Forums for Conway's Game of Life
https://conwaylife.com/forums/
For auxillary verbs, should they be "to be" and "to have" or something entirely different? I support different.fluffykitty wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 5:18 amProbably pronouns, auxiliary verbs, articles, "eat", and "food".
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 4:50 amLook a few posts above.SquishyBoi wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 4:47 amhi
i'm too lazy to read the entire thread so would it be a bother if you could make a post showing the current phonology for this language/conlang/whatever?
ok thanks
Code: Select all
flep
pezt
mwanc
chysc
xlyft
mahk
clhk
tleip
ngweunkx
haixp
Yeah, that really is hard to pronounce. haixp is also hard, at least for me. Is it hard for you? For auxiliary verbs, I think "to come" can be used for recent things, like in French. I don't think we should use "to be", "to have" could be used. I think "to want" should be used for intentional actions happening in the near future. I think semantic distinction between two ways of talking about the same tense should be well defined, not like "going to/will". We have two ways of talking of the future in Turkish, we use regular future tense and also use present tense and which I think matches up pretty well with their English counterparts in that order, and yet I still can't pinpoint the difference between the two.fluffykitty wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 6:01 amOne interesting thing about Romance languages that aren't French is that they have two verbs for "to be" (Spanish ser/estar). The first one (descended from Latin <sum> "am") is usually for general truths, and the second one (descended from Latin <sto> "I stand") is usually for transient situations. Maybe we should have something like that here.
Periphrastic future tenses can come from verbs meaning "to want" (English), "to go" (many languages), "to have (to)" (Romance languages, now merged with the verb), "to owe" (some Germanic languages, including English), and probably others. Past tenses can come from "to have" (also Romance languages), "to come" (French), "to be" (Latin), and probably others as well.
We could also use multiple of these auxiliaries to make distinctions like recent/remote or other things (eg English "I will/shall/am going to write"). We could use "want" and "have to" for the future for an intentionality distinction. I'm not sure how we'd do something like that in the past though. Also, I think we should mark aspect (eg "I ate food" vs "I was eating food") as part of verb inflection. Some of the auxiliaries might only work in one form or the other, like the first "to be".
Edit (2:10): Example syllables, if anyone wants them:Maybe /l/ should be banned from being next to /c/ and /ç/ as well. /clçk/ is really hard to pronounce.Code: Select all
flep pezt mwanc chysc xlyft mahk clhk tleip ngweunkx haixp
Not particularly.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 3:40 pmYeah, that really is hard to pronounce. haixp is also hard, at least for me. Is it hard for you?
Okay. Also, we could have both inflected form(s) and periphrastic forms. What do you think of that?Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 3:40 pmFor auxiliary verbs, I think "to come" can be used for recent things, like in French. I don't think we should use "to be", "to have" could be used.
That's probably a good idea. Maybe we should make the other future inflected, like what happened in the Romance languages.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 3:40 pmI think "to want" should be used for intentional actions happening in the near future. I think semantic distinction between two ways of talking about the same tense should be well defined, not like "going to/will". We have two ways of talking of the future in Turkish, we use regular future tense and also use present tense and which I think matches up pretty well with their English counterparts in that order, and yet I still can't pinpoint the difference between the two.
https://www.conwaylife.com/w/index.php? ... nto=GliderSchiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 3:40 pmEdit: How do you sign up to LifeWiki? I couldn't find any register page.
Code: Select all
Fricative/stop Singular Plural Nasal/approx Singular Plural Monophthong Singular Plural
Nominative -e -oi (empty) -r (empty) -(l)u
Accusative (empty) (empty) -Sa -e -s -n
Genitive -Ha -Si -Ho -oi -ne -noi
Dative -Fu -Foi -Xu -Xoi -l -(m)it
Instrumental -Ho -Si -Ho -oi -ni -ne
Locative -Ha -Foi -Ho -Xoi -ne -(m)itYes, these could certainly use some improving, though I like the concept. I'll try to update my user page by the end of the day. Are letters in parentheses such as -(m)it used for avoiding illegal sound clusters?fluffykitty wrote: ↑November 17th, 2020, 5:15 amHere's a possible set of noun declensions: (FSZHX are mutations to the previous sound's place of articulation, diphthongs go with the second declension as vowel+/w/ or /j/, syllablic /l/ goes with the third declension)These suffixes could probably be improved. The ambiguity is intentional, since we'll mark some of the case information on articles.Code: Select all
Fricative/stop Singular Plural Nasal/approx Singular Plural Monophthong Singular Plural Nominative -e -oi (empty) -r (empty) -(l)u Accusative (empty) (empty) -Sa -e -s -n Genitive -Ha -Si -Ho -oi -ne -noi Dative -Fu -Foi -Xu -Xoi -l -(m)it Instrumental -Ho -Si -Ho -oi -ni -ne Locative -Ha -Foi -Ho -Xoi -ne -(m)it
Just create User:Schiaparelliorbust.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑November 17th, 2020, 9:06 amSorry if this isn't the place to ask, but I simply cannot find how to make a user page. Can someone help? I've been looking around the LifeWiki pages about itself for some time and cannot find anything on the forums.
Not much yet. We have a work-in-progress case system above, but that's about it.Hunting wrote: ↑November 17th, 2020, 9:15 amJust create User:Schiaparelliorbust.
What are the current grammar?
There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page.
If you are logged in, be sure to request the "trusted" flag here in this forum thread to be able to edit pages.
That's weird. Did you login on LifeWiki (not the forums)? It's this for me:Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑November 17th, 2020, 9:17 amNot much yet. We have a work-in-progress case system above, but that's about it.Hunting wrote: ↑November 17th, 2020, 9:15 amJust create User:Schiaparelliorbust.
What are the current grammar?There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page.
If you are logged in, be sure to request the "trusted" flag here in this forum thread to be able to edit pages.
Code: Select all
There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or create this page. I did log in yesterday. Let's move this discussion to the basic questions thread.Hunting wrote: ↑November 17th, 2020, 9:35 amThat's weird. Did you login on LifeWiki (not the forums)? It's this for me:
Code: Select all
There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or create this page.
VSO grammar ofcSchiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 5:04 pmWhat ideas do you have for grammar? Also, please list any opinions you have, I will write them down on my LifeWiki user page.
Do you mean we should actually make the auxiliary verbs and verb endings now?fluffykitty wrote: ↑November 18th, 2020, 5:19 amWe could use actual sound sequences for the auxiliary verbs and verb endings.
Ok, we can use be for imperfective and perhaps have for perfective. Maybe we can use have for something else. I think want should only be used for intentional actions in the near future (I said this before). For future imperfective, we can use will be + participle. Future perfective can be a suffix. I think this aspect of the language is a bit too like Romance languages, so let's steer away a bit.fluffykitty wrote: ↑November 18th, 2020, 5:30 amWhy not? We can always change them later. AFAIK the list of auxiliary verbs is "want", "come", and "have", and the finite verb forms are perfective and imperfective of each of present and future. Maybe we should instead do the imperfective using "be"+a participle of some kind, like in English ("I was running", French "je courais"). Speaking of participles, we'll probably also want an infinitive (or infinitives?) and participles. What do you think?
Yes, I guess they can be like that. What should we use "have" for then? You can make them, I'm writing my user page right now.fluffykitty wrote: ↑November 18th, 2020, 6:02 amI think perfective aspect (≠perfect tense) should just be a primitive inflection. Also, do you want to make the auxiliaries/verb suffixes or should I?
I'm still writing it.fluffykitty wrote: ↑November 18th, 2020, 6:19 amI guess "have" would just be for a basic past tense. Also, there's currently nothing at https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/User:Schiaparelliorbust. Is this intentional?