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

[LHLF]

I find both propositions interesting. The second one is really different, which is good,  but I was wondering if adding this many genders would turn this language into something that the "layman" wouldn't be able to learn. On the other hand, if the person plays DF he/she already has managed to conquer a steep learning curve, so why not keep the difficulty level high for the language too?
I think it depends on the purpose and of how far this language will actually get.
Bottom line: I like both and find the second one particularly amusing, specially the gender names.

[AutomataKittay]

I'd like something like animated/not animated and hostile/not hostile. Seems to be the logical basis with how everyone responds in DF. Though someday it'll need to be more complex, but it'd be the most basic model of response, zombies and sieging goblins being hostile animated, and nice traders being animated and not hostile, and magma being hostile and not animated, etc.

Probably too simplistic, but it's easily within DF's capacity to work out!

[Zavvnao]

hm. can you fit in conepts that are more Dwarven than English? Or ones that at least aply to the df universe more than ours?

[teloft]

Teloft proposed the following (Proposition B) :

Adamantiums : Things for ultimate worship. (Gods, Books, artifacts, ...)
Metals : Things to fear and respect, casual worship. (Magma, ...)
Flux : Intelligent things for industry but not for worship. (Dwarfs, ...)
Burnables : Non intelligent things, not for worship. (Trees, sheep, ...)
Stones : Non-living things, not for worship. (Stone, Rain, ...)

Hi Community

I do like many things in the Japanese language. I also like many things in the old Finish, old Gaelic and the old Saxon languages.

My idea is that there should be five types that the Dwarven words follow, easy way to do a five thing category is to use two variables, one from the Greek is a weather combo Wet/Dry and Hot/cold, Then we have four basic weathers Wet-hot, Dry-hot, Wet-cold and Dry-Cold.  This basic combo is also used to classify the earths nature belts. (Deserts = Dry-Hot, Jungles = Wet-hot etc.) So for the fifth element is everything that i not classifiable by these two variables.

Personally I do not like the "Burnable" category I made, and I like things there to be more of living things that can be used for flue, (like elves).  So if I speak of elves using this category, I am showing them disrespect, and i would be likely to do this especially if there is a elven siege going on.

The Dwarfs are obsess by gods, so I like the worship idea. There is also some gods and undead to be feared and served.

Flux is useful for steel making and useful things are good.

then what to do with the rest, somethings is useful to fire up the smelt, other things are not useful for this.

A selection for this Proposal B is to have five things based on dwarf lore, but these five tings are not set in stone.

But before we go for the votes, I like that we know what should happen if a words is in one category or the other, there is the issue of programing.

I would rather that we keep all the ideas and make a grand schema to work with. But an option pool is fine with me, we can than later revisit the ideas or drop them all.

for example, Proposal 0: all words are of the same type and of the type of non-gendered unisex (some languages have unisex and non-gendered as two categories, where the male and female have merged), we want the descriptiveness and the complexity to be elsewhere in the structure of this language.

Then we can also have some dialects going on with deep dwarfs and the hill dwarfs, while they would both understand each other there rules would be all mixed up. Perhaps even each civilization of dwarfs have a selection of the rules we make, but not the full language, and the thing we create here is the mother of all dwarf languages. Then in the game we can find one language with some of the rules active and others rules inactive, then we cross the ocean and the reverse is true there, giving a flavor to the civilizations. But for this we need a modular language where rule options can be turned on or off in game for different civs.

on a final note, I like my proposal, so my vote is for B.

[scale_e]

Personally I don't think we should use I/Me/He/she/it/they/them/you/yous. These guys live in the dark. In tunnels that twist and turn, shafts out of nowhere leading to god knows where. And sound carries. Often they would not have line of sight of who they are talking to. It/they/you etc are useless when you can't use body language and are talking to more than one person.
What language would evolve in this situation? One where instead of saying "He took her pick and used it to dig the shaft to my house" You would instead say "Bill took Betty's pick and used Betty's pick to dig the shaft to Ben's house."
I'm not a language buff, I just like dwarf fortress, so if I'm missing something obvious here, let me know, but that's what I reckon.

Failing all that, prop A seems to make more sense to me than Prop B.

[Inarius]

Well, I vote for my proposition, because I think it makes more sense.

(vote will close at the end of the month, and after that we will settle a new subject)

[Myrkky100]

I find prop B intriquing but I fear it will make the language very complex (and frankly I don't have much of a head for languages in the first place). Prop A also offers the possibility for flexibility that can add meaning, i.e. Urist could be referred to in the 1st gender when he produces a masterful artifact, the 2nd when he decides to go for drink instead of pulling the lever that would have shut the gates before the goblins got inside and speaking of him in the 3rd gender would discreetly indicate what said gobbos did to him.

So I'd vote A.

(edit: typo)

[LHLF]

I find prop B intriquing but I fear it will make the language very complex (and frankly I don't have much of a head for languages in the first place). Prop A also offers the possibility for flexibility that can add meaning, i.e. Urist could be referred to in the 1st gender when he produces a masterful artifact, the 2nd when he decides to go for drink instead of pulling the lever that seals that would have shut the gates before the goblins got inside and speaking of him in the 3rd gender would discreetly indicate what said gobbos did to him.

So I'd vote A.

I like these kind of untranslatable nuances that make each language unique. You helped me make my mind.
I, too, will go with proposition A.

[Owlbread]

I find prop B intriquing but I fear it will make the language very complex (and frankly I don't have much of a head for languages in the first place). Prop A also offers the possibility for flexibility that can add meaning, i.e. Urist could be referred to in the 1st gender when he produces a masterful artifact, the 2nd when he decides to go for drink instead of pulling the lever that would have shut the gates before the goblins got inside and speaking of him in the 3rd gender would discreetly indicate what said gobbos did to him.

So I'd vote A.

(edit: typo)

Gender is the wrong word. We need to think of a different expression.

[LHLF]

Also agree with this. We are not talking about gender per se anymore.

[Owlbread]

As a final comment on the matter, Toady did not answer my question on whether he approved of a gendered Dwarven language (in so much as that there would be gender specific personal pronouns, like English, German, French and most European languages). He carefully evaded it by saying that Dwarven society would remain equal, an earlier part of my question.The majority of people do not want gender specific pronouns for a number of reasons, I disagree with all of them, but I can't change your opinions. Do as you wish, but the great Toad has not spoken.

Of course, I will say no more on the matter, because Toady's answer set us up to continue the debate again (which I am not prepared to do) and there are more important things in this language than some bloody gendered personal pronouns. Let's get onto the real linguistic meat - the fun stuff. Things like ways of describing motions and actions. Even the "bloats" as Toady called them like swearwords and colourful expressions/descriptions so on.

[Helgoland]

Toady did not answer my question [...]. This lack of clarity [...] is actually responsible for the deaths of millions [...].

[AutomataKittay]

Might wanna chill on those words! Just because Toady don't know what could be done or doesn't have much to say, doesn't means that we can't still discuss on how to form a good concept of constructed language for DF eventually.

If nothing, it's still interesting exercise in psychology and organizational aspects of those languages and possible concepts of such.

I pretty much regard gender reference ( as in his/her genders ) to be relatively meaningless to those within DF during current time, outside of relationship and who's giving birth, which's next to nothing functionally currently. Plus it seems to add unnecessary complexity to current relatively simple model available. It'd also form a good base to expand from when more complex psychology get involved and dealt with, including ways to gender and separate things more ablely.

As for needing different expression to describe what we're trying to do for now, how about "subject reference"? That seems to describe what's being tried now!

[Owlbread]

Might wanna chill on those words! Just because Toady don't know what could be done or doesn't have much to say, doesn't means that we can't still discuss on how to form a good concept of constructed language for DF eventually.

If nothing, it's still interesting exercise in psychology and organizational aspects of those languages and possible concepts of such.

I pretty much regard gender reference ( as in his/her genders ) to be relatively meaningless to those within DF during current time, outside of relationship and who's giving birth, which's next to nothing functionally currently. Plus it seems to add unnecessary complexity to current relatively simple model available. It'd also form a good base to expand from when more complex psychology get involved and dealt with, including ways to gender and separate things more ablely.

As for needing different expression to describe what we're trying to do for now, how about "subject reference"? That seems to describe what's being tried now!

Indeed, I'm just concerned that people seemed to think it's much more clear cut than it actually is.

Toady did not answer my question [...]. This lack of clarity [...] is actually responsible for the deaths of millions [...].

I'm just saying you've got to be careful, and an important guy like Toady shouldn't mince his words. If you're not clear in your words you cause all sorts of stuff. I think when I said that it was a good way of getting a Godwin's-law like effect to relieve my frustration without actually bringing the war into it. Of course, all I've done is make myself look like a tit, so I will remove the offending passages accordingly, though free from sweary-words they were.

Not that any of that matters, of course. My suggestion for the "gender"-style thing's name is Noun Class/Noun Classification. That is the linguistic term given to the many "genders" in Niger-Congo languages.

[Inarius]

I think that we should find another way to express the female/male difference. For example, a suffix which could be added when it's considered as necessary by the people who is speaking.
(Exemple, dwarf just mean "a dwarf", but "dwarf-i" means a baby child, "dwarfé" a female dwarf, etc...well, it's just an idea, i think we could discuss that later)

I continue to think that the animate/non animate/intelligent (non edible) distinction is the best because by its simplicity, we will be able to add other things on top of this.

Gender based on use is fine, too. For example "things to worship" could be different based on dwarf preference, , idem with the "intelligent things, not for worship". But I think that 5 genders could be too heavy, whereas only 3 is lighter.

I think that the next topic to debate will be the formation of the words and will last all december. I have plenty of ideas, and I think you will have, too.