The nephilim language

[Kelandon]

My lack of knowledge about Dutch tenses is tripping me up here. I think that what you've just said is acceptable, but it worries me a little bit that I can't cross-reference this to anything.

 

My answer is yes, unless something else weird turns up.

[Thralni]

Okay, I'll change th verbs page... again.

 

Some langauges like Dutch, don't use an emormous array of all kinds of tenses adn the like. I'm not sure how german does this, but it might be similair, if not the same.

 

EDIT: I uploaded a newer version of the nouns page, in which I mainly explained the termiantive in a (hopefully) clearer way. I also hope the doubts that this is a terminative, are now taken away.

 

awwwww.... the banners are there. At least it is much better how they do it here, then how they did it at Angelfire.

[Thralni]

I double posted delibarately.

 

here is the answer I got from the garman expert on hurrian. She also asked somebody who knows even more about it. If you want, I can ask het for books in which it says so. however, only if you ask, as I don't want to waist to much of her time.

 

Quote:

finally, here is my answer to your questions:

 

1. Usage of genitive.

As far as we understand the Hurrian grammar genitive is only used to express possession and relationship.

 

2. "a glass of milk"

What a difficult question!

 

Firstly, the word for milk itself: We do not know whether the Hurrians used singular or plural for liquids. I would guess, milk is plural as it is in Sumerian and Akkadian, but that's not a proof. Just consider the word shije, shie "water" in singuar [the plural form shije=na means "water(courses), rivers"], and tarm=a=(n)ni "source (for water), ground water" derived from the verb tarm- "to give to drink, to water" (not: "to drink"), which is also a word in singular.

Then, did they have an own word for milk or is milk something that e.g. comes "out of the cow". In this case we would have several derivation suffixes just to express milk.

 

Secondly, what's the construction? In principle, it could be a genitive construction (like e.g. in Italian) but it could also could be something else. We do not have any similar construction so that we just do not know. I also asked Mauro Giorgieri (I consider him the one who understands the Hurrian grammar the best, these days) about this, and he couldn't say.

 

All I can say is: If it was a genitive construction it would be (but I am sure, you already know this):

in ergative: GLASS=sh MILK=(ne=)ve=ne=sh (or plural: MILK=na=ash=e=ne=sh)

in absolutive: GLASS MILK=(ne=)ve (or plural: MILK=na=ash=e)

 

I am sorry that I have no better answer to your question.

 

However, if you have any more question I can try to answer them.

 

Best wishes from Heidelberg,

 

Jeanette

 

Dr. Jeanette C. Fincke

c/o Institut für Sprachen und Kulturen

des Vorderen Orients - Assyriologie

Hauptstr. 126

D - 69117 Heidelberg

[Kelandon]

If Hurrian is so minimally understood even by experts, it might be a really bad idea to base your language on it. It'd be like basing a language on Etruscan.

 

Yeah, the terminative now looks more like a terminative, not as much like an allative. A terminative (as far as I can tell) is used for actually reaching an end (a terminus), whereas the allative is used for motion towards something.

 

I still can't stand this description: "The ablative instrumental is used when something or somebody did or does something." Do you mean that it is used to denote "by means of" something? That is, "He killed him with a sword"? Or do you mean that it denotes the agent in a passive sentence: "He was killed by him"? Or something else?

[Thralni]

I base the language on Hurrian, for the parts that are known (e.g. the construction of a noun, verb, etc).

 

I'm glad that the terminative is clearer now. I'm also happy that you mentioned the word "terminus." Now I understand why it is called terminative. Thanks.

 

Quote:

I still can't stand this description: "The ablative instrumental is used when something or somebody did or does something." Do you mean that it is used to denote "by means of" something? That is, "He killed him with a sword"? Or do you mean that it denotes the agent in a passive sentence: "He was killed by him"? Or something else?

I mean that it denotes the agent in a passive sentence (by him). I'll change it as soon as I found a ways to describe it in a clearer fashion, although I think that the example I gave (by the noun) makes it already quite clear (at least for me).

 

Do you still want me to ask Dr. Jeanette C. Fincke about books/articles?

 

I wanted to ask you (Kelandon) if I may copy the description of placement of tongue, form of lips etc. from your Slith language pronunciation page to the Nephilian pronunciation page? Would you mind?

[Kelandon]

I never wanted you to give a reference to an article, because I've never thought that it matters. I don't really give a damn what Hurrian or Sumerian do, at least with regard to your language. Your language must simply make sense with itself, not necessarily match any other actual language.

 

I think, as far as the ablative-instrumental, you could just change "Also, The ablative instrumental is used when something or somebody did or does something. This is most often found with passive sentences" into "Also, the ablative instrumental is found in passive sentences."

[Thralni]

Quote:

I never wanted you to give a reference to an article, because I've never thought that it matters. I don't really give a damn what Hurrian or Sumerian do, at least with regard to your language. Your language must simply make sense with itself, not necessarily match any other actual language.

Wise words. Wise words indeed.

Quote:

I think, as far as the ablative-instrumental, you could just change "Also, The ablative instrumental is used when something or somebody did or does something. This is most often found with passive sentences" into "Also, the ablative instrumental is found in passive sentences."

Sounds good to me.

You only didn't answer my last question. Could you still answer it, please?

[Kelandon]

I'd highly recommend that you simply do what I did: go to Wikipedia's IPA page (or any other source on phonology) and take the information that you need from there. If you simply must duplicate what's on my page, I won't object, but I strongly recommend against doing it blindly.

[wz. As]

Sorry to temporarily attempt to derail the discussion, but I stumbled upon this thread and am very interested by it. I am currently taking an intro to Linguistics course, where I am learning about things like Chomsky's notion of a Universal Grammar. What do people think of the idea that Sliths and Nephilim may not have the same Universal Grammar that humans do?

 

For instance, what if they are not limited by binding theory for reflexive pronouns? Or if they can have movement out of coordinate structures? What if Sliths and/or Nephilim are much better than humans at keeping deep nests of modifiers in their head at one time, and are much worse at disambiguating double meanings?

 

The impression I received is that both Kelandon's Slith grammar and Thralni's Nephil grammar are consistent with languages that could actually be spoken by humans natively. Am I correct in this impression? Or are there any properties of these languages that do not appear in any human language?

 

If, in fact, Slith and/or Nephil language properties are different enough from those of human languages, it could have many implications for whether or not there could be native human speakers of the Slith tongue or vice versa, and might explain why, for instance, there are more Nephilim who speak passable Human than there are Sliths.

[Kelandon]

Basically, yes, Classical Slith could be spoken by humans. It would be difficult to learn, but not prohibitively so. There are two major reasons for this:

 

1. Humans actually do learn it in the scenario, so it has to be possible.

 

2. For practical purposes, I'm sticking to what I know, and I know Indo-European languages. Perhaps for my next conlang I'll stretch farther.

 

And I have a different explanation for the speech patterns of the sliths in Avernum.

[Slawbug]

Interesting question, wz. Keep in mind, though, that the idea of a universal grammar is FAR from universally accepted.

 

Personally, I am inclined to think that Chomsky has observed a number of useful patterns that run across languages, but I don't buy most of his theories about grammar operation. Syntactically, in particular, I find it really suspicious that with his UG it's (relatively) simple to get from deep structure to surface structure in English, but in languages with different word order, suddenly you're doing all these twists and turns. Not to mention agglutinative languages... judge for yourself, though.

 

UG is based largely on generalizable human cognitive structure and development. To the degree that sliths or nephils are cognitively different from humans, they might have a different UG. But it seems to me that (like almost all fantasy/SF races) they are almost identical to us, cognitively. Differences in temperament are as likely to be cultural as anything else, and both seem to be capable of more or less the same stuff humans are capable of.

 

-- slartucker, who is trying to resist the temptation to reduce everything to Optimality Theory

[Thralni]

I'm convinced humans will be able to speak the Nephil language. I actually intended that people, when playing my scenario, would be able to translate the texts, and understand the grammar. Pronunciation also shouldn't be a real problem, I think.

 

It is a problem that so little is known about the two languages, and we can only guess, using the names of the characters. however, this can only give an indication of sounds the Nephilim/Sliths seem to make, but it doesn't say anything about how nephilim/Sliths may have written it or pronounced it.

 

The problem with making a langauge that isn't based on already known languages is, is mainly that it is far to hard. making a new grammar, new conjugations and the like, is an awful lot of work and wouldn't be so appreciated that it is really worthwhile.

 

the difference between Nephilim and Sliths, and their ability to succesfully pronounce English words, may lie in the fact that Sliths come from far underground, while Nephilim, like humans, come from the surfafe. they could have met, exchanging information, religion, language and the like. However, your question did give me new insights in the "nephilim homeland" (which isn't really homeland). I'm glad you asked it.

 

Kelandon, I do understand these terms. They aren't that complicated one has to study a month to know them. I'm not copying anything blindly. What use does it have to copy something you don't know what it is?

 

Slartucker: I'm still wondering why you suddenly stopped helping? Just curious.

[Slawbug]

I stopped helping because it was getting frustrating, and it felt like I was spinning my wheels. You constantly misinterpreted the statements I made, and answered questions I did not ask.

 

The genitive is the big thing. It took 2 pages of Kelandon explaining something very simple to you, suggesting your disagreement was related to English/Dutch word differences, and imploring you to look it up yourself -- during which time you repeatedly told us we were wrong -- before you finally looked it up and lo and behold, we weren't wrong. Meanwhile, attempting to address that question another way, I asked you for a reference to substantiate the claim you'd made about Sumerian genitive. Despite clarifying my question many times in very specific terms, you have now offered me references to Akkadian and Hurrian but NOT Sumerian. (No, I do not want the reference anymore!)

 

As somebody else observed, you seem much more interested in winning an argument than in resolving it according to logic. And you seem more interested in arguing than in producing a grammar that is accurately described and understandable to the reader. That last part, of course, is what I was trying to help with.

 

I wish you good luck with the grammar, as I said, but I have no interest in helping someone who is going to argue with everything I say.

 

-- Slartucker, who really should know better than to fan flames, however reasonable he may think he's being

[Thralni]

At a certain point I was getting obessed with the discussion, yes. that was mainly because I was arguing with people I no nothing about, claiming they study a certain field, and say the opposite of the books, my parents and other people I talked too. I guess I'm very suspicious.

 

I'm sorry to have frustrated you. I assmune I don't have to say I didn't mean to lose you, as you already came up with that yourself. I leave the decision to you if you want to offer any more help or not, although I would be delighted to hear your opinions.

 

I suppose I would have felt the same: frustrated, very irriated. If I promise I won't argue to the exstent as I argued with you about the genitive, will you consider helping me again? I was obsessed with winning the discussion, which made me lose the actual point of the whole discossuion: help with the cases of my language. I apologize. I hope not to start arguing like that again. Will you please help again?

[Slawbug]

Well, I appreciate your saying those things. And I applaud your suspicion of people who claim to know what they're talking about -- many of them don't. But I think one should be suspicious of what you think you know, too. Subjecting your own arguments to the same scrutiny you demand of others is the only way to keep yourself from turning into a pompous airhead. (And yes... I have had in my life occasion to be a pompous airhead )

 

Anyway, I guess I'll contribute my opinion again if you want, though I think you'll understand if I don't debate things. --t

[Kelandon]

Thralni, just make the changes that you want to make, and I'll tell you if I object. I doubt I'll mind whatever you do.

[Thralni]

I'm very glad to hear that, Slartucker. I'm looking forward to hear your opinions once again. In the weekend I'll start making the pages for the conjugation of the verb. Until then... Nothing, I guess.

[Lilith]

By the way, while we're talking about Universal Grammar and weird languages, what does everyone think about Pirahã? Is it really as freaky as some people claim, or has Daniel Everett pulled a Margaret Mead?

[Kelandon]

Pirahã seems interesting, but we really don't know enough about it to make a lot of conclusions. Everything that I've read about it says that much more evidence is needed to verify the work that has been done so far.

 

I think it is possible that cultural norms may limit what one talks about, and a language is defined by how it's used, so in that way, there may be some interesting features of the language.

[Thralni]

Added the conjugation pages. If there are some things that you don't really understand, or simply want to be explained in a better way, don't hesitate to say.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

im studying latin atm, and i dont think your definition of the ablativus instrumentalis is 100% accurate.

in "he killed him with a sword", the sword would be an AI.

in "he was killed by him", the him would also be ablative, but im not sure if its instrumentalis. there are 20 other ablatives...

i would rather say: "the ablativus instrumentalis is used for beings or objects that are used by somebody/something else for doing something."

 

or something like that. change the grammar and the two "used", and it should be fine.

[Thralni]

The ablativus instrumentalis is not defined correctly, I know that. there has been an enormous discussion about it. Anyway, thatnk you for looking at it. Everyhelp is welcome, and I thank you.

 

EDIT: You are studying Latin too? Fpr how long, if I may ask?

[Kelandon]

It would be easier just to call it an "ablative" and be done with it. The hyphen doesn't help anything.

[Slawbug]

If the language is still ergative-absolutive, the important part about transitive verbs is not that they require an object, it's that they require a transitive subject (i.e., they use the absolutive, which is not going to get used with intransitive verbs).

 

Are you still making it prodrop, or not? It appears that you are allowing pronouns to drop if they are ergative subjects, or absolutive subjects, but not ergative objects. I still think that makes little sense, for an ergative language, since it's basically dealing with pronouns as if they were nom-acc.

 

Your writing is mostly simpler and clearer, which is good, but there are still some really bad typos (transitive vs intransitive are mixed up in 1 or 2 places).

 

If I am reading your conjugation charts correctly, then it is impossible to tell the difference between 1st 2nd and 3rd person in any tense besides present tense. Right? Um... not good in combination with prodrop!

 

Oh yeah. And is it STILL called Nephilian?

[Thralni]

Quote:

Originally written by Slartucker:
If the language is still ergative-absolutive, the important part about transitive verbs is not that they require an object, it's that they require a transitive subject (i.e., they use the absolutive, which is not going to get used with intransitive verbs).

okay, I'll change it.

Quote:

Originally written by Slartucker:
Are you still making it prodrop, or not? It appears that you are allowing pronouns to drop if they are ergative subjects, or absolutive subjects, but not ergative objects. I still think that makes little sense, for an ergative language, since it's basically dealing with pronouns as if they were nom-acc.

No, I figured that it would be simpler if I wouldn't make it prodrop. Did I fail to remove the prodrop part of the description somewhere? Basically, I completely removed prodrop from my language.

Quote:

Originally written by Slartucker:
Your writing is mostly simpler and clearer, which is good, but there are still some really bad typos (transitive vs intransitive are mixed up in 1 or 2 places).

I'm glad to hear that. I'm progressing! Anyway, I'll search for the typos and I'll fix them. On what page are they exactly? conjugation pages?

Quote:

Originally written by Slartucker:
If I am reading your conjugation charts correctly, then it is impossible to tell the difference between 1st 2nd and 3rd person in any tense besides present tense. Right? Um... not good in combination with prodrop!

Wait, there are things you are missing here, maybe because I didn't write it in a clear way. first, I suppose this comment is irrelevant now, as I dropped prodrop. Second, it's not true what you think about the tenses. the only difference between all tenses, is one single suffix. if that suffix is not there, then it is present. if there is a suffix there, then it will be a certain tense, depending on the suffix. 1st 2nd and 3rd person can be always distinguished. What made you think this can not be done?

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:
It would be easier just to call it an "ablative" and be done with it. The hyphen doesn't help anything.

Yes, you're right. I've got a "instrumental" case, so the "ablative-instumental" can be just ablative.

Quote:

Originally written by Slartucker:
Oh yeah. And is it still called Nephilian?

for the time being, yes. I have difficulty finding a name that suits me.

[Kelandon]

Honestly, I disagree with Slartucker here. All verbs require a subject. Transitive verbs require an object. I think that saying that transitive verbs require a transitive subject just confuses the issue.

 

Also, your table with tense suffixes could be clearer. It's probably worthwhile to explain on that same page the definitions of those nephil words for "past time" and others. It's also probably worthwhile to set up the table in such a way as not to imply that one would create a word that looks like this: "Malnaisehãmersim." (That's how it reads, straight across.)

 

In addition, it appears that your verbs are going to end up being very, very long, all the time. Every single conjugated transitive verb in the system you've designed has to have a stem (at least one syllable, presumably), the suffix -nai, a personal ending (another syllable), and a tense ending (another syllable). That means that every conjugated verb has to be at least four syllables long.

 

If that's the case, your language had better have pitch accent and plenty of open syllables or ellision, because it's going to be spoken at a very rapid speed.

[Thralni]

Quote:

Also, your table with tense suffixes could be clearer. It's probably worthwhile to explain on that same page the definitions of those nephil words for "past time" and others. It's also probably worthwhile to set up the table in such a way as not to imply that one would create a word that looks like this: "Malnaisehãmersim." (That's how it reads, straight across.)

Okay, for the time being I explained how it should be read. I'll change it eventually, though.

Quote:

In addition, it appears that your verbs are going to end up being very, very long, all the time. Every single conjugated transitive verb in the system you've designed has to have a stem (at least one syllable, presumably), the suffix -nai, a personal ending (another syllable), and a tense ending (another syllable). That means that every conjugated verb has to be at least four syllables long.

Yes, you're right. Nephilim will speak it quite rapidly. A conjugated verb isn't at least four syllables long though, but three syllables long (if it's in present). there are some things I didn't explain though, because I didn't make them yet. A verb will be no more then five syllables, as I see it now.

EDIT: forgive me if I'm getting to personal, Slartucker, but may I know your real name (you can send me a PM)?

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

btw thralni, you forgot to write tailok in the top of the conjugation tabels.

ive been studying latin for 3 years now, but im a fast learner ^^

i must admit though that my english is far from perfect, so if i say something really stupid concerning nephilian/technical language-stuff, its probably because i dont know what you or myself is saying. oh, and there is no "racht" in german. but, for example, "rammbock", "randstein", "ratte", "rad", "rascheln", "rhapsodie", "rachen"......

id like to see more imperative forms, like "he shall do", "lets do".... you know?

[Thralni]

I know that there is no "racht" in German, I just couldn't think of anything else. What exactly fo you mean with "more imperative forms"? More examples?

[Kelandon]

He meant third-person and first-person imperatives. These don't exist in every language. Latin, for example, circumlocutes to get a first-person plural imperative (using the subjunctive).

[Thralni]

Ah, I understand now. No, these doesn't exist in nephilian. In Dutch they also don't exist, as to reinforce what Kelandon already said. You just say "go!" (ga!) In all persons, except plural. that has a differemt form: "gaat!"

[Kelandon]

By the way, let me get this straight: R is isolation is pronounced like the English-language R — which is rather unusual sound — but in the context of certain vowels, it's a uvular trill (which is a completely different sound)? This would represent a really odd sound change — an original alveolar trill (presumably, if not a retroflex) which shifted in some positions to a retroflex approximant and in other positions to a uvular trill. This is possible, I guess, but strange.

 

And how is stress or accent handled in your language? That's an integral part to pronunciation, after all.

[Thralni]

Um, no. I tried to find the correct word to portray that, but I see I failed. Its like in the german rot. That's the german/Dutch R, not the English one. With a vowel (A and E) it is an uvular trill.

 

stress and accents are a bit complicated. One day I will have updated that pronunciation page (presumably next week: vacation week). Then accents and stress will be also described.

[Kelandon]

Okay, so from what I've gathered from Wikipedia, Dutch uses a uvular approximant for its R. Some dialects of German do this, but some do not, so I'd be careful about calling it the Dutch/German R.

 

Honestly, I think you'd be best served by just calling it a uvular approximant, and then stating that it is the R found in Dutch, some varieties of French, and some varieties of German.

[Slawbug]

Quote:

Honestly, I disagree with Slartucker here. All verbs require a subject. Transitive verbs require an object. I think that saying that transitive verbs require a transitive subject just confuses the issue.

But in Nephilian, the subject of a transitive verb is in a different case from the subject of an intransitive verb -- so this is quite relevant information.

As far as prodrop goes, I didn't see it in your descriptions anywhere, but there were some example sentences that had subject pronouns omitted.

Also, I see what you mean about the tenses now. Your table format makes it look like there are four different suffixes for each person/number combination, one for each tense. If the table is going to contain TWO different types of suffixes, you should label it appropriately.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Slartucker:

Quote:

Honestly, I disagree with Slartucker here. All verbs require a subject. Transitive verbs require an object. I think that saying that transitive verbs require a transitive subject just confuses the issue.

But in Nephilian, the subject of a transitive verb is in a different case from the subject of an intransitive verb -- so this is quite relevant information.

Yes, but defining a transitive verb as one that has a transitive subject seems odd to me. The only way to tell a transitive subject from an intransitive subject is by its case, but the only way to know what case the subject ought to be is to know whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. This is horribly circular.

One can avoid that by saying that a transitive verb requires an object, and then one can describe the use of the cases from there.

So yes, give that information, by all means, but don't define it that way.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

the german r definately is the german r. there are hardly any dialects that use a slightly different one. i know, i live in austria.

 

i think that transitive/intransitive-discussion is going in circles. id look after completing the conjugations and the work on the vocabulary.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Rent-an-Ihrno:
the german r definately is the german r. there are hardly any dialects that use a slightly different one. i know, i live in austria.

I've heard from a couple of sources that several closely-related trill and approximant sounds are considered allophonic in German. They'd sound the same to any German speaker who doesn't have some phonetic background, but they're not quite the same. That is, they'd probably sound the same to you.

Specifically, I'm told that different dialects of German have a alveolar trill, a uvular trill, or a uvular approximant (or even a uvular fricative), and they're all considered allophonic. This may be dying out, though, since I get the feeling that the uvular approximant/fricative is winning, so you may very well be right that there's only one kind of German R; anyone have more specific information?

In fact, come to think of it, which variety of R would you describe as being the German R?

[Slawbug]

All right, you've convinced me Kel. And it is horribly circular. Syntactic theory is full of horribly circular definitions. You might appreciate the following exchange I had with my syntax prof two years ago:

 

"So we know the subject is in SpecTP because it's the thing that sits in SpecTP?"

"Yes."

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

those varieties of the german R are definately dying out. one can sometimes hear it in comedy shows, but its really not to be considered in this subject. there are of course accentuated Rs, but the differences are so small foreigners surely wont notice.

the uniform R i would describe as the standard fore-mouth trill, but a few millimeters further into the throat.

 

what about word order/sentece build ?

[Thralni]

The german R I'm talking about is the one i think mentioned by Rent-an-Irhno (I really like that username). It's probably the same in dutch: there are many and many more pronunciations of the R in different dialects spoken in different cities. for example, the leiden (the place where I live) R is totaly different from the R as pronunced in Friesland. however, there is one uniform R, and that is the R is the word rood: I suspect that this is the R mentioned by Rent-an-ihrno.

 

I'm now going to change the verb pages, now that everybody agrees.

 

About sentence build: this is very strict. one word in the wrong place, and the sentence will mean something different. Same goes for suffixes in words, by the way. more about this later.

 

EDIT: updated conjugation and a small bit of the pronunciation page

[Kelandon]

This is why I can't stand getting information about the Germanic languages online. It's all vague and hopelessly contradictory.

 

I guess if this makes sense to speakers of those languages, it's okay, but I ask that you give some sort of phonetic description as well (uvular approximant, alveolar trill, whatever), so that non-German-speakers can figure out what on earth you're talking about. As always, I refer you to the Wikipedia page on IPA for the most complete and easy-to-access treatment of phonetics online.

 

And wait... word order matters, but the language is heavily inflected (with cases, conjugations, etc.)? This is odd, but I guess I'll have to see what you do with it.

[Thralni]

If you have looked at my pronunciation page, you would have seen these tiny letters saying:

 

Quote:

Note that descriptions on placement of the tongue, position of the lips and the like, will be added later.

And that is already a long time there...

 

The word order can make the whole sentence different. this is in particular with certain cases and verbal forms, of which one is the equative verbal form. For the rest, you'll have to wait patiently, I guess.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

sry kelandon (or may i say kel? ), but im not used to that vocabulary in english. ill see through it.

 

thralni, your tabels are a little confusing. and the counter on the main page doesnt count all the visitors, but only my own visits.

[Thralni]

What exactly is confusing about it? the counter I can't do anything about, I'm afraid. i can of course just take it away.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Rent-an-Ihrno:
but im not used to that vocabulary in english. ill see through it.

For you, I provide a direct link. Is your standard German R an alveolar trill , a uvular trill , a uvular fricative/approximant , or something else ? (Note that each page for each sound has a sound sample on the right side.)

[Thralni]

It is the uvular trill. By the way, with what program am I supposed to open a ".ogg" file? it wasn't necessary, I just read the description, but still.

 

Now before you are gonna say that the three pronounciations of the letter R are actually all the same (R, RE and RA, they are all uvular trills), I would like to say that this is not the case. their is a clear difference, a difference that can chnage the entire word when the wrong letter is used, between these three forms of the letter R.

[Kelandon]

Uh huh. So what exactly is the difference between these different R's, then?

 

To open an ogg file on a Mac, you can use Audacity , among other things.

[Thralni]

except for the fact that a R is put at different places than the Ra and RE, the RA and E are simply pronounced in a slightly different way. While the R is just an uvular trill, the RA is pronounced as in the RA of Ramstein. the RE is pronounced as the RE in (the German) Recht. It makes a difference if you say miRArim, or miRErim. mirarim is a verb, mirerim is just a horrible pronunciation mistake.

[Kelandon]

It seems unlikely that they're all uvular trills if they're actually pronounced differently. I'm just going to ask my German teacher this morning if he has any idea what you're talking about.