Translations of inscriptions

KathAveara · **Posted:** Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:01 pm

That's only speculation.

larryf58 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:03 am

I found the answer I was looking for. -ets, which converts a noun into an adjective, is absolutely the suffix I was looking for in my translation.

There are three forms of -et, which have to be understood from context.

1: -et: 1st plural actor suffix, translating as "we".
2: -t / -et: Suffix which forms adjectives of tendency or direction. Sora (peace) becomes Sorat [peaceful], and vamo (east) becomes vamot [eastern].
3: -et: Suffix which converts a verb into an adjective. Baron (to phosphoresce) becomes baronet (phosphorescent). Chev (to thank) becomes chevet (thankful). Teeg (to work) becomes teeget (working).

And that pretty well settles that. I understand how to use -et and -ets now.

korovev · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:01 am

In other words, -et converts a verb while -ets converts a noun?

PS: I think it’s SokUtavex, not Sokotavex :wink:

KathAveara · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:08 am

korovev wrote:

In other words, -et converts a verb while -ets converts a noun?

Ah, if only it were that simple... -et can do nouns as well, cf. šorat as Larry mentioned. I see no reason the regard these as different suffices, to be honest.

korovev · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:16 am

Is there any example of -ets (I mean, -ec) used with verbs?

Maybe -et converts a verb while -ec/-t converts a noun.

larryf58 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:43 pm

The difference between examples 2 (-t) and 3 (-et) is greater than just the fact that 2 converts nouns or verbs for a specific effect; the suffix is actually -t. It gets an e added to it if it follows another consonant for pronunciation. The three examples are very distinct suffixes that are or can be homonyms.

So... yes, korovev, it looks like a good general rule of thumb is that -et is for verbs, and -ets is for nouns.

Of course, that still leaves enough confusion about when to use -t to satisfy anyone who enjoys puzzles.

korovev · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:23 pm

It might be vice-versa: -ec becomes -c in front of a vowel, then the c mutates into t. In fact, except for pax, c seems to appear at the end of words only if preceded by e.

larryf58 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:45 pm

Okay... you lost me on that one. "-ets becomes -ts in front of a vowel"? It's a suffix. It doesn't normally fall before a vowel unless there's another suffix appended. By rights, it should be the terminal suffix, so that's not likely to happen.

-et and -ets do not drop the "e", even following a vowel.
abtsE (basalt) becomes abtsEehts (basaltic) and elon (raise) becomes elonet (elevated). sofegu (fear) becomes sofeguet (fearsome).

-t adds an "e" if it follows a consonant.
Sora ends in a vowel, so it becomes Sorat. vamo ends in a vowel, so it becomes vamot.

I didn't find it difficult to parse once I found that concrete definition for -et.

Which leads me to a conjecture: tikolEt is used for "sorry", but is defined as literally meaning "sorrowful", and that makes me wonder if tikolE isn't the word for sorry, and tikolEt is using the -t suffix to make it "sorrowful".

KathAveara · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:12 pm

korovev wrote:

Is there any example of -ets (I mean, -ec) used with verbs?

No.

larryf58 wrote:

The difference between examples 2 (-t) and 3 (-et) is greater than just the fact that 2 converts nouns or verbs for a specific effect; the suffix is actually -t. It gets an e added to it if it follows another consonant for pronunciation. The three examples are very distinct suffixes that are or can be homonyms.

I think Larry's absolutely correct here. The e is not actually part of the suffix in examples like çevet - it's an epenthetic vowel to release the cluster vt#. In -ec on the other hand, the e is absolutely part of the suffix. So, rather than saying that certain suffixes loose their e before vowels, it's the other way round - the underlyingly vowelless suffix gains an e after consonants.

korovev wrote:

It might be vice-versa: -ec becomes -c in front of a vowel, then the c mutates into t. In fact, except for pax, c seems to appear at the end of words only if preceded by e.

I doubt this analysis.

larryf58 wrote:

-et and -ets do not drop the "e", even following a vowel.
abtsE (basalt) becomes abtsEehts (basaltic) and elon (raise) becomes elonet (elevated). sofegu (fear) becomes sofeguet (fearsome).

Huh? Where are you getting that last word (sofeguet) from? I've checked, and it does not seem to be attested anywhere. If so, you can't use it as evidence.

larryf58 wrote:

Which leads me to a conjecture: tikolEt is used for "sorry", but is defined as literally meaning "sorrowful", and that makes me wonder if tikolE isn't the word for sorry, and tikolEt is using the -t suffix to make it "sorrowful".

More likely is that tikolí mean "sorrow" (though I think that's what you intended to say). I've actually concluded the same thing, and included that in my updated D'ni dictionary.

korovev · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:54 pm

Oh well, as long as we have a practical rule :mrgreen:

.

KathAveara wrote:

More likely is that tikolí mean "sorrow" (though I think that's what you intended to say). I've actually concluded the same thing, and included that in my updated D'ni dictionary.

Kh’reestrefah’s Dictionary already has that :wink:

:

Quote:

tikoleet, sorry (literally: sorrowful). K’laamas. (tikolee ‘sorrow’ (?) + -t.)

Talashar · **Joined:** Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:24 pm **Posts:** 91

In the attested data, -et is attached to consonant-final verb stems, while -t is attached to vowel-final noun stems. Assuming tikolee is a noun (as the literal translation of tikoleet suggests), there isn't any direct evidence to tell whether the difference between the suffixes depends on word class or the final segment. I think the latter is more likely, though, given the parallels of -(e)th and -(e)sh.

korovev · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:11 pm

This is one of those cases in which I go OOC and suspect RAWA was just undecided :lol:

.

I don’t think he had that much time to develop multiple classes, irregularities, shades of meaning, etc. while also working on the games. The better known parts of D’ni grammar appear to be fairly regular. When the rules appear to be overly complex, like in this case, I assume that at best there’s a simpler rule*. At worst, “We are... very likely going to find errors in past translations”, as RAWA put it.

Paradoxically, texts in D’ni letters might not be more accurate than those in OTS, as it’s quite easy to make mistakes while typing in the Dnifont format.

* For example, -(e)t is simpler that assuming two suffixes -et and -t.

larryf58 · **Posted:** Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:41 am

Talashar wrote:

In the attested data, -et is attached to consonant-final verb stems, while -t is attached to vowel-final noun stems.

I may not be understanding you correctly, but that doesn't make sense to me if I am. Are you saying that -t is a suffix to form adjectives from nouns that end in a vowel? If you are, that doesn't account for abtsEets, anoets, bonUets, or any of the other adjectives that we have examples of whose noun forms end in vowels.

Back to my earlier musing:

I had another thought about Teledahn. When I was trying to take a nap this evening in preparation for tonight's cavern tour, my brain wouldn't slow down. Instead, it occurred to me that the breakdown might be te-led-ahn or te-ledahn. If "led" or "ledahn" meant swamp, marsh, lagoon, or even mushroom, that would make more sense than my earlier suppositions.

Talashar · **Joined:** Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:24 pm **Posts:** 91

larryf58 wrote:

Talashar wrote:

In the attested data, -et is attached to consonant-final verb stems, while -t is attached to vowel-final noun stems.

I may not be understanding you correctly, but that doesn't make sense to me if I am. Are you saying that -t is a suffix to form adjectives from nouns that end in a vowel? If you are, that doesn't account for abtsEets, anoets, bonUets, or any of the other adjectives that we have examples of whose noun forms end in vowels.

Sorry, I might not have been clear. In that sentence I was only describing where we see the forms -et and -t. I think there are two adjective-forming suffixes:

1. -et after consonants and -t after vowels. Attaches to nouns and verbs.

2. -ets, invariably. Attaches to nouns and numerals.

I don't have an explanation for the difference between noun+t and noun+ets adjectives, partly because we have so few of the former.

larryf58 · **Posted:** Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:59 pm

Talashar wrote:

Sorry, I might not have been clear. In that sentence I was only describing where we see the forms -et and -t. I think there are two adjective-forming suffixes:

1. -et after consonants and -t after vowels. Attaches to nouns and verbs.

2. -ets, invariably. Attaches to nouns and numerals.

I don't have an explanation for the difference between noun+t and noun+ets adjectives, partly because we have so few of the former.

Ah! Okay. It's pretty clear that -et is a suffix that converts verbs into adjectives. If you look at my earlier posts, I show examples. I found that info cruising the DLF site.

Yes, -t / -(e)t is still something of a mystery. It seems to apply to nouns, but with only a few examples, I don't have a firm grasp on it. For now, it seems to be used to indicate motion or tendencies toward something. The two examples I know of, shorat and vamot, roughly break down as "relating to a time of peace" (peaceful) and "located toward the east" (eastern).

It's going to be a bear figuring out when it should be used.

Translations of inscriptions

Who is online