[YG Conlang Archives] > [westasianconlangs group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- ThatBlueCat@hidden.email wrote: > Adam wrote: > > <<All homonyms would be/are spelled the same. And > as I > said I have several already. But most of them are > related meanings derived from the same root, or > differnet parts of speech. I abandoned "avi" as the > greeting because "avi" was also an important form of > the verb "to have". It seemed too confusing to > survive. "Sheet of cloth" and "dirt farm" might be > different enought to co-exist. As you pointed out > "financial institutuion" and "river side" manage. > But > if I asked "do you have a bank" no one would assume > I > meant "river side" while if I asked "ava juni sadi" > it > really could mean "do you have a bolt of cloth" or > "do > you have a cruddy little farm".>> > > I still don't understand the problem. And why did > you get rid of "avi" as > "hello"? A regular spelling system is one thing, > but it seems like trying to > get rid of these ambiguities is specifically making > the language unrealistic. I don't particularly try to get rid of ambiguities. Just some of them which I don't like. > First of all, no one would ever confuse the "avi" > that means "hello" with > the "avi" that means "I have". It doesn't mean "I have". It's the imperative "Own it!" or "Keep it!" or "Have some!" or "Have it your way!" I'm not exactly sure the best English translation. The infinitice of both words would be |averi|. The one means "to have" and derives from the Latin "habere" the other means, litterally, "to live" and derives from the Punic which is the presumed source of the Latin greeting "ave" as in "Ave Maria gratia plenum". What I was faced with was a verb which could mean both "to have" and "to live", which in the imperative could mean "Take some!" or "Keep it!" "Hello!" (lit. "Live!"). It could serve as a brush off or a greeting. I hated to eliminate a Punic word. But it was confusing me. So I let "to live" die and replaced it with the already extant "viveri". Of course I suppose I could have merged the two into one suppletive conjugation eliminating only the forms of "averi" which would be easily confused in context with the forms of "averi", and keeping those forms of "averi" which wouldn't be confused, in context, with those of "averi". And now I've confused myself again. Alternatively, I could keep just the imperative "avi" as in interjection with the meaning of "hello" and let the rest of the "to live" verb die. Do you really think > the following would ever > happen: > > A: "Avi!" (waves his hand and smiles) > B: (perplexed) "Maa avas?" (i.e., "What do you > have?") Fi ava? for singular Fi avas? for plural > > That would just never, never happen. You're right of, course, since that's not what avi means. A: "Avi!" (Hello! Live! Keep it! Have it your way! Take some!) [With back turned picking up a crate of cabbages and grunting] B: "Fi feri aveu?" (What do you want I should have?) [in utter confusion, I walk in your shop and you want me to pitch in and help!?] > > Now further, compare the meanings of your words for > "sadi": "sheet of cloth" > and "dirt farm". While it's true that if someone > says "Do you have a sadi?" > it *could* mean "dirt farm" or "sheet of cloth", I > would be hard-pressed to > contrive a situation in which there could possibly > be *any* confusion. For > example, say two people meet in the city and are > discussing the various > properties. One asks the other, "So, do you have a > sadi?" Do you really think > there's any chance of the other guy saying, "Yes, I > have lots of sheets of cloth. > Why do you ask?" There's just no way. I could probably come up with a situaion or two. It would at least make a nice comedy sketch along the lines of A farmer and a merchant are walking along the road. The famer asks the merchant, "Do you have and sadis?" The merchant replies, "I bought a shipload just yesterday." > > Also, words don't have to be extremely different to > coexist. Think of > "paper". If I say, "Give me the paper" (or "that > paper"), and there's a > newspaper, and a whole bunch of loose papers around, > which am I talking about? No, in fact this makes it easier for them to co-exist in my mind. They ARE both paper as are documents which can also be papers. these kinds of closely related things work well and ectreeeemly disperate things that can't function the same way in a sentence work well. Two nouns like "dirt farm" and "bolt of cloth" are the grey area for me. In > fact, I could very well be talking about both: Maybe > I want to see the sports > page; maybe I want to see the paper I was just > writing some verb paradigms on. > Does this mean that I'll never refer to a newspaper > as "paper" again? > Hardly. In fact, "newspaper" is rarer than > "paper", in my idiolect. Same in mine. Context will usually tell, and when not you just point again and say "the other paper". There are > hundreds of zero-derived examples like this in > English that coexist happily side > by side. So to think that "dirt farm" and "sheet > of cloth" couldn't coexist > is, IMO, not an accurate way of thinking about the > issue. In your particular cranial space. I often find your thoughts difficult to interpret and it seem you do mine as well. > > Now, let's say that you had two words, and one was > "hoe" and the other was > "shovel". If both of these were called "sadi", > then there would be confusion, > and I'd predict that one would pick up an ending > somewhere (like "sadito" for > "hoe", or something). This situation wouldn't trouble me and would be resolved just as you say. In fact I've already done that with teaspoon and tablespoon which appeard in my recipe and a couple of other word I can't recall at the moment. The reason is that these are > two commonly used things > on a farm, so it's detrimental to farm work to call > them the same thing. > However, I can imagine that, in the city, these > things might still be referred to > as "sadi", because city people just don't have that > much contact with farm > implements, and so the distinction is an unimportant > one for them. True as well. > Mind, this issue is completely unrelated to the > other issue (i.e., whether > the two different /s/'s will actually become [s] in > Carrajena). I would like > to suggest that if they *do* both become [s], then > there is no problem, and you > should keep the words. > > -David Well, based on the info Steg just gave me, they don't. Sin will merge with Shin and not with Samekh. So "bolt of cloth" is now |xadi|. It won't have a homophone, at least for now, though it only differs by the last letter (and thus gender) from |xada| meaning "breast". ADam ===== Indjindrud edjuebu ul Josias ad ul Jeconias ed ils sus frarris in il deporrachuni in al Baviluña, ed debostu il deporrachuni in al Baviluña, indjindrud ul Jeconias ad ul Salatil. Indjindrud edjuebu ul Salatiel ad ul Zorubaviu. Indjindrud edjuebu ul Zorobaviu ad ul Abiud. Indjindrud edjuebu ul Abiud ad ul Eliacim. Indjindrud edjuebu ul Eliacim ad ul Azor. Machu 1:11-13