From 74774.157@compuserve.com Sat Dec 16 12:55:24 1995 Date: 16 Dec 95 04:59:46 EST From: Jeffrey Henning <74774.157@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver: ; Subject: {A} MODLANG 7 - Part 2 LANGUAGES' WORD FOR BAT The form of a word can be very arbitrary. Take the name of the bat, for instance. As the following table shows, different cultures emphasized different attributes of the bat, calling it "a fluttering mouse", "a leathery mouse", naming it after its handlike wings or other attributes. bat {English < Middle English _bakke_ < Scandinavian _backa_, "flutterer".} bo:rege/r {Hungarian _bo:r_, "leather" + _ege/r_, "mouse".} chauve-souris {French _chauve_, "hairless" + _souris_, "mouse".} chiroptera {Latin < Greek, from _chir_, "hand" + _pteron_, "wing".} fu {Chinese. Origin unknown.} Fledermaus {German < _fleder_, "fluttering" + _maus_, "mouse".} fladdermus {Swedish < _fladdra_, "to flutter" + _mus_, "mouse".} flederymoyz {Yiddish < _fleder_, "fluttering" + _moyz_, "mouse".} Laderlapp {Danish < _lader_, "leather" + _la:pp_, "lip".} letutsaya mysh {Russian < "flying mouse".} liliac {Rumanian < the bat's resemblance to a lily (!).} murcie/lago {Spanish < "blind".} noclarmus {Vorlin < _noc_, "night" + _lar_, "flight" + _mus_, "mouse".} nukteris {Greek < "nocturnal".} pipistrello {Italian < "shy".} ranesu babasu {Nagada, "ugly rat swooper" < _rane_, "rat" + _su_, unfavorable diminutive + _baba_, "fly" + _su_.} watwat {Arabic, onomatopoetic from the sound of its wings.} Source: adapted from Noah Jonathan Jacobs, _Naming-Day in Eden_ The Chinese word for bat, _fu_, happens to have a homonym meaning prosperity. Thanks to this coincidence, the Chinese have given the bat many sobriquets, such as "embracing wings", "heavenly rat", "fairy rat" and "night swallow". Leaving the bats in the belfry, we turn to other animals. An animal can be described in terms of its color (_red fox_), its cry (_catbird_, which makes a sound like the mewing of a cat), its diet (_anteater_), its origin (_German Shepherd_), its shape (_duck-billed platypus_), its size (_jumbo shrimp_) or many other attributes. An animal can even be anthropomorphized (_laughing hyena_, _praying mantis_ or _fiddler crab_). Would a skunk by any other name smell as sweet? The German word for skunk is _Stinktier_, "stinker, stink animal", which certainly seems more appropriate than English _skunk_, which is either from the Massachusett word _squnck_ or Algonquian _sega/kw_; neither of which are known to have descriptive meanings, although _squnck_ is close to _sagket_, "urinator", an appropriate enough word given that the skunk ejects its secretion from a gland near its bladder. AUGMENTATIVES AND DIMINUTIVES HAVE GONE TO THE DOGS If we had used "dog" as an example instead of "bat", we would have had to consider the many other words for dog, showing different emotional attitudes or connotations, whether neutral, favorable or unfavorable. For instance, the words _cur_, _hound_, _dog_ and _canine_ all refer to domesticated mammals akin to the wolf. However, each of these words have different associations. WORDS WITH CONNOTATIONS CENTERING AROUND _DOG_ -----------------------A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E---------------------- R | FAVORABLE NEUTRAL UNFAVORABLE | E | |-----------------------------------------------| G | FORMAL | hound canine mongrel cur | I | | | S | STANDARD | dog | T | | | E | INFORMAL | pooch doggy mutt | R ----------------------------------------------------------- The words have different denotations (formal meanings) as well as different connotations: _mutt_, _mongrel_, _cur_ = "mixed-breed dog" (therefore somewhat unfavorable) _hound_ = "hunting dog", a more elite dog, with better breeding, perhaps owned by nobility (presumably well-bred and therefore favorable). The word _mutt_ seems more affectionate than _mongrel_, while _cur_ seems more pejorative than _mongrel_. The word _pooch_ seems more affectionate than _dog_, while _canine_ is a clinical term, almost favorably neutral. If this does not seem complicated enough, well, this analysis is without even considering species (_German Shepherd_, _malemute_, _spaniel_, _mastiff_, etc.) or age (_puppy_, _whelp_) or gender (_bitch_). And it ignores the radiated meanings of the words (_dog_ has the favorable connotations of _you lucky dog_ and the unfavorable connotations of _it was a dog_; _hound_ is unfavorable in _to hound someone_; _cur_ can mean "a contemptible person", not just a dog). You could develop a few- hundred-word model language dealing with nothing but dogs! For the different terms for dog, the native speaker of English knows all these different biases and registers without thinking. For example, what is the appropriate word for each of the following? You can choose from: _canine_, _cur_, _dog_, _doggy_, _hound_, _mongrel_, _mutt_, and _pooch_. A) Get away from me, you mangy _____. B) Oh, isn't that a cute little ____? C) Our Reginald could be the most unforgivable ___. D) They were accompanied by their worthy ____. E) An intriguing aspect of the anatomy of the common _____ is its tail bone. Typical answers are A) _mutt_, B) _doggy_, C) _cur_, D) _hound_ or _pooch_, and E) _canine_. Your mileage may vary. No other language has eight words exactly corresponding to _canine_, _cur_, _dog_, _doggy_, _hound_, _mongrel_, _mutt_, and _pooch_. The range of words surrounding common (or central) terms varies from language to language. In Spanish, the words for "dog" include: _perro_ - "dog" (neutral like _dog_) _perrazo_ - "a large, grotesque, hulking dog" (_hellhound_ is close, but too devilish in connotation) _perrezin~o_ - "a young dog" (similar to _puppy_) _perrico_ - untranslatable, but has connotations of warmth and light humor _perrillo_ - "a small, pitiable dog" _perrito_ - "a small, beloved dog" This adds additional dimensions to the matrix shown for English _dog_, adding size ("small", "large") and age. Romance languages such as Spanish have the advantage of many diminutives (suffixes that denote smallness, youth, affection or familiarity) and augmentatives (suffixes that denote largeness, strength, awkwardness or unattractiveness). The linguistic terms _diminutives_ and _augmentatives_ actually combine two separate dimensions, those of size and attitude. English, unfortunately, has fewer diminutives and augmentatives than many languages and uses them less freely. One English augmentative is _super-_, as in _supermarket_, _superstore_ and _superstar_. One diminutive is _-let_ in _piglet_, _starlet_ or _applet_ (a small software application) and _-ling_ in _duckling_. One of the best ways to increase the expressiveness of a model language, without unduly increasing the size of the vocabulary, is to create common augmentatives and dimunitives. The perfectionist might even create separate families of affixes for different types of objects (people, animals, other) or different classes of speech. You might want to create affixes for "small", "young", "familiar, beloved", "large", "strong", and "awkward, unattractive". You could have separate affixes to indicate familiarity, size, age, attitude and formality: Attitude -- "favorable", "unfavorable" Formality -- "informal", "formal" Familiarity -- "beloved, familiar", "unfamiliar, strange" Size -- "small", "large" Age -- "young", "mature, of age", "old" As an example, here is the vocabulary from Nagada: LITERAL MEANING SUFFIX EXAMPLE CONNOTATION _Attitude_ "favorable" _mu_ _raramu_ "hound" "unfavorable" _su_ _rarasu_ "cur" _Formality_ "formal" _bu_ _rarabu_ "canine" "informal" _du_ _raradu_ "doggy" _Familiarity_ "familiar" _nemu_ _raranemu_ "pet dog" "unfamiliar" _mamu_ _raramamu_ "stray dog" _Size_ "small" _lilu_ _raralilu_ "small dog" "large" _malu_ _raramalu_ "big dog" _Age_ "young" _silu_ _rarasilu_ "puppy" "of age" _nelu_ _raranelu_ "mature dog" "old" _bulu_ _rarabulu_ "old dog" Of course, these suffixes can be combined. Spanish _perrito_, "a small, beloved dog", might be translated into Nagada as _raranemulilu_, literally "a small pet dog". Not all of the senses shown above have to be conveyed by affixes. For instance, Negasi (a daughter language of Nagada) rarely uses _numo_ (from Nagada _nemu_) for "formal" but instead borrows the whole word from Nagada when formality is required. For the sense of "unfavorable", Negasi still uses _so_ (from _su_) but appends the word after it (which is called _reduplication_); so _reri_ (Negasi for "dog", from Nagada _rara_) becomes _rerisoreri_ for "cur". LEVELS OF FORMALITY FOR SYNONYMS Book iii, The King of the Golden Hall. "Nay, Gandalf!" said the King. "You do not know your own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of the battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better." This is a fair sample of moderated or watered archaism. Using only words that still are used or known to the educated, the King would really have said: "Nay, thou (n)wost not thine own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall...", etc. I know well enough what a modern would say. "Not at all, my dear G. You don't know your own skill as a doctor. Things aren't going to be like that. I shall go to the war in person, even if I have to be one of the first casualties..." and then what? Theoden would certainly think, and probably say "thus shall I sleep better!" But people who think like that just do not talk a modern idiom. You can have "I shall lie easier in my grave," or "I should sleep sounder in my grave like that rather than if I stayed at home," if you like. But there would be an insincerity of thought, a disunion of word and meaning. For a King who spoke in a modern style would not really think in such terms at all, and any reference to sleeping quietly in the grave would be a deliberate archaism of expression on his part (however worded) far more bogus than the actual archaic English that I have used. Like some non-Christian making a reference to some Christian belief which did not in fact move him at all. -- Letter from J.R.R. Tolkien to Hugh Brogan, Sep. 1955 English provides a comprehensive range of vocabulary for different levels of culture, including the popular, the literary and the scholarly. This richness of vocabulary gives English speakers a wide variety of words to choose from in any situation. There can be a world of difference between _asking_, _questioning_ and _interrogating_, with each word belonging to a different register (a register is a variety of language defined according to the social circumstances it is used in). Your own model languages should emulate this to some extent, or else even your heroes may say, "Not at all, my dear G." The different levels of formality are almost always best illustrated by discussing the wide vocabulary for genitals, due to the complex attitudes and taboos involving them. For instance, some words are more suited for conversing with children (_don't touch my boobies, honey_), for casual conversation between friends (_her implants gave her much bigger tits_), for situations involving superiors (_I need to take the afternoon off to have a test done on my breasts_) and still others for highly formal or clinical situations involving officials or authorities (_The state of your mammary glands is normal_). Before considering how your own model languages can address this, let's consider some other examples. While many languages have words with different levels of formality for body parts (expressing almost universal humility and curiosity), English is unusual in that is has formal vocabulary for many other concepts. English owes much of its depth of formality to its history. While the Norman invasion brought an influx of French words into the Anglo-Saxon language, in the early years after the conquest, for a native Englishman to use _question_ (from the Old French) instead of the homely _ask_ would have been putting on airs. But because the French words were spoken by the most prestigious within society they came to convey a certain savoir-faire and were gradually assimilated. Meanwhile, among the Norman conquerors, the most learned were fluent in Latin, and so they turned to Latin words when an even higher level of formality was needed. Norman French was like many other European languages in its respectful borrowing of Latin (and later Greek) vocabulary. But while many European languages that have drawn from Latin have two levels of formality, English is unique in having three, thanks to the French. THREE TIERS OF FORMALITY OF VOCABULARY ANGLO-SAXON FRENCH LATIN ask question interrogate fast firm secure fear terror trepidation fire flame conflagration goodness virtue probity rise mount ascend time age epoch - Albert C. Baugh, _The Random House Guide to Good Writing_ Borrowing was a common mechanism for adding words with the same meaning but differing formality to a language. Where Old French borrowed from Latin for more formality, when Latin itself borrowed words from other languages those words were considered less formal. For instance, in Latin, _equus_ (which survives in English _equine_ and _equestrian_) was the original word for "horse". Later, legionnaires adopted the term _caballus_ (which survives in English _cavalry_) from Celtic enemies as a slang word for horse. Over time, _caballus_ became the regular term for horse, and _equus_ -- now the more conservative form -- survived as a scholarly or cultured word for "horse". This is not to say that borrowing words is the only way to add different levels of formality to a language's vocabulary. It is simply the most common way in which a language acquires large lexicons of vocabulary with different degrees of formality. In fact, all languages have the resources within themselves for different levels of formality. Most tolerate informal or slang terms. Many of these terms die out but a minority of such words, like the Latin example of _caballus_, assume a certain respectability over time and displace older forms, or cause older forms to be used in more formal contexts. To draw an analogy from _caballus_: today, _nag_ is a slang word for "a racehorse" but someday it could evolve into a word with the general meaning "horse", pushing _horse_ into a more formal role than it has had in the past. In your own model language, you can adopt a number of approaches to convey different levels of formality. You can simply have specific affixes, as in Sen:esepera, where the prefix _dim_ lessens the formality, _in_ adds formality, and _inten_ intensifies the formality. These are general augmentatives and diminutives and can include the sense of both formality and size. SEN:ESEPERA LEVELS OF FORMALITY |<--LEAST FORMAL------------EVERYDAY----------------MOST FORMAL-->| dimin:demandi dim:demandi demandi in:demandi inten:demandi "whistle for" "find out" "ask" "question" "interrogate" dimin:emama dim:emama emama in:emama inten:emama "boobies" "tits" "hooters" "breasts" "mammary glands" dimin:faira dim:faira faira in:faira inten:faira "spark?" "flare?" "fire" "flame" "conflagration" dimin:tima dim:tima tima in:tima inten:tima "fright" "scare" "fear" "terror" "trepidation" This is boring but effective, and meets Sen:esepera's goal of being easily learned. The language Tumana-Ta, on the other hand, provides a more interesting example of formality. Tumana-Ta (its name literally means "Brother Talk") is the language of the Sahupa village on the border of the Makata and Negasi lands. Sahupa was founded by Makata speakers, but after a volcanic eruption destroyed a nearby Negasi village, many Negasi speakers settled amongst the Makata. This was the start of the role of the Sahupa village as a major marketplace for both lands. As a result, speakers of both languages mingled freely and a new language was born. First, before looking at Tumana-Ta's structuring of formality, a recap of the evolution of Makata and Negasi (introduced in the second issue as examples for naming languages) is in order. The consonants of Nagada are [b], [d], [g], [s], [m], [n], [l], [r] and [h]. The vowels are [a], [e] and [u]. All syllables in Nagada follow the form CV (Consonant+Vowel). The language of Makata is descended from Nagada and showed the following sound changes: [b] > [p], [d] > [t], [g] > [k], [m] > [n] and [n] > [m]. The language of Negasi went through different changes from Nagada: the only consonantal change was that of [d] > [t] > [s], while vowels changed depending on the syllable they appeared in, as follows. Vowel First Syllable Final Syllable (If More Than 1 Syllable) [a] [e] [i] [e] [u] [a] [u] [a] [o] For instance, the Nagada word _naba_ became _nebi_ in Negasi. The following table shows common words and suffixes in each of three main languages, illustrating the sound changes: NAGADA MAKATA NEGASI "talk" _da_ _ta_ _se_ "ask" _dada_ _tata_ _sesi_ "hooters" _nana_ _mama_ _neni_ "fire" _selese_ _selese_ _sulesa_ "fear" _bubena_ _pupema_ _babeni_ "formal" _-bu_ _-pu_ _-bo_ "informal" _-du_ _-tu_ _-so_ Nagada is now extinct and is used only by shamans, who are the most important people in Sahupa (even ahead of merchants). The language Tumana-Ta absorbed the vocabulary of both Makata and Negasi, in the process developing an expanded phonology. COMPARATIVE PHONOLOGY OF THE NAGADA GROUP OF LANGUAGES b d g p t k s m n l r h a e i o u --------------------------------------------------------------- Nagada x x x - - - x x x x x x x x - - x Makata - - - x x x x x x x x x x x - - x Negasi x - x - - - x x x x x x x x x x x Tumana-Ta x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Since the Makata and Negasi languages have very similar vocabularies, the dominant Makata speakers had no need for most of the Negasi words, which did not express any new concepts (these words were makamaka). Because the Negasi speakers still used these words, they came to be regarded as less formal alternatives to Makata terms, and their meaning shifted. So Negasi _babeni_, "fear", changed meaning to the less formal "scare", since the Makata word _pupema_, "fear", was well established. The Negasi informal word, _babeniso_ (formed from Negasi's diminutive, _-so_), became even less formal ("fright"). The Makata augmentative form, _pupemapu_, "terror", remained. Since speakers of both languages revered Nagada, its word for "fear", _bubena_, assumed the most prominent position, coming to mean "trepidation". Thus was Tumana-Ta's elaborate lexicon formed. Where Nagada, Makata or Negasi have only three levels of formality, Tumana-Ta has five. The following table provides more detail on Tumana-Ta's vocabulary. Note that for "conflagration" Tumana-Ta has no equivalent, since the Nagada form of the word "fire" is the same as the Makata form (_selese_), which was already in common use before words began being borrowed from Nagada. TUMANA-TA LEVELS OF FORMALITY |<--LEAST FORMAL------------EVERYDAY----------------MOST FORMAL-->| |Negasi+_-so_ Negasi Makata Makata+_-pu_ Nagada | sesiso sesi tata tatapu dada "whistle for" "find out" "ask" "question" "interrogate" neniso neni mama mamapu nana "boobies" "tits" "hooters" "breasts" "mammary glands" sulesaso sulesa selese selesepu -- "spark?" "flare?" "fire" "flame" "conflagration" babeniso babeni pupema pupemapu bubena "fright" "scare" "fear" "terror" "trepidation" So Tumana-Ta illustrates a more involved, more naturalistic, way of including formality in your own model languages, by emulating the sort of borrowing that English itself experienced. By using phonetic change to rapidly create sister languages, you can more easily flesh out the vocabulary of your primary model language. (For more information on using sound change to create different languages from a common ancestor, refer back to issue 2.) SUGGESTIONS FOR EXERCISES 1. Create some new English words to describe a few liffs. 2. Create specific words for your model language to describe environmental conditions that English speakers don't need to distinguish between, but that would be important to your language's speakers. 3. Create a color-scheme vocabulary for your model language. Possible suggestions: a. Your color scheme might have a different number of divisions along the red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet spectrum (e.g., 13 divisions instead of 7: red, reddish orange, orange, orangish yellow, etc.). b. Your color scheme might be biased towards one end of the spectrum (e.g., violet, violet-indigo, indigo-violet, indigo, blue-indigo, blue & green, red & orange & yellow). Unlikely for humans, but a possible language of aliens. c. Think of color distinctions that might be important given the environment your language speakers live in. For example, a language for jungle dwellers might distinguish between a wide variety of greens (e.g., "palm-leaf green", "sea green", etc.). 4. Decide how your model people would describe the following common animals. What aspects would they emphasize? What animals have cultural significance to your people? For instance, whether a snake is described as "creeper" (ultimate etymology of _snake_ and _serpent_) or as "tempter" or "immortal" reveals how that culture views the sneaky little reptile. One of the most useful routines when coining a word is to examine the etymology of its English counterpart. For instance, _cobra_ is shortened from Portuguese _cobra de capello_, "snake with hood". A good etymological dictionary, such as Eric Partridge's _Origins_ can also help you verbificate. COMMON ANIMALS -------------- alligator ant bear bee bird boar camel cat chicken cow deer dog dolphin donkey duck eagle eel elephant falcon fish fly fox frog goat goose hog horse insect leopard lion monkey mouse octopus owl ox pig rabbit rat reptile shark sheep snake spider tiger turkey turtle wasp whale wolf worm 5. Invent some words that express unique aspects of your language speakers' culture, fleshing out sulasula. For instance, in Mu/harafic, the language spoken by my desert nomads, peoples' names are considered to exert power over them, and all but outcasts are known by nicknames. Therefore, _gnomifesir_, "to confide names", is to offer an exceptional level of trust to someone. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to Patrick Merz (100524.715@compuserve.com) and Chris Collins (ccollins@pen.k12.va.us) for reviewing this issue, correcting typos and suggesting other changes. Thanks, guys! Of course, all errors of omission or commission are the sole responsibility of Chris. :-) If you'd care to review a draft copy of a future issue of this newsletter, just let me know by e-mail. *** You have just finished reading _Model Languages_, a regular on-line newsletter published monthly and provided free to all interested parties. Feel free to post this newsletter on BBSes or online services and feel free to e-mail it to others, so long as you forward it in its entirety. To become a regular subscriber, send a message with the text "SUBSCRIBE MODLANG \7 [your name] (your http address)" in the subject header to 74774.157@compuserve.com (include your http address only if you would like your home page to be linked to the _Model Languages_ membership directory home page). To cancel a subscription, send a message with the words "UNSUBSCRIBE MODLANG" in the header. I look forward to all comments, including corrections, and am always interested in possible articles for inclusion in future issues. To review back issues, visit the _Model Languages_ home page at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeffrey_henning. This is the fastest way to retrieve back issues, but if you do not yet have access to the World Wide Web, send an e-mail to 74774.157@compuserve.com with the text "RETRIEVE MODLANG #(-#)" in the header, where the number signs represent the issue or issues you want to retrieve; e.g., "RETRIEVE MODLANG 1" for the first issue, "RETRIEVE MODLANG 1-6" for the first six issues (you are reading issue 7). Retrievals and submissions are processed once a month (until I find a volunteer to set up a mailbot). Contents copyright 1995 Jeffrey Henning. All rights reserved.