[YG Conlang Archives] > [saweli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
> The Saweli suffixes are composed of the following components: > x = change "-d" to "-s" > z = change "-s" to "-d" > v = no change (used when only the vowel changes) Why don't you use "x" when the dynamics is unchanged static and "z" when it's unchanged dynamic? Using "v" seems a bit like you are refusing redundancy even when you are offered it for free. On the other hand, if some default are not defined, then "v" will allow you to keep it not defined. I would use x = change to/keep as "-s" z = change to/keep as "-d" v = change to/keep as not defined > y = subtract F > > a = no change in P, AP, A/P > i = change to AP Am I correct in my assumption that they combine vowel + semi-vowel, "iy"? Isn't that a problem to distinguish /ij/ from /i/ if you don't have vowel lenght? You could easily change it to having "a" as change to/keep as AP. (Or maybe you have it to be /ji/ which contrasts with /vi/? That may explain "used when only the vowel changes" better. But in either case.) > ces snake. > ce'us reptile. Isn't "reptile" hypernymous to "snake"? Shouldn't "ces" then be "reptile"? Oh, maybe 'u corresponds to Latejami "bye"? > gaxigras lip. > > ges organ, body-part. > geflas seed. > gegrus flower, blossom. So "ges" refers to a plant organ? Does "gas" refers to an animal organ? It doesn't seem to appear in the list. > ge'uves gene. There is the 'u again. > sacabirs binary (base 2) number system. > sacacors octal (base 8) number system. > sacadars decimal (base 10) number system. > sacadirs duodecimal (base 12) number system. > sacafers hexadecimal (base 16) number system. > sacaqars hexagesimal (base 60) number system. How do you say "base-4" and "base-6"? They are used by various sketches of mine. > becis = pack, group of carnivorous animals, especially canines. Is that explicitly the order Carnivora? > Here is the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) primitives and their equivalents in Saweli. > > people = resu. > someone/person = res. From reading 'Semantics Primes and Universals', I got the feeling that "bavasu" as well as "resu" may represent the prime "people". What do you think? I guess you think "resu" since that was what you wrote. I would need to buy another book about NSM. > feel = vehub, vavazub. So "vehub" is "feel by touch" and "vavazub" is "feel emotion". > say = tanlom, tanmom. They are glossed the same in your lexicon. What's the difference? > true = yobanmek, xufak. I didn't think "xufak" was an allolex of NSM "true". > happen = yeb, xufanzap. "yeb", doesn't it mean "is concurrent (to)" (to gloss it my own way)? And "xufanzap" "becomes real". This is a concept that I have had some problem with, to find an accurate Latejami translation of the NSM concept, perhaps that's only to expect due to differences in grammar. "becomes real" have the advantage of using the same root as "there is", which reduces the number of roots needed. Well, the same is true for "yeb". > move = winzob, winzyob (tr.), xusep (intr.). AIUI, "move" in NSM means "xusep". But that's mostly a guess. > go = tisep. "go/proceed", so does it mean to "walk" minus the means to travel, as "went" in "I went home"? Or as in "it goes on and on"? > touching = wifud, wimid. Is "wimid" also above? Or what's the difference? > if = zefler, zejror, zeslir, zetrur, zezor. Isn't "zefler" to specific? And "zezor" is the negative version(?). Could you explain the meaning and usage of zejror, zeslir and zetrur? > some = zik, zibik, zok. I don't find "zik" in the lexicon. > big = vubek. > small = vo'amik, vo'amlok, vu'abek. So "small" is hypernymous to the opposite of "big" in NSM? > (long) = vomek, vosak. If "vosak" were part of the NSM, wouldn't then "a long time" be reduced to long+time? > this = yarik. And yaris? Today before I saw your post I thought to ask you about if NSM "this" corresponds to yarstik/yarstis, yarik/yaris, yarsik/yarsis, or yartik/yartis. What do you think? I guess yarik/yaris since you wrote that. > the same = wugik. > other = wu'agig. Is -g an adjective suffix? > "Long" is in parentheses because its status as a primitive is still tentative. > I haven't included "be" above. It is on a list I saw recently, but it's new, and I don't > know what the precise meaning intended for it is. If I'm not mistaken, "be" in NSM corresponds to "dapa" in Latejami, well, at least "be (someone/something)" which is on the list, and "zoga" for "be (somewhere)". But this is guesses. -- Veoler