the way, in Moten there are three ways of saying "no". One is to use _mu
                          ito/ige_ (depending on the verb used before). It then means "no, it isn't",
                          or something similar, but with the same underlying meaning of _imungi_,
                          i.e. that an alternative is correct. It's considered slightly coarser than
                          using _imungi_. The second way is to use _mu_ as an interjection. It then
                          means "no way", but again with the same underlying meaning of difference.
                          It's basically more emphatic than using _mu_ with a verb. Finally, the last
                          way is to use _us ito/ige_. _Us_ is another negative particle, but unlike
                          _mu_ it cannot be used as an interjection. _Us_ is the strongest particle
                          one can use to disagree with something or someone, as it basically mean:
                          "the statement is false". It's very emphatic when used to negate statements
                          made by others, and thus seen as rude in that context. It doesn't have this
                          connotation of rudeness when used with one's own statements at all though.
                          In that case it's just a strong negative particle that indicates that the
                          statement is logically false, rather than indicate that an alternative is
                          correct, like _mu_ (they also have different scopes).

                          All in all, negation in Moten is, let's just say complicated :P .
                          --
                          Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

                          http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
                          http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
                        • Mechthild Czapp
                          Rejistanis love to curse with terms like Itva and Slani (both mean failure, but slani is considered worse), selme (debts or indebted, because Rejistania had a
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jul 29, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Rejistanis love to curse with terms like Itva and Slani (both mean failure, but slani is considered worse), selme (debts or indebted, because Rejistania had a history of debt slavery). Rejistanian culture is rather communal so approval within a community is important. Rejistanian curses often imply that this is no longer the case. There is also the deprecative prefix mer whose history is still unclear.

                            Am 28.07.2013 um 21:56 schrieb Don Boozer <librarian.don@...>:

                            > I'm writing a review of Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa
                            > Mohr (published by Oxford Univ Press, 2013) for Fiat Lingua (
                            > http://fiatlingua.org). However, as part of that review I'm planning on
                            > looking at it's implications and uses for constructing languages, worlds,
                            > and cultures. And, as part of that, swearing in existing conlangs (both
                            > well known (e.g., Esperanto, Dothraki) and personal ones).
                            >
                            > With that, if anyone would like to share any profanity, vulgarisms, "vain
                            > oaths", etc., that they have included in their conlangs or con-cultures, I
                            > would be happy to hear about them. If anyone is familiar with Esperanto
                            > swearing, that would be interesting as well. I've dug around on the web and
                            > on the Conlang-L archives, but it doesn't appear there is an overabundance
                            > of people willing to talk about this area of conlanging (or at least hasn't
                            > been for a few years).
                            >
                            > The article is due on Fiat Lingua for Sept. 1.
                            >
                            > Thanks,
                            > Don Boozer
                          • C. Brickner
                            ... I m writing a review of Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa Mohr (published by Oxford Univ Press, 2013) for Fiat Lingua (
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jul 30, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              I'm writing a review of Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa
                              Mohr (published by Oxford Univ Press, 2013) for Fiat Lingua (
                              http://fiatlingua.org). However, as part of that review I'm planning on
                              looking at it's implications and uses for constructing languages, worlds,
                              and cultures. And, as part of that, swearing in existing conlangs (both
                              well known (e.g., Esperanto, Dothraki) and personal ones).

                              =======================

                              The Sefdaanians do not use natural events (body functions, body parts) for their profanities. Instead, they use what is unnatural or illegal.
                              On the lowest level might be the command form. There is an imperative mood, but it is used only by parents to children, between friends and in praying. Otherwise the subjunctive is used, e.g., sêde, sit! vs. sêdo, please sit down/won’t you have a seat.
                              Adultery, while not illegal, is frowned upon. So a woman might be called an adulteress, ‘ɱêdam lîðus’ (lit., marriage violator). Of course, if you’re calling someone an adulteress (or adulterer!), it would be in the vocative case, ‘ɱêdam liðû’.
                              Illegitimate birth is viewed unfavorably, so one can call another a bastard, ‘noîɱus’ (< n + oîɱis; not + legal); in the vocative ‘noiɱû’.
                              Cêļus is the name of the sundered archimage who brought disobedience into the world. Thus, an insult would be ‘célïsûûnus’ or ‘célïdûqus’, son/daughter of Cêļus. The name of her son, Ḣîȝus, cloned by her, is also used as an insult, ‘ḣíȝëvrââtus’ or ‘ḣiȝšêsrus’, brother/sister of Ḣîȝus.
                              ‘Orgûmas’ is the abode of the damned. It is an insult to wish that someone go to hell: ‘orgûmam do (âte)’, (go) to hell. Putting the command in the subjunctive lends sarcasm to the command: ‘orgûmam do âto’, please go to hell.
                              Finally, the names of monsters, unnatural beings, can be used as insults, the name used expressing the negative quality of the person insulted. Some names are ɱirââgɵs (man-goat), faun; necêdɵs (corpse-eater), ghoul; sééqpooȝôônɵs (blood-drinker), vampire. The fact that the <ɵ> (<ɵ> = /ɔ/, /O/) declension is used for unnatural creatures adds to the insult. Hearing the accented ultimate syllable emphasizes the insult: necedɵ̂, you ghoul!
                              Charlie
                            • Anthony Miles
                              The worst thing one could say to a Siye-speaker is Simukimsu! This means (May you go) to the place where people don t speak Siye! Or you could say Pe Siye
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jul 30, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                The worst thing one could say to a Siye-speaker is "Simukimsu!" This means "(May you go) to the place where people don't speak Siye!" Or you could say "Pe Siye epesipuyammu." "You are not able to speak Siye."

                                The worst thing one could say to a Fortunatian-speaker is "a Lom!" (to Rome!). Since the Fortunatians are Donatists, they regard Roman Catholics as arch-heretics. I haven't developed their profanity, but I'm sure religious swearwords are part of it.
                              • Adam Walker
                                ... Interesting that you re swapping L s and R s too. Carrajina dose that some. Lezujidu = resurected. Actually, the R form, rezujidu, is preferred as more
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jul 30, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Anthony Miles <mamercus88@...> wrote:

                                  > The worst thing one could say to a Siye-speaker is "Simukimsu!" This means
                                  > "(May you go) to the place where people don't speak Siye!" Or you could say
                                  > "Pe Siye epesipuyammu." "You are not able to speak Siye."
                                  >
                                  > The worst thing one could say to a Fortunatian-speaker is "a Lom!" (to
                                  > Rome!). Since the Fortunatians are Donatists, they regard Roman Catholics
                                  > as arch-heretics. I haven't developed their profanity, but I'm sure
                                  > religious swearwords are part of it.
                                  >


                                  Interesting that you're swapping L's and R's too. Carrajina dose that
                                  some. Lezujidu = resurected. Actually, the R form, rezujidu, is preferred
                                  as more "correct," but the L form is used a lot and is used exclusively
                                  when referring to raisins soaked in wine, lezujidus.

                                  Adam
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.