Thralni

Fine with me, slartucker. I suppose that means you think the verbs are poorly executed. Thta's a pity. I thought we were having a nice discussion, albeit with irritations now and then. oh well. I'll find somebody else to critisize instead. thanks for the help, though.

Were your comments on the verbs page about the new version of the verbs page? i completely changed it, so I'm not sure if your comments are still relevant. The pronunciation page is coming along nicely. I only have to make the descriptions (velar, trill, that sort of stuff).

Quote: Edit: And you looked it up! As we suspected, this is all a translation problem. I had looked it up already before you posted that. Unless you where writing that post at the time I posted my post, you could have seen that. Quote: In English, the case "my" is in is NOT called genitive, it is called possessive. In other words, English uses two different words for genitive and possessive, but Dutch uses the same word for both of them. Therefore, if you are writing in Dutch you are correct to use that word to describe a case that only deals with ownership. But if you are writing in English, you need to check whether "genitive" or "possessive" is the correct word to use. If it only deals with ownership, "possessive" is the correct word. It doesn't only deal with possession, as I also said in the modified version of the nouns page (The beating of the father). It is correct that Dutch doesn't do it like that, and I beleive German also doesn't do it like that. However, I'm still awaiting the hurrian's expert's email, and I wonder what she shall say about this. until then, I suggest we stop talking about the genitive, but start disicussing other things, like the "equative" and verb introduction page. If you could do that, I'd be very grateful. Quote: Now, in order that we may figure out what this case really is, explain what the non-possessive uses are. Your example, I believe, once you started to say that it was not use simply for possession was "his palace of kingship." Is that still accurate? Yes. I'll have to modify the nouns page again, i think. Note that "his palace of kingship," is about the same as "his royal palace." This form wouldn't be used too often, but it is used.

Ugh. All this misunderstanding is really irritating. okay, I agree with the fact the "genitive" is the same in all languages, but how come that you can't call a certain case a genitive when it doesn't have certain functions a normal genitive would have, although it has more functions than only stating the possessive case. I'm sorry, I have to go. I'll continue this post some other time.

I can give tons of references saying what Sumerian uses the genitive for, that is not a problem. What is a problem, is to give references to books, where is said what Sumerian doesn't use the genitive for. I'll await the Hurrian's expert's email, and directly copy and paste it into a post.

All this wrangling is because Kelandon and Slartucker say something completely different about the genitive uses in Sumerian and Hurrian (moslt Slatucker, actually), than people who probably know more about it in those specific languages. They may be right about the genitive in general terms, but in this specific language, hurrian it is I'm talking about (My language was based on hurrian), I'd rather await what experts on the language have to say. if they agree with what slartucker said, okay. Then he was right. If not, the genitive in my language will stay a genitive. I myself actually don't quite understand the extreme need for touchable evidence all the time, instead of having the words of scholars o the field. If anybody could explain this, feel free to explain it. Kelandon: I looked up what you wanted me to look up (How one calls the case signifying "my", remember that?). The book I looked in calls it a genitive, and not a possesive case. Thuryl: The Nephil language is an ancient language, and therefor certain things could have dropped out. however, the language I'm making here, doesn't go as far as the time that language might have had this use of the genitive. In other words: It isn't used anymore in the language I'm making, but could have been used once.

I saw that (inculding myself) many people talk about "Geneforce" instead of "geneforge." This seems like a logical mistake to make.

With all your respect, but isn't it enough that there are numerous examples where it is not used like that? Numerous texts and numerous articles don't mention anything about these uses. Also, how come you want to see a book or article that much? isn't it enough that the head of the IAA (International Association of Assyriology) (my father) told me how it is, and that what that Johnson guy said is nonsense (by the way, he is not a Sumerologist, he is one of the computer-related people of the oriental insitute). I decided to ask somebody else about the Hurrian uses of the genitive, and I'm awaiting her reply (it should come next week). I musst have forgotten about you wanting only a refernce to a Sumerian source. I'm sorry. must have slipped my mind. the fact that you have been burried in G.A.G. learning cuneiform (was it a year? I think you told me that you studied it for a year), is quite irrelevant. My father have been studying it and doing research on it for about 20-25 years (that goes for others whome I asked as well). I'll wait for the reply of the women I also asked about this, and see what she says. In the meantime I'm going to continue with the verb. Quote: The point is that a case that can serve the same function as the "of" in both "a glass of milk" and "the home of the man" is genitive, and a case that can't isn't. Ah, wait a second here. It can but it doesn't have to, right? If a language doesn't use it, but it can be used for that as an alternative way, then my language has a genitive, no? I can't recall ever saying that my language can't use it, only that they don't use it for that. That's no contradiction what I said. And I hope you people don't assume I'm not grateful for you help? (Although at some occasions I may get irritated)

Oh, that's too bad. Well, you are the man in charge. Slartucker, you asked for a reference? here it is: Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, by Wolfram von Soden. See paragraph 62 d. There you'll find an example of the Akkadian way to deal with the "glass of milk" example. By the way, I'm not entirely convinced by the fact that english uses a genitive for the "glass of milk exmaple."

I was searching on Google for Thralni (I wondered if I would see my website appear), and I saw this topic. I decided to reply, only to notice how extremely dead and burried this topic actually was.

Hi hi. Thralni replying on a topic about Thralni. Anyway, I know him only from Avernum/Exile. It's the guy I got my username from. EDIT: oops, didn't notice how old this topic was...

I completely changed the verb. I actually found it a bit to complicated, and it didn't make sense. EDIT: I was just thinking, Kelandon, that we were so busy talking about ancient nephil, that I actually forgot about the Slith language. How is it going?

Which Avernum trilogy game are you talking about?

Quote: Thralni - practice the English phrase "Thanks for your help, I appreciate the help you are giving me." You are receiving feedback because the participants find the subject interesting. That means you are creating something that is interesting. Good job! In fact, it is so interesting that these people want to help you make it as good and useful as possible. It is nice to be polite to people that want to help, otherwise they tend to just ignore and not help, which is bad. You're right, and I do appreciate the help. However, sometimes there are these comments which I simply hate to hear and irritate me nuts. Quote: brick wall ?? Quote: *facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm* Thralni, you do realize that the only reason I was arguing with you about this was because you said its genitive was only used for possession? OY. I suggest we let that topic rest for now. Quote: (The whole point of an ergative case is that it's not like a nominative case.) I know. i just seem to be really bad in explaning things. Quote: Yes. Yes, there should be an example sentence for an intransitive verb. I'm NOT suggesting that you delete the sentence; I AM suggesting that you take out the bit about "with the dog". "I walk" is just as good an example of a sentence with an intransitive verb as "I walk with the dog" — better, because it doesn't throw in other confusing words. To summarize: the sentence should just say "I walk," not "I walk with the dog." Yes, that's not such a bad idea, actually. Quote: Yes, as long as the plural of "nephil" in the nephil language is something that could be interpreted as sounding like "nephilim." That is, "nephilfarh" doesn't sound a heck of a lot like "nephilim," so it's hard to imagine how the two could be confused. However, you could say that in the later language (when the nephil race actually comes into contact with the human race) the F drops out, and the RH sounded enough like an M by that point that humans heard something more like "nephilam," which they (for ease of pronunciation) turned into "nephilim." This sort of stretches credibility, but meh. That was also part of what I thought. Actually, Slartucker, what you said seems to be more like what I thought it would be. But, do you know anything of irregular plurals in Sumerian, Hurrian or Akadian?

Quote: Thralni: I grow tired of explaining the same thing over and over again, especially since you consistently mis-read what I've said (I asked you the Dutch name of an English pronoun case, not the Dutch name of something in Dutch, etc.). I'll leave it at this: your cases (several of them) are named to suggest uses that are quite different from what your descriptions and examples suggest their uses are. Either your names are misleading, or your descriptions and examples are. okay, now I finally understand the main problem. thanks for this explanation that I can finally understand. Quote: I never answered your question because I started critiquing your website before you asked the question. (And the reason that I've been using italics is that you've been giving me the impression that you don't read what I write unless I highlight the important parts. [Razz] ) I don't care if you use italics or not, I only care about bold and CAPITAL letters. Use italics when and where you please. Quote: Likewise, seriously, before you go any farther, give the language a better name than "Nephilian." The name is improper for many reasons, not the least of which is that it sounds terrible and suggests that they're from Nephilia. No, this actually does irritate me so extremely much! Ungggh aaaaaaaah! jezus Bok! Ahem. Sorry, had to let out some energy I'm certainly not going to call it "The nephil language/tongue", as it sounds rediculous. I'd rather refer to it as "ancient Nephil" instead. Quote: To answer your question: I think you'd be much better off leaving out the "two-participant" description entirely. Leave it out of the summary and description of the ergative. Also, I'd take out the reference to the nominative, because it doesn't really help either (the whole point is that it's not like a nom-acc language). maybe you're right about the two-participant verb. But about the nominative, take it away? I thought Slartucker started complaining that I had to make the difference more clear? Or are you talking about some place completely different then what I'm thinking of at the moment? Quote: In your second example sentence for the absolutive, why is "with the dog" even there? Leave it out. It needlessly looks like an object. I needed an intransitive-like verb, and this was all I could come up with at that moment. However, I do think that there should be an example for an intransitive verb in a sentence there. otherwise people will get confused (strange, me saying that...). Quote: Give an example sentence under the ergative. It could be the same as before, "The man picks the fruit," but just highlight the subject instead of the object. Didn't I do that? *looks at the rgative* No, stupid, when you think about it. i'll change it. Quote: But I had a thought: if the nephil word for "nephil" is "nephil," that would almost certainly mean that the nephil plural has to be "nephilim." No English-speaker would invent that plural; it must be borrowed from something. In your version of this history, where does that plural come from? yes, that's quite a good comment, of which I only thought when I had finished all the suffixes. My thought was like this (mainly an excuse not to have to change everything): If humans spell the nehil names like Frrrrmrrrr, which is absolutely horrible, then I wouldn't be surprised if they can spell the plural of the words correctly and just invented something which would be similair. What do you think? or should I start rewriting everything (O please, nooooo!) Quote: Do what I asked. Give me a citation for a book or a scholarly article stating that in Sumerian the genitive is only used for possession. That way, I can go look it up in the research archives at the university. It doesn't need to be online. (And if the book or article is not in English, that's fine too.) Ah, well, that makes it easier. For clarity: it didn't say that it is used for posession only. I'm a bit confused in rekation to this sentence: "his palace of kingship" Is that the same as "a glass of milk," or not? I could have misread it, you know... Quote: The problem is that transitive verbs and intransitive verbs are two different groups of verbs. Regular verbs and irregular verbs are two different groups of verbs. Finite and infinite verbs are two different groups of particular verb forms... but you can't logically separate out types of verbs after you separate out verb forms. Once you separate out groups of verb forms, you are no longer dealing with entire verbs, you are dealing with verb forms! Furthermore... looking at the verb page, it seems that your explanation of what finite and non-finite verbs are is really misleading. A verb form is classified as "finite" or "non-finite" based on the presence of markers specifying person, number, gender, and so on. It does not matter whether the markers are prefixes or suffixes or pronouns! In English, the suffixes are mostly other information. In Nephilian, however, they are always part of the suffixes! Hmmm... I shall retreat and only come back until I find a better way of putting this. I clearly didn't understand what the book said. I'll also ask my parents about it. Quote: Perfect evidence of this confusion is in your table showing how a finite verb is constructed. How can a finite verbal form be an infinitive? That is a contradiction. It is not an infinitive, it makes it more clear to what group the verb belongs, as I also wrote on the site: Quote: All suffixes written above come after the verb, which keeps the infinitive suffix. That is done to make it more clear by which group the verb belongs. ...but I suppose that is also found weird. Note, though, that that's actually only the multipartite-group verb. if you look at the seperate constructions of the verbs, you'll notice why I said that. thanks for not using the bold and capital letters. it is already more pleasant to read what you wrote. Just one question: are you frustrated? wow. I'm mostly talking, but doing nothing with the language itself. Ever since this discussion began, I have done close to nothing about the language, except fixing mistakes.

Quote: Emphatically, no. Foreign words must be italicized in English. Foreign words always take foreign plurals. Fully assimilated borrowed words — words that were previously foreign but are now considered part of the English language — are not italicized. They may take either their original foreign plural ("nephilim") or the standard English plural ("nephils"). Okay, but I will keep insisting on nephilim (partly because it think it sounds nicer ) Quote: Thralni, will you do something for me? Find a book on English grammar written in Dutch. Find the part on pronoun case (the bit that talks about the difference between "I" and "me"). Tell me what the Dutch name of the case of the word "my" is. Two things: 1) dutch doesn't have cases; 2) We say "een glas melk" (A glass milk), not "een glas van melk" (a glass of milk). If you say that, you actually say that the glass is made of milk. If Dutch would have cases, it is no genitive in Dutch, nor in german (Ein Glass Milch). In french one says un verre d'eau. Now, I'm a bit confused as to whether it's "de" as "of" or just to make it clear that there in no "le", so if it is "A glass water" or " A glass of milk." There are quite a few languages that don't use the genitive for this example of the "glass of milk" you gave me. Okay, asked me to tell you what the Dutch name of the case that signifies "my." I assume you mean as in "my house." Granted that Dutch would have cases, it would be a possessive case. however, as I already said, there is no use of genetive in Dutch for the "a glass of milk" example. We say "a glass" to denote the amount, and then the amount of what: "Milk" => A glass milk. however, English is different in that case, and in English it is said different. Is this enough proof of the fact one says it differently in other languages? Then about the latin genitive. there are severaluses of the genitive: genitivus possesivus genitivus subiectivus/obiectivus genitivus qualitatis genitivus partitivus i was wondering if you could imagine the possibility of all these seperate forms to be one? I don't mean to offence, but I'm under the assumption that Latin has to do with this. In the genitive in nephilian, these uses are known: 1) possesion (the house of the man) 2) realtionship (The king's son) 3) with verbs (The beating of the father) Quote: Also, for the record, I've never been responding to your question about what we think of the description of the absolutive case. I've been responding to the errors on your site. In that case you didn't do what I asked. I had changed the description and asked for opinions on it. Instead I get opinions on everything except what I asked for. Did I miss something? Quote: Almost any book about ancient near eastern language is written for a specialized audience. General overviews are no exceptions. First-year graduate students in such a field are expected to have (or to very quickly pick up) a WEALTH of knowledge on the subject that 99.99% of the world does not have. It is absurd for you to claim that any material giving technical details about the language is written for a general audience. It's not. You have no idea about what books I'm talking. I think that with the support I get of my parents I should be able to understand it, don't you think? Quote: I am a little confused about this persistent disagreement over the genitive. I assume your mother knows what she's talking about, but it's strange that my sources disagree. Is it possible that this is some kind of discrepancy between English and Dutch? Alternately, can you point me to a bibliographic reference to a book, article, whatever which states that Sumerian has a genitive which is only used for possession? I explained this above. there is a difference between English and Dutch (german to, mind you). I couldn't find anything on the internet to direct you to. fact is that in numerous Sumerian texts the genitive wasn't used for that specific purpose, although it may be used for that in general terms. Quote: Interrogatives are a really good example: many languages have more than one way of marking an utterance as a question, including those that rely on inserting words, on changing word order, on prosody, and so on. Often, these different ways are mostly interchangeable. Does that render any of them useless? No! Could you give me an example sentence, and not just a whole story saying why it is like that? I'd like to compare to other languages, like Dutch and german. Quote: What you go on to contrast here is the difference between an ergative-absolutive language and a nominative-accusative language. However, what you SAY you are contrasting is the difference between an ergative language and "a standard Indo-European language." Basically you say the above phrase in place of saying "a nom-acc language" — very misleading. Aha. I'll change that. Quote: EVERY verb is either transitive, or intransitive. EVERY verb is either regular, or irregular. I know that, thank you. Quote: They are two binary features which are completely unrelated. Your chart clearly suggests that if a verb is irregular, it isn't transitive or intransitive. I'll ask other people their opinin about this. If there are more people that say the same, I may change it. Quote: Now that you have explained the meaning of bipartite/multipartite, the names make more sense. It's still a really weird naming convention, and I am confused as to what the discrepancy between those two types of verbs is supposed to add to the language, anyway. I'll explain that clearer on the webpage. there definetly is a difference: The multipartite-group verb is the group of finite verbs, while the bipartite-group is more the one of the non-finite verbs. I chose to name the group to their construction instead after what they are. Ans Slartucker, I kindly ask you to stop using bold and CAPITAL letters. It gives me a feeling of being shouted at. Thanks in advance ( ) EDIT: modified the verb page

Quote: Thralni: I've been saying the same thing since my first post on the subject: either your genitive includes a partitive genitive, or the your genitive is actually a possessive. Please read more carefully. I probably misunderstood you then. Quote: "Nephils" is correct because the standard English plural (adding -s) is always correct, even if another form is also correct. (See "octopus," "octopuses," "octopodes.") I know that, but the plural of nephil is "Nephilim." that's just how it is. Quote: Your website says that the "instrumentative" is not used for a partitive genitive. I'm just saying that you should take that line out, because it isn't necessary: an instrumental is never used for a partitive genitive. The sentence is redundant, not incorrect. Sorry. I was to hasty, and didn't saw the "isn't" part. Instead I read "is." I apologize for that. Quote: Thralni, you ask us for feedback, and then when you get it you deflect it by saying everything is going to change anyway. If you're not ready to get the feedback yet don't ask for it. I asked feeback about the absolutive case. Not the terminative, genitive or whatever case. Instead, I get now feedback about the absolutive case, but I get a series of comments about all other cases. Quote: — not true. I don't know about Hurrian, but for Sumerian see for example this partial grammar, which states (my italics): "the genitive case codes any relation between two noun phrases, including possession, location and composition as well as a variety of extended syntactic functions." But I am skeptical, with Kel, that Hurrian scholars would possibly call it the genitive if it is only used for possessive functions! No, that seems to me like nonsense. besides that the books I use say nothing about this (they only speak about ownership and relationship, and these are books with a general overview of the grammar), my mother looked into some Sumerian texts and it is simply not true. If it is true what it says "any gicen relationship between two nouns," then how about locative, comitative relatioships between two nouns? they are wortless then. Take this part of what Cal Jonhson says: "including possession, location and composition" How can it be location? they already have a seperate case for that: the locative! The locative would be made useless if this is true. Then take this Sumerian eaxmple: dug geshtin = "a jug of whine" This is absolutely no genitive. the genitive would read "dug geshtina" or something similair to that. I got it straight from my mother, who is a qualified Sumerologist. Quote: Looking at the anatomy of a cat's mouth sounds like a cool idea. Don't forget, though, that nephils in A1-4 seem to be capable of producing most English words with minimal phonetic alterations, so their mouth probably isn't too different from a human's. Please, Nephilim! That can be, but I think that looking at a cat's mouth will only make it more realistic. Quote: Thralni, I think some of the confusion in your writing is not caused by bad understanding of English, but simply by sloppy translating! In your nouns page by the part on [a] and [ina] markers, you say: "Some cases can only be used with animate, some only with animate, and some with both." I think what you meant to say is "Some NOUNS can only be used with animate, some only with INANIMATE, and some with both." This is a small error, but these small errors ruin a grammar! Oh, that's stupid. i changed that quite a while ago, but probably didn't change that part. stupid. Quote: It is probably worth noting that most Indo-European languages are Nom-Acc languages, however, the two terms are NOT the same thing, so talking about the enormous difference between ergative and Indo-European languages is really misleading. I didn't say they are the same thing. What exactly is your point? Quote: If I understand you right, the difference between "bipartite" and "multipartite" verbs is that multipartites have 4 possible suffixes, whereas bipartites have 3 -- the person and number suffixes are combined into one. Right? In that case why the HECK are they called BIpartite and MULTIpartite? The site says "under construction." Conclusion: it is not ready yet, and there might come more. They are called bipartite, because there are no seperate suffixes for singular/plural and the person. instead it is combined to one, make the basic structure of the verb without additional suffixes a bipartite combination. Quote: Like Kel said, you need to stop using postposition. A suffix that indicates person, number, tense, or voice is presumably not ever used as its own word in a sentence, so it is not a postposition! Pro-dropped subjects are not postpositions, either! A error I made because I didn't exactly know what a postposition is. I'll fix it, don't worry. Now can you guys please stop commenting on that? Quote: It seems weird to me that you are using pro-drop on the SUBJECT despite making the language ergative-absolutive. I guess that would make the language one that employs partial ergativity. This is one of the few ways in which ergative languages really *are* messier. In hindsite, that was stupid and I should really take it out. Quote: Also, in the chart, it looks like you are saying irregular verbs are neither transitive nor intransitive. Is that true? Because that makes no sense! I thought the chart would be clear enough. What I mean is, is that the irregular verbs, like the transitive and intransitive verbs, form a seperate sub-group in the bipartite-group. Quote: "The difference between the normal bipartite-group and irregular verbs, is the way the stem and the ending are formed. The stem changes, and the ending adapts to that, sometimes getting totally different verbs in comparison to the infinitive." — Totally different verbs?!? Do you mean "different-looking endings"? This is *really* unclear. If you don't want to explain it better in the introduction, you are better served by just referring the reader to a later section. That last sentence is spectacularly confusing. I agree that this should definetely be described clearer. I will fix that too. Quote: "Only the four most necessary tenses exist." — That's a bit of a value judgment. Also, it seems counterintuitive that aspect is only used for the past tense, not for present or future. Why do you think that? Quote: ...Slartucker, who hopes that his comments are helpful, but fears that they are not Why? (and stop stealing Alo's signature please.) Quote: My guess would be that you are reading highly technical books about languages like Sumerian and Hurrian, which are read by a very tiny pool of highly specialized scholars! They probably assume a broad base of knowledge both about the ancient near east and about general linguistics. I don't think this has got to do with who wrote the books. the books are general overviews of the Hurrian and Sumerian grammar. A first year student should understand it. Phew, that was quite some writing...

Quote: I understand that the verb stuff is an introduction, but I don't understand what the point of any of it is. Maybe it will become more clear when you write the rest of it. I suggest you do that before jumping to conclusions. Quote: Latin and Greek have nothing to do with it. If your language has a proper genitive, it will express the "of milk" with the genitive. If it doesn't, then your so-called "genitive" is a possessive case. These words mean something independent of the languages in which they are used. Then how come I don't see anything about it in already two or three books? Quote: nephils Nephilim Quote: Likewise, a genitive case must be used at least for the possessive genitive and the partitive genitive to be a real genitive case. It's a linguistic definition that spans all languages. There are languages that don't have real genitive cases; these languages have possessive cases. English is one of them (for pronouns). Okay, but then don't start saying that I have an incorrect genitive. Just say I have to modify the name of the case, and not that I ahve to do it like in other languages. You just said yourself that some languages do it differently. Quote: But my point was that you say under the "instrumentative" case (which isn't a word in English, which is how I know that it has to be an instrumental) that the "instrumentative" isn't used to express "of" things. This is needless and confusing. In no language that I've ever heard of would one use the instrumental to express the partitive genitive. Did I say that? I thikn I already told you twice it is not like that. I also didn't say it on the website itself (I think I will remove that whole part about the glass of milk. it will only confuse). Quote: My knowledge of general linguistics is not limited to Latin and Greek, so please disabuse yourself of that notion. That is what I figures from your posts. I apologize for that.

You clearly didn't get it. The verb part is an introduction. More details about these groups aren't there yet. they will be added when I'm certain comments would be minimal (although I don't know if that is possible with two linguists here). I only tell there about the basics of the verbs, not yet what it all means. The cases. Sigh. Look, I already wrote that that might change as I first will have to experiment with these grammar parts, and modify the cases when necessary. And please, don't stay with Latin and/or Greek and languages based on them all the time! There are other languages in which it may be different. The glass of milk you gave as an example, think of it this way: glass denotes an amount of the milk. It could also have been a bucket or a flask. it denotes the amount of milk, and therefor milk and glass will be in the same case. I have been looking in books about Sumerian and Hurrian to see how they do it. In Sumerian it is not done as you say, also in Hurrian it is not as say it is. I quote from "Hurritisch" by Ilse Wegner: Quote: The genitive case expresses ownership or "zuhörigkeit"* *(couldn't really translate that, but it means something belonging to something else, like "The king's son", and not "a glass of milk"). What's exactly the difference between an instrumental and instrumentative case? I could have confused two different casenames, and give the wrong instead. What I mean is that it denotes "with what?" About the other comments about the cases I already said what I wanted to say: look at the first lines of this post if you don't know what I'm talking about. However, I'll try to make the verb part clearer. Also, I don't understand the fact that you don't seem to understand what I mean, although others whome I asked to look and read what I wrote (people who know less about linguistics) seemd to understand it enough to know what I'm talking about. About the phonetics: I must say I don't have an idea what a nephil could have said and what not. therefor I decided to look into books and see how the build of a cat's mouth looks like and what a cat can do (with his mouth) and what not (big cats like lions and tigers, I mean). I don't think one can really make the phonetics when one doesn't really get to know the speaker of the language.

I'm planning on putting in a RE sound(not planning, it will be there), I just have difficulty finding a symbol. it appears the keybard can't type the symbol I wanted. I'll manage, though. No, I'm currently busy planning the whole scenario. I won't forget it. By the way, at the moment I'm giving the pronounciation page transformation. EDIT: Oh yes, I wanted to say I changed the exlpanation of the absolutive case, and I wondered if one of you (Kelandon, Slartucker perhap?) could look at it if it's clearer now. I would very much appreciate that. And thanks for editing the link, Kelandon!

I don't know what students he exactly was talking about. I'll ask him. What I would want in the end is two things: 1) To have the feeling of a job well done and to have added something of value for the community. 2) The main reason I'm making this language, is for a future scenario I'm going to make. If people, while playing that scenario, want to translat all the texts, that option is there. if not, I'm going to put a translation of the texts with the readme file. I think the only way of getting over the English problem, is to continue with what I;m doing (learning about the grammar and phonetics), and then start explaining it as precise as I can. Then I can find somebody to read it and see what he/she thinks of it. I wouldn't know how else to get over this problem, unless I copy kelndon's work, which i don't want to do. That is incredibly cheap. EDIT: kelandon, I asked this before, but I don't know if you saw it, so I'll ask it a second time: Could you please alter the description of the link of your page to my page, in such a way that it would say that one ca find the "Nephilian grammar and vocabulary guide" there? Thanks. The URL is http://www.angelfire.com/ns2/thralni0/grammar.html

Ah yes, forgot about the gimmel. I mean the more "kh", or "gh" sound.

You know what it is with nephil phonology? I just don't see a Nephil make sounds that come from the back of the throat, or any sound that sounds harsh (like a standard English G). I'll take isreal as an example. In isreal, there doesn't really exist such a hard Ebglish G. However, to keep it simple, they use an H to symbolize that sound. It's a soft G, like you have in Limburg, one of the provinces of Holland (although now you still don't know what I;m taling about). the H I'm talking about is not a stop, but more as a velar H would sound. I hope this is a better explanation. I have been busy studying fonetics for about a day or two, making all kinds of sounds to undertsand it. I could stop it all and use the standard latin alphabet, but I find this much to interesting to stop doing it. I will make it, even if I will need a month to understand it. I will do it. This is one of those projects I will finish, somehow. My main problem is more that I find it hard to explain things in English, while i can explain them in Dutch. This results in am explanation which is far to unclear for native English speakers. i think that is more the problem at the moment then that I really don't know what certain cases and grammatical structures are. 1) This is what I'm doing, espacially with the verb. However, I was a bit fast with phonetics, as I just didn't give it much attention 2) I could do that, only I don't want the nephilim to have an equally dull language as Dutch. I want to have something more then latin, with all these conjugations. i want it to be simple, so everybody can understand it. My father told me about Hurrian: "Most students can easily translate a text after about nine weeks of taking courses." We are talking here about the more difficult texts, and not "Aenaes Trojanus est" stuff. 3) talked about this above. Things like TH are unnecessary. I have no clue of why I put it in anyway. However, sound slike RA will stay, possible a sound RE will also be put in. What I understand from you, is that you like what I have done, but find it chaotic at times. This chaoticness is probably caused as I somtimes (as I already said three times) don't know how to explain it. EDIT: Kelandon, I looked at your pronunciation page of the Slith language, and saw that you have exactly the same sounds as I want to put in, and partially already have: re, as in German Recht. the RA is exactly the same, only it would be as in German Racht.

Yes, I do see it like that, but I asked what you really think of it, apart from saying just what I could improve. I want your opinion, your advice, whatever. I want to know what you generally think of the language (at least the part that is finished). In the middle east they pronounce the H as a G. I have been in Isreal enough times to know that. I could ask you the same, actually: if the do use the latin alphabet to make it clear for foreiners what is written on a certain sign, then why use an H and not a G? I should ask that my father. I'm contenplating on making a nephil script. If I'm making a language, then i should do it right. A cat won't have the Latin alphabet for obvious reasons. How it will look like is still unknown for me, but I'll see what I will do. First I'll need time before even starting thinking of it. The thing with th ergative-laguage: I'm obsessed by these things. I always tend to ask on and on until I know why it is like that. it can be irritating, as you just noticed. Sorry if I were too irritating. yes, the Wiki is very handy and interesting, but if I have a Dutch booklet I can look in in which it is as simply explained as on the wiki, I

You know, when i started with this language, I mainly worried about the verbs and nouns, but didn't bother that much with the pronounciation. besides, as I'm not a linguist (I don't even really know how to spell it correctly...) so I didn't exactly know what all these things as "nasal" and the like meant. Howvere, I asked my father for information, and he gave me a booklet of 20 pages, all about phonetics. I'm going to plunge into it and make it all more clear. 2) Sigh. bear in mind that it is still under construction. It all depends on sentences. I'm going to make sentences, and see if it all fits. If I see I need something that I can't do as yet, I will broaden it all to make it possible. For now everything will stay as it is. 7) I'll check back in the books I have here next to me. The ergative-laguages: If you haven't studied them, how can you say you don't like them? Look, as you probably already noticed, Iim going on with this until I get an answer. What you say now is that you have almost no experience with ergative-lanuages. the conclusion is smple then: Then how can you like/dislike it? I'm under the assumption now, that you don't like as it is a rival of indo-Europian languages. Am I right? Sorry if I'm a nuisance. My explanation for not using linguistic terms is above. I'm working on that now. About TH and RH, I contemplating on getting them out altogether. it doens't look like a cat will ever use them anyway. RA, well, that is a problem for me how I should make that clear. Unless a uvular trill is someting else then I think it is, a uvular trill is about the same sound as when you gargle? if so, widen your mouth, as to get a "A" sound while making the gargling sound. that should be about it. H is not sometimes, but always pronounced like G. Why I did this has two reasons: - I don't see a cat making such a sound (partly the reason I'm going to remove the TH and RH); - This may also have been because of my experience with semitic languages, wehre usually an H is pronounced as a G. Wow, aspirated? wait for me to get my dictionary. i have no idea what all these English terms are in Dutch. the M thing probably as it was a favorite letter of the nrphlilim. I wanted to make that really clear, but in hindsight it looks ia bit useless. Stress... wait again for the dictionary. You're right. I should all write it down somewhere. It's likely that will be ready only on friday, as I have a lot of exams to learn for. No, don't take me wrong, I do appreciate the interest. I only wish you would be more clearer about your dislike of ergative-languages. EDIT: I was thinking, after all the critisisme, what do you actually think about the language? All I heard now from you i how stupid, badly explained and the like some things are. So, what do you think?