Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

at all how

0 (0%)

to delete poll.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[dwarfhoplite]

I think that epic poetry will be written in Dwarvish if this project ever finishes.
For that reason I wish that the language has rhyming suffixes/presuffixes. I'm all for having adjective plural in the same conjugation as the noun. I love that in the Romance languages.

I don't think that many consonants in a row are a probem, other than two ts. We should make an exception and leave the second t out.
kizest kizestun

Moreover, if we decide to have a single prefix/suffix, I propose that in that case it would be a synonym for 'a lot'
a lot of hammers = tun niltun

[Owlbread]

Do tell sir, what sort of rhyming suffixes/prefixes do you wish for? And could you illustrate the adjectival plural idea?

[dwarfhoplite]

strong companion = socius validus
strong companions = socii validii

beautiful woman = pelchra femina
beautiful women = pelchrae feminae

I'm not sure if thats correct but that's how I think it works in Latin.
You get the idea.

Say, bloody was rabul or whatever
bloody dagger = rabul urist or urist rabul
bloody daggers = rabultun uristun or uristun rabultun

Don't call me sir, please.

[Owlbread]

strong companion = socius validus
strong companions = socii validii

beautiful woman = pelchra femina
beautiful women = pelchrae feminae

I'm not sure if thats correct but that's how I think it works in Latin.
You get the idea.

Say, bloody was rabul or whatever
bloody dagger = rabul urist or urist rabul
bloody daggers = rabultun uristun or uristun rabultun

Don't call me sir, please.

I understand you now, although that would make Dwarfish very indo-european sounding indeed. That said, I can see where you're coming from with the great poetry idea, but perhaps poetry could be created in another way. I know that traditional Scottish Gaelic poetry only really used internal rhyme, although it did follow a very precise structure. And though it is unrelated, why mustn't I refer to you as sir?

[dwarf_sadist]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but why not test this with a race no one really cares about first (aka goblins, kobolds, elves, etc) instead of starting on dwarves.

[dwarfhoplite]

I found "sirring" sarcastic, although I can now see it wasn't. Pardon my poor knowledge of English culture.

@dwarf sadist
Because dwarves are awesome.

[Myrkky100]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but why not test this with a race no one really cares about first (aka goblins, kobolds, elves, etc) instead of starting on dwarves.

I'm not sure there is motivation in the community to start with the language of some 'lesser' race. And since the language is kind of built on what we know about the culture of the race, we have more to work with as we know the dwarves the best.

Say, bloody was rabul or whatever
bloody dagger = rabul urist or urist rabul
bloody daggers = rabultun uristun or uristun rabultun

Does the adjective necessarily have to also carry the affix? I really don't see a reason, particularly if the order of the words is fixed so you know what the adjective is referring to.

[Nonsequitorian]

Earlier, I had assumed we decided adjectives would be part of the word.

It wouldn't be Rabul Urist, but Uristrabul.

I still think this is a good idea.

[Owlbread]

I found "sirring" sarcastic, although I can now see it wasn't. Pardon my poor knowledge of English culture.

@dwarf sadist
Because dwarves are awesome.

Ah well, it's a good thing it's not English culture then.

I had suggested for adjectives that if you wanted to intensify them or convey the idea of "very" like "very white", you could do this:

Brave – Atast

White – Volal

Brave white cat – Atastvolalkun

To show “very”, simply repeat the adjective.

“Atastatastvolalvolalkun” – very brave and very white cat.
“Atastvolalatastvolalkun” – very brave and white cat.

[dwarfhoplite]

I kind of like repeating the word for emphasizing but that way text is very hard to read.

[Owlbread]

I kind of like repeating the word for emphasizing but that way text is very hard to read.

Perhaps it will make the language more non-indo-european though, more Dwarven. For those who are not dedicated enough to learn the language word for word though, we could always just rely on the English translations.

[dwarfhoplite]

So here are a couple of suggestions so far


a) bloody daggers = rabul uristun (the English way)

b) bloody daggers = uristunrabultun

c) bloody daggers = uristun rabultun

d) bloody daggers = uristrabultun (Nonseq?)

e) very bloody dagger = rabulrabulurist

f) very bloody daggers = rabulrabuluristun (Owlbread?)

[Owlbread]

So here are a couple of suggestions so far


a) bloody daggers = rabul uristun (the English way)

b) bloody daggers = uristunrabultun

c) bloody daggers = uristun rabultun

d) bloody daggers = uristrabultun (Nonseq?)

e) very bloody dagger = rabulrabulurist

f) very bloody daggers = rabulrabuluristun (Owlbread?)

Yes, I would say f) is indeed my suggestion. Also, if you want to keep emphasising the adjective, just keep repeating it. I based it on Scots Gaelic where in conversation it's common to say stuff like "beag beag" for "very small".

[dwarfhoplite]

Owlbread, would the same be applied to verbs too in your model?

to love very much = lovelove?

Because it would be logical.

[Nonsequitorian]

I think it would make sense to have that, but not to mean that. I think to love very much would be something like (verb-for-love)tun. So lets say the verb for love in dwarvish is love (for sake of simplicity). Love very much would be lovetun. Love love could be something like love. So if you said "I love you a lot" you'd use lovetun, but if you say "You know, I simply love these socks" You'd use lovelove.

Maybe there doesn't sound like a difference, but then again there should be more than one way to say the same thing.