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.

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.

I hope my scenario is ready for beta testing next week. Same goes for Supanik's scenario, I heard. Oh, the tension! Oh, the antisipation!

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.

What a despressing topic. Blades won't die as long as scenario's are made, as for as far as I can tell, three or more are being made.

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

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.

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!"

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?

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)?

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.

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?

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.

Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: Jeff's point should be well taken; but TM's too. Is there any chance that difficulty setting could be made to do more than just pump hit points and damage? So for instance could bosses run drastically different scripts on Torment than on Easy? I don't see why not. Surely the only difficulty would lie in coming up with the multiple scripts. But this would satisfy more players, and also provide more replay value, since people would be motivated to see different battles. I have seen this in many games, and therefor it surprises me to read this. I don't own any game (except BoA), so I didn't play any game to the end, so I don't know anything about it. It still surprises me to read that the attacks and battles are the same, only more difficult and longer. i think Jeff would do a good job in more variations of the same battle, which is roughly the same as Student of Trinity just said.

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.

Quote: Originally written by Shine123: Something I've always wondered, though, who the heck came up with the name "Mycroft"????? I just thought that "Mycroft" has an awfully big similarity with "Microsoft."Was this intended (I certainly hope not). By the way, shine, you can always change the sorcerer graphic.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

Yes, I had forgotten about the differences between dutch and english. I'm now in a total state of confusion. In Dutch, the latin perfectum can be translated as "He has trown" (most often used) and "he threw" (not often used). for this last example ("he threw") we use the latin "Imperfectum." In other words, in dutch it is done like this: Imperfectum: he threw Perfectum: he has thrown. If I say that "he threw" is simple past, and "he has thrown" present perfect, am I right then? By the way, as ef already said, Dutch doesn't have the -ing form. If in Dutch you were to say "I'm going," you just say "ik ga" ("I go"). This means Dutch uses the present tense to denote an acyion you are starting at that moment (I go), or an action that is happening at that moment, but started just now (I'm going). I hope one can comprehend that explanation.

Option 2. Imperfect and perfect: "He threw" and "he has thrown." Thanks. I'm going to change it now.

You are probably absolutely right about the "past perfect". What I want is like the latin perfectum. How would one call that in english? And you're also right about the vocative and imperative confusion. I went under the assumption, somehow, that a vocative needs the imperative. I'm learning classical languages at school. You would expect that i would know that...