问:
How to describe a purely symbolic writing system?
Before I jump headlong into constructing a language, I'd like to do some research and see what others have done before me and learn from their experiences/mistakes.  The keywords I'm currently using are sub-optimal, so I need help tightening them up.

The "communication method" I am thinking of:

is purely for reading and writing

has no need to be spoken and is thus not based upon letters/phonemes

uses symbols to represent concepts

each symbol/concept corresponds to something like an English word or sentence (e.g. 'a cat', 'the sound made by flying bees', 'the feeling that results from being beaten by a lesser foe', 'move quickly', 'why?')

symbols are arranged relative to each other (in 2D space) to communicate more complex concepts and provide context

symbols are highly domain-specific and exclusive — mining, carpentry, fishing, etc. would have exclusive symbols that only have meaning in their contexts

is not meant to be signed, hummed, whistled, grunted, tapped or transmitted in any other way except for being printed on, and read from, a two-dimensional surface

is not based on any existing language

would permit deaf people, and people with no common language, to collaborate on very specific tasks

Wikipedia defines pasigraphy as 'a writing system where each written symbol represents a concept (rather than a word or sound or series of sounds in a spoken language)' but also defines a writing system as "any conventional method of visually representing verbal communication".  That seems a bit contradictory and confusing.

What are some good/accurate keywords that describe this 'thing' I am trying to develop?

答: Your "2D" system sounds rather like old-fashioned sentence diagramming or Frege's Begriffschrift, using specific types of connectors for specific relationships. I should think just running out of room to put more words in the correct spatial relationships to express complex ideas would be a problem.</p>


问:
What decides where is the break between syllables?
I'm getting started with creating a language and I run into trouble when I started using rules I devised for protolanguage (e.g. only open syllables).

However I run into trouble when I tried to apply it to string [epse] which I'd syllabilized as [ep.se] rather than [e.pse]. I'm assuming I did something wrong with sonority hierarchy but I failed to find resources about what exactly.

EDIT: I would prefer generic rules for syllabication but for the Y problem - the rules I set so far is (C)CV syllable where:

If there are two consonants exactly one of them is a fricative (s, x or ʂ)

Fricative must follow plosives, nasals and trills but must precede lateral approximants (l)

答:
I think as a general rule, a syllable comprises some combination of the following kinds of one or more of the sound types of your language:  vowel, liquid, consonant.

You've decided on (C)CV.  And if there are two C then one must be a sibilant and the sibilant must follow a stop. So you can have syllables like sa, ta, tsa  but apparently not sta.  You might then have a words like tasa & satsa & tsatsa.

In English, we'd probably break that into SAT-SA.  Your language will likely differ, because everyone knows that a syllable can't end with a consonant!  So, they'd much more likely break the word thus: SA-TSA!

I would argue that what little you've described of your language and its rules speaks in favour of E-PSE rather than EP-SE.  The only thing you "did wrong" was to apply the English rule rather than the rules that apply to your invented language! The second thing you did wrong was to second guess yourself based on the English rule!

ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0


问:
Valyrian - what living languages does it resemble the most?
I'm interested in knowing what living languages Valyrian from Game of Thrones resembles the most in its grammar and/or vocabulary.

I've gathered here some very basic examples of what kind of similarities I would like to know of:

History/Culture

To the layman the history of the language group seems to resemble that or latin (and maybe arabic).

Vocabulary

If I have understood correctly the Valyrian vocabulary is formed so that it shouldn't sound like any living language so probably there's not much similarities there.

Grammar

It seems to contain many word inflections which would mean it bears more similarity to Latin than for example English, right?

It has four grammatical genders and here the Wikipedia article mentions some kind of similarity to Bantu languages?

Any other aspects of Valyrian containing significant similarities?

I'm aware that David J. Peterson, the creator of the language for the series didn't base Valyrian on any existing language. Yet it does seem to resemble in many aspects some languages much more (Latin, also Lithuanian comes to mind) than others (Chinese). It might not be a complete language but it has hundreds of words and what seems to be a well-thought-out grammar (see the Wikipedia article) so it should be possible to compare linguistic similarities.

答:
It is probably impossible to say which language resembles Valyrian most, lacking a metric for similarity. But there are clearly identifyable influences of other languages, both constructed and natural.

Let's start with the catch phrase valar morghulis from GRRM: It just sounds like Tolkien's Elvish languages, with valar being a word from Quenya and morghul a word from Sindarin. Both Quenya and Sindarin have well-known influences from natural languages: Finnish for Quenya and Welsh for Sindarin.

Looking at High Valyrian, some Finnish feeling is still retained in the language: There is a distinction between long and short consonants as well as vowels, the case endings still have some Finnish feel (and a Latin feel, too, especially the vowel alternations), the phonotactics resemble Finnish. It is further away from Finnish than Quenya in its phonology contrasting voiced and voiceless stops and featuring the sound /q/. There is little Welsh in High Valyrian left, maybe the frequency of "the defining fantasy vowel" ae (Laura Wattenberg) can be traced to Welsh.

The 8-case system may be insprired by Languages like Russian or Sanskrit, with the commitative case being typologically rare, but occurring in Finnish again.

The four noun classes are a creative invention (but not far of, as natural language, especially Native American languages, are concerned) and I see no closer resemblence to Bantu languages (they have a lot of noun classes, but the noun classes are marked by overt prefixes that are also used as agreement markers).

The syntax with head-final relative clauses may be inspired by languages like Japanese.

P.S. While Peterson has stated some linguistic influences for the Dothraki language, I have not found a similar quote for Valyrian. So all the observations above are mine.

OwnerDisplayName: Simo Kivistö


问:
How would you say "good morning" or "hello" politely in Klingon?
Klingons from Star Trek aren't very polite, and the language developed for them reflects that - they don't exactly have many polite ways to say things. The closest think I've found to a polite greeting is "Nuq'nuh", which translates to "What do you want?", which... isn't very polite, IMO.

Is there any way to approximate a polite greeting in Klingon?

答:
This answer is based largely on my copy of The Klingon Dictionary (written by Marc Okrand, who created Klingon), which is reliable and good if you need a quick translation from English to Klingon or vice-versa. I'm going to cover most of the same ground as rotaredom's answer, just in more detail.

The book notes that there aren't really any greetings in Klingon; they're simply unnecessary. Klingon as a language is somewhat utilitarian in its application, and exchanges typically start with a straightforward statement or query by one party. Saying the Klingon equivalent of "How are you doing?" when you just want to figure out the new ship's departure time is simply wasteful. One answer to your question, then, would be to simply avoid a greeting. The less you talk, the less time you take up. That said, if you want to truly greet someone, you have two options. . .

Choice 1: Be utilitarian.

This utilitarianism is why all Klingon "greetings" are just introductory phrases. "nuqneH" is the one that seems to be commonly used, as rotaredom said. Its translation is "What do you want?" "Nuq" itself can be treated as an interrogative sentence on its own, simply meaning "What?"1. It can also be used as the start of a sentence, such as

nuq legh yaS

which means

What does the officer see?

Additionally, "neH" is used as a form of "to want" (though it also used as an adverbial, to mean "only"). Therefore, we have the compound "nuqneH", properly an exclamation that stands by itself as a sentence.

Choice 2: Use an honorific.

The Dictionary notes that "neS" is the only honorific suffix in Klingon, used as part of larger words. For instance, "qaleghneS", coming from "qa" ("you"), "legh" ("see") and "neS", translates to

I am honored to see you.

This states a fact, and gets to the point. It may be used towards a superior, but this is not mandatory, and I don't think it's commonly used. If you wish to open the conversation with an inquiry, "HIja'neS" (which includes "HIja", normally used as an affirmative) can work. Its translation is

Do me the honor of telling me [about something].

Again, use this when asking a superior something, but only if you really want to be respectful.

Miscellaneous

Though I have yet to see any of the following used as a greeting, I imagine you could modify them to create some sort of opening remark.

"bel" is the verb for "to be pleased", so when greeting someone, you could conceivably say "jIbel" ("I am pleased", with "jI" for first-person). Likewise, "Quch" is the verb for "to be happy". Using "jIbel" or "jiQuch" to indicate satisfaction upon meeting someone is a possibility.

"maj" ("Good") or "majQa'" ("Well done") are exclamations used as praise. You could use these - preferably "majQa'" - when welcoming an inferior who has successfully completed a task, like blowing up an enemy spaceship.

"toH" is another exclamation, meaning "Well!" or "So!" You would use this in, for instance, a sentence like

Well! I didn't expect to see you back alive.

1 Appending "Daq", to make "nuqDaq", yields "Where?"

ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0


问:
How to naturally evolve verbs into adverbs or dependent clauses?
Currently I have a very simple proto-language which I'm trying to evolve. For example:

```<code>slishi  hu      ho    shofli  shofli pfufi   tushi
repair  person  tool  fish.V  fish.V succeed cause
Person repairs fish net to have abundant catch.
</code>```

However, this seems to be confusing and unwieldy, so I'm assuming that native speakers would feel the same and would attempt:

To change tushi into something similar to 'so that' combining two sentences where one causes another.

To change pfufi into an adverb - successfully

Something like (for example):

```<code>slishi hu      ho    shofli tushu   shofli  nshi     pfufe         he
repair person  tool  fish.V so.that fish.V  AUX.FUT  successfully  3.PRO
Person repairs fish net so that he will have an aboundant catch
</code>```

Note that tushi (to cause) has been changed into tushu (so that) to make a conjunction and pfufi (to succeed) into pfufe (successfully) to make an adverb.

However I'm not sure what a natural way of doing this would be. Most guides for conlangs suggest to apply phonological evolution rules universally, so I'm not sure if it is natural to diverge [-i] into [-ɨ/e] and then [-u/e] to derive an adverb/preposition/conjunction and suggest to evolve the adverbs from nouns or verbs, but they don't provide guides for creating a derivation systems (that I found).

If this helps, the language later/earlier evolves tenses by adding the pronouns - ignoring other changes that happened in between:

```<code>slishi-he  hu     ho   shofli  tushu   shofli nshi    pfufe         he
repair-1   person tool fish.V  so.that fish.V AUX.FUT successfully  3.PRO
Person repairs fish net so that he will have an aboundant catch
</code>```

答:
This is more a lengthy comment on your question than a real answer, but comment space is restricted ...

You are undertaking a very difficult task by setting a starting point and an end point and asking for natural development between the two. This is difficult even when it is known that such a natural development exists because the two languages are attested natural languages and not constructed.

We know sound laws really well, and also the process of grammaticalization is fairly well understood. The evolution of different basic word orders is still under research, we know that it has happened but how exactly it happened, is less clear.

It seems that your are needing some grammaticalisation to get from the verb pfufi to the adverb pfufe. Here's a suggestion: Add a particle ye meaning roughly "like" to your proto-language, and the phrase pfufi ye will fill the role of an adverb. It is easy to conceive, that pfufi ye evolves to pfufe by just dropping one syllable (syncope). To make tushu from tushi a particle like vu might be applicable, but I have some difficulties to define its original meaning.

I think that language change is easier to "grow" than to "plot", i.e., it is easier to just apply changes to a proto-language and watch where they lead to than to interpolate between two stages of a language.

Of course you can invoke language contact to achieve a particular change in your language evolution, as kind of last resort to save the plot. Just don't overuse this.


问:
How do lists of three or more items work in Klingon?
Concerning compound subjects and such, I'm not exactly sure how lists of nouns work exactly, especially with three or more items. How would "bears and metal drums" be distinguished from "bears, metal, and drums"? Wouldn't both be mIl'oDmey baS 'Inmey je?

The Klingon Dictionary says that je follows two or more nouns, so I wouldn't think you use multiple, and I've only seen commas used in dependent clauses. Is there a way to clarify your meaning?

答:
I think it depends on the context. If it is "I can see bears and metal drums", then you would have to repeat the subject and verb, effectively saying "I can see bears and I can see metal drums".

As per The Klingon Dictionary (6.2, Complex Sentences):

When the subject of both the joined sentences is the same, the English translation may be reduced to a less choppy form, but Klingon does not allow this shortening.

If you are just talking about lists of items without having a complex sentence, then I would think this sentence from 5.3 (Conjunctions) applies (even though it is about the post-verbal meaning of je):

As in English, the meaning of such sentences is ambiguous: [..] The exact meaning is determined by context.

If there are bears and metal drums, then presumably you're not talking about bears, metal, and drums. An oft-quoted example where there is an ambiguity in English is I am dedicating this work to my parents, the Queen of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Without a comma before and, the list could be mistaken for an apposition. Obviously, the context makes this interpretation highly unlikely!

Just remember that language is rarely unambiguous and independent of context; any attempts to avoid this make it very unwieldy. Which is why legal language is typically so hard to read.


问:
How to translate the word "lost"/"loss" into Klingon?
Say for instance I want to say something like, "I'm looking for bears and the lost sheep." I would think that would be to use the genitive case, making something like:

mIl'oDmey chIlpu'ghach       DI'raqmey   je  vInejtaH

  bear-<pl> lose-<perf>-<nom>  sheep-<pl>  too -look for-<continuous>

But that looks kind of odd, and I've heard that using the nominalizer suffix "-ghach" is often discouraged, and should replaced by using sentences as objects if possible. Would

mIl'oDmey DI'raqmey   'e'  chIlpu'     je  vInejtaH

  bear-<pl> sheep-<pl>  that lose-<perf> and -look for-<continuous>

work and make more sense?

Also, how would "I can bear the loss of sheep." be translated? My first guess would be to just reverse the noun-noun-construction so that "DI'raqmey" is the genitive noun:

DI'raqmey   chIlpu'ghach      vISIQlaH

  sheep-<pl>  lose-<perf>-<nom> -endure/bear-<ability>

Would some sort of subclause make more sense here too? Just the same one?:

DI'raqmey    'e'  chIlpu'     vISIQlaH

  sheep-<pl>   that lose-<perf> -endure/bear-<ability>

答:
I would translate it as I am looking for bears and I am looking for the sheep that are lost. — I don't know the word for sheep, so I assume from your question that it's DI'raq:

mIl'oDmey vInejtaH                 'ej DI'raqmey  chIlpu'bogh       vInejtaH

  bear-<pl> -look for-<cont> and sheep-<pl> lose-<perf>-<rel> -look for-<cont>

See: Klingon Dictionary 6.2 (Complex Sentences) and 6.2.3 (Relative Clauses)

Your second sentence, I can bear the loss of sheep. — I would opt for a subordinate clause, If I lose sheep, I can bear it.:

DI'raqmey  vIchIlpu'chugh          vISIQlaH

  sheep-<pl> -lose-<perf>-if -bear/endure-<ability>

See: Klingon Dictionary 6.2.2 (Subordinate Clauses)

Disclaimer: I'm not a Klingon expert, so this might not be 100% accurate.

Body:
I would translate it as I am looking for bears and I am looking for the sheep that are lost. — I don't know the word for sheep, so I assume from your question that it's DI'raq:

mIl'oDmey vInejtaH                 'ej DI'raqmey  chIlpu'bogh       vInejtaH

  bear-<pl> <I-them>-look for-<cont> and sheep-<pl> lose-<perf>-<rel> <I-them>-look for-<cont>

See: Klingon Dictionary 6.2 (Complex Sentences) and 6.2.3 (Relative Clauses)

Your second sentence, I can bear the loss of sheep. — I would opt for a subordinate clause, If I lose sheep, I can bear it.:

DI'raqmey  vIchIlpu'chugh          vISIQlaH

  sheep-<pl> <I-them>-lose-<perf>-if <I-it>-bear/endure-<ability>

See: Klingon Dictionary 6.2.2 (Subordinate Clauses)

Disclaimer: I'm not a Klingon expert, so this might not be 100% accurate.