sparagagne a cołaxion @daribenetka - Tumblr Blog

Posts

linguisticmaps

Polar interrogatives (=yes/no questions)

Please help me fill the blank areas if you know the value of that languages!

danbensen

French has an interrogative particle? ?

vilikemorgenthal

The phrase “est-ce que” (literally: “is that that”), in the beginning of a sentence, forms polar question. It is the preferred strategy nowadays, along with interrogative intonation, and this item has reduced to [ɛskə] or even [ɛs], being no longer analysed as a verbal phrase; thus we can speak of a particle.

(source: is French)

(additional source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsSWRuxAUdY)

daribenetka

Venetian has something correspondent to French "est-ce que", though it's not analysed as a particle. Many northern italian languages have verbal affixes too, including Venetian :)

#language #languages #venetian #venetian language

retroflexnasal-deactivated20161

[ȿ] [ɀ]

So I’m going to need the IPA to include these two symbols already. It’s pretty obvious that the whistled sibilants are phonemic in a handful of Bantu languages, and even Shosted (2006) wrote a whole paper on their phonemi status. Alongside that we need to include the labiodental flap [ⱱ] more commonly as well, and the bilabial flap [ⱳ]. It’s as if the usage of a symbol is entirely based on how common it is, withot any regards to it’s necessity for a proper transcription even if it’s just for one language.

vilikemorgenthal

Boost this post!

fadeintocase

my favorite thing about the myst lore is the numbers

what a cool fucking number system i have not seen any other conlang/conculture with numbers this cool.

#conlang #conscript

linguismstics

Parseltongue

I went to a talk given by the man who developed Parseltongue for the Harry Potter films, Prof Francis Nolan. Just a few ‘facts’ about the language with some of the 'explanations’ given:

Phonology

It’s got no rounded vowels or labial consonants (because snake lips aren’t very flexible)

It’s got pharyngeal consonants (because some snakes like to constrict things)

It’s got a large number of fricatives, which also exhibit a length contrast (because…snakes)

Syntax

It’s got basic VSO order

It’s got postpositions (typologically highly unusual for a VSO language)

It’s ergative

Borrowings

The word 'muggle’ has been borrowed into English from Parseltongue 'ŋaʔalas’ - obviously!

What I say: I'm a conlanger

What I mean: I think of approximately 47 morphonological processes every day, raid academic texts for grammar ideas, and have a stack of papers about a foot high filled with partially-filled-out conjugation tables and doodles for made-up alphabets but I couldn't even ask "How are you?" in a single one of the sketchy messes I call "conlangs"

#conlang #conlangs #conlanging #so true

thequeensclock

Can somebody explain to me what is happening with Norway’s government taking children away from families? Because I’m confused. Or is it fake? Because from one side I read that they are being taken away from highly racist, neo-fascist families but on the other side they are just being taken from a loving home.

la-vie-en-lys

What. o.o If it’s true, that’s …not how they should fight against fascism.

smolbeerke

there’s been a book released about it recently in poland, can’t quite recall the title… but it was about how norwegian gov can take your kid from you if it mentions to someone that you’ve yelled at it or slapped its butt when it misbehaved. apparently that’s how the norwegians protect kids from “abusive parents”.

edit: found it

https://czarne.com.pl/katalog/ksiazki/dzieci-norwegii

thequeensclock

Jeus christ that is awful. Truly awful

#wtf #norway

pez-uzi-deactivated20160424

Places where reality is a bit altered:

• any target • churches in texas • abandoned 7/11’s • your bedroom at 5 am • hospitals at midnight • warehouses that smell like dust • lighthouses with lights that don’t work anymore • empty parking lots • ponds and lakes in suburban neighborhoods • rooftops in the early morning • inside a dark cabinet

solareveille

playgrounds at night

rest stops on highways

deep in the mountains

ghostfiish

early in the morning wherever it’s just snowed

trails by the highway just out of earshot of traffic

schools during breaks

those little beaches right next to ferry docks

bowling alleys

genesisdoes-moved

unfamiliar mcdonalds on long roadtrips

your friends living room once everybody but you is asleep

laundromats at midnight

coolpepcat-deactivated20190924

what the fuck

ringingofraevolution

galeries in art museums that are empty except for you

the lighting section of home depot

stairwells

doomgeneration1995

•hospital waiting rooms •airports from midnight to 7am • bathrooms in small concert venues

midtownsparker

I just got the weirdest feeling I swear

the-crepes-of-wrath

OK LISTEN THERE ARE REASONS FOR THIS!!!

A lot of these places are called liminal spaces - which means they are throughways from one space to the next. Places like rest stops, stairwells, trains, parking lots, waiting rooms, airports feel weird when you’re in them because their existence is not about themselves, but the things before and after them. They have no definitive place outside of their relationship to the spaces you are coming from and going to. Reality feels altered here because we’re not really supposed to be in them for a long time for think about them as their own entities, and when we do they seem odd and out of place.

The other spaces feel weird because our brains are hard-wired for context - we like things to belong to a certain place and time and when we experience those things outside of the context our brains have developed for them, our brains are like NOPE SHIT THIS ISN’T RIGHT GET OUT ABORT ABORT. Schools not in session, empty museums, being awake when other people are asleep - all these things and spaces feel weird because our brain is like “I already have a context for this space and this is not it so it must be dangerous.” Our rational understanding can sometimes override that immediate “danger” impulse but we’re still left with a feeling of wariness and unease.

Listen I am very passionate about liminal spaces they are fascinating stuff or perhaps I am merely a nerd.

sp1ne-sh0t

I, for one, appreciate your passion for liminal spaces and thank you for explaining it to the rest of us.

surullinensaukko

a friend of mine compiled a list of sins in conlanging:

1. thou shalt not start a conlang by doing a phonology sketch

2. thou shalt not randomly generate your first words

3. thou shalt not start with a writing system

4. thou shalt not use an african gender system

5. thou shalt not recreate finnish

6. thou shalt not make an IE erglang

7. thou shalt not covet lojban, ithkuil, esperanto, or toki pona

8. thou shalt not make a language with a productive affix meaning “joyfully” and a verb meaning “menstruate” if one then intends to combine them

9. thou shalt not derive child languages using nothing but sound changes

10. thou shalt not triconsonantal anything

1. thou shalt not make a featural system

2. thou shalt not start an ideographic system thou dost not intend to finish

3. thou shalt not carve random shapes into your kitchen table and pretend it is a system of runes

4. thou shalt not covet the japanese syllabaries without knowing the basic ductus

5. thou shalt not mimic western typography instead of western scripts

6. thou shalt not derive handwriting if thou dost not have handwriting

7. thou shalt not post unfiltered pictures from thy smartphone

8. thou shalt not gift those not of this earth with obvious terrestrial inspiration

9. thou shalt not use animation or color in thy writing systems for any fucking reason

10. thou shalt not covet tolkien

mfjrr

allthingslinguistic

This tweet doubles as a great explanation of the difference between semantic and pragmatics:

A: Your greatest weakness? B: Interpreting semantics of a question but ignoring the pragmatics A: Could you give an example? B: Yes, I could

#linguistics #language

plagved

im really confused by people that thing all les amis were straight white boys? like………….theyre revolutionaries. as if a huge group of straight white men looked at the status quo and decided “yeah this is unacceptable”

frederick-the-great

Astonishingly, research shows that the French Revolution and the 19th century Revolutions in France and in the rest of Europe were perpetuated mostly by those white men. Women, for instance, were very, very important at many stages of the revolutionary process but the fact remains that white men really were its main protagonists.

And the books they were reading were also mainly wrote by white men. Rousseau, Diderot, D’Holbach, Proudhon, Jean Jaurès.

Shocking, I know.

nacht-koenigin

thanks for defending the reputations of straight white men on a joking post about fictional characters

I don’t know how the straight white men of the world would have recovered from this grave historical erasure if you weren’t here to remind everyone how they contributed to the world

frederick-the-great

I’m not defending the reputation of anyone, I’m stating a fact. If you want to write a story where Les Amis are POC or even women, please go ahead. As I said, women were often part of revolutionary activities and Hugo for a start, leaves them glaringly out.

But the problem is that OP is creating a link between revolutionaries and POCness and queerness, by implying that they were revolutionaries therefore they were more likely to be POC, queer etc. This link, the connection between racial/sexual identity and politics is not remotely relevant in the 19th century - at least in Europe. As though revolutions in Europe in 18th and 19th century weren’t perpetuated mainly by white men. As though 19th century revolutionaries in France were mainly concerned with the question of race, sexuality or gender. They weren’t. Their issue was class, mainly. And I’m quite frankly tired of seeing class thrown under the bus.

If you want to place Les Amis in a modern context then surely those would be on their list of prime concerns. In the 19th century they weren’t. The October revolution for instance, already in the 20th century, wasn’t really that concerned with sex - read everything Lenin said to Clara Zetkin or Inessa Armand on the subject. Feminism for the October Revolution was seen through the eyes of Marxist theory, not through the eyes of identity politics.

Also, the fact is that without white men the French Revolution probably wouldn’t have been made and so the foundations of Democracy as we know it today would never have been. Without white men the Constitution of Cádiz wouldn’t have been written. Without Hegel, a white man, 19th century philosophical and economical thought, including all those names that inspired the socialist and communist movements would likely never have existed.

The point I’m making is that people who look at 18th and 19th century through a 21th century point of view pretend they know about History. But they don’t. I don’t like History being appropriated and distorted to make a point about the present. Because once you open that can of worms you’re allowing people and ideas to be distorted in every possible way. So no, I won’t go along with it. And I won’t go along with a narrative that takes a 21th century construction of “white man” and applies it to the past. Because what a white man is in 21th century North America or 21th century Britain is not what a white man was in 1830. A factory worker in 1830 Manchester cannot be compared in terms of privilege to what a middle class white British man is today. That’s not how History works. No matter how infatuated with Hamilton you people are, a Broadway musical, although immensely relevant for what is happening today in America, does not qualify as good understanding of History. Sorry.

saint-just-deactivated20170124

I don’t feel suitably informed in niche history to go into the specifics of class over time, but as a social psychologist dealing with the present I am perfectly comfortable in taking a look at the expression of weird objectivity-fetishism and elitism dripping from @frederick-the-great‘s brand of High Academia.

Yes, white men are the protagonists of history, we’re all painfully aware of that. Your point is… confusing. Are you offended that people are attempting to utilize an insufficient grasp on history in modern social analysis? That would be fair enough, a decent reason to get pissy. But that doesn’t appear to be your concern. Let’s look at “I don’t like History being appropriated and distorted to make a point about the present”. It’s like you’re taking the constructive, critical arguments made in other spheres of historical study (say, in the constant misrepresentation of everyone other than straight white men throughout the western historical canon) and finding a way to… I don’t know, re-colonize? What practical use does “History” have if not to propel modern social movements? It’s not as if anything can be truly objective; a certain degree of skew is inevitable in all disciplines of academia. Prioritizing the reduction of this subjectivity over the potential for knowledge to be deployed constructively is such a misguided stance, so obstructive.

Your own inability to approach history with a critical eye, to synthesize that parade of failures into something which may be deployed on the contemporary field of discourse, must be examined. I would agree that French revolutionaries weren’t “mainly concerned with the question of race, sexuality or gender” and that they focused instead on their perception of “class”. I would also suggest that this inability on the part of historical thinkers to adequately overlap such inextricably interwoven spheres as race, sexuality, and class contributed to the failure of our predecessors to construct an acceptable world for posterity. Of course “the books they were reading were also mainly wrote by white men”, of course revolutions were predominately an affair of white guys getting fussy, who the devil else would have the compounding historical privilege necessary to engage in such activities?

It’s lovely that you can rattle off the names of the “great” thinkers, I’m sure you got fine grades, but for heaven’s sake champ there’s more to history than that. It’s really, really great for students of the social sciences to absorb as much as they can of history and its key players, I’m not saying the Big Names should be tossed out just because they’re overdone and predominately white. Certainly they had a sizable influence on the flow of events. Given, however, that the events which have brought us to where we are at present were… inadequate, to say the least… it is just as vital (if not more so) that emphasis be placed on the analysis of broad historical trends from a contemporary perspective in order to render them operational in social change.

That’s my whole thing here. Attempting to cordon off history as this untouchable, sterile chunk of objective knowledge renders it all but worthless in contemporary efforts to improve things. It’s not enough to just learn of history, one needs to be able to put those narratives to use now. I don’t give three shits and a market-ready hog what historians feel to be the most objectively correct assessment of events if that monolithic construct is going to interfere with contemporary efforts. It just… doesn’t matter. Narratives shape reality. That’s that. Going out of your way to remind people of just how uniformly white a narrative ought to be is, frankly, wildly counterproductive and telling of some serious social tone-deafness.

And when it comes down to it, if I have to choose between the sins of (a) erroneously applying a contemporary idea of revolution to past movements in order to support present ones or (b) maintaining an impotent academic status quo so detached from the world that it is compelled to turn up its nose at the slightest deviation from arbitrary canons, I’m more than willing to assign the greater share of shame to the latter.

Nice jab at Hamilton fan straw man though, real high end stuff there, not picking the low-hanging fruit at all.

And fuck Hegel.

Thank you.

frederick-the-great

As far as I can tell you don’t actually disagree with my main points regarding revolutionary identity in the 18th and 19th century. That is right? What today we consider essential concerns and essential demands of political and social change were not nearly as essential or even seen, approached or spoken of in the same way as they were in the 18th and 19th century. Of course, Revolutions (and History in general) is composed of far more than philosophers or political figures. Which is why Revolutions and History should be studied from all points of view, from social, to gender, to intellectual, to political History.

What you take issue is my view of History. This is a matter you disagree with me and I highly doubt we’ll see eye to eye on this because I’ve had countless discussions about this and I will tell you quite frankly that I personally do not see benefits in looking at history the way you do.

The point I’m making is very simple. I am not saying that one shouldn’t stress out the contributions of women, queer folk or POC to Revolutions and other important moments in history and to past societies. You should. But when you do so, you should be aware of the differences. 19th century feminists did not view women, sexuality as we do today. To think they did, to think that their concerns are the same as ours and to try to convince people of that is bad History.

What I am saying is that the notion of whiteness, privilege, of race or sexuality we have today is not universal. It has not always existed. So it is ahistorical to take a 21th century concept and apply it to the past and judge or talk about people in the past according to these 21th century concepts.

This is the problem with the OP’s post. They are immersed in that presentism that they did not understand that for the context of Les Amis - especially for the context of the historical inspirations of Les Amis - those subjects aren’t overly relevant because their concerns were Republicanism.

You can reflect on those concepts and on the evolution on those concepts. You have to look and support yourself on History to do so. That’s clear. But that does not mean that historians should make the mistake of thinking that because the discussion on feminism for instance, began in the 18th century, that 18th century feminism can be compared straight-on to what 21th century feminism is. Or even that people thought about concepts in the same way.

For me, a historian should understand the past. That’s the prime thing. The present comes afterwards. If your view of History is more “utilitariatian” and you think that History is there to make a point about the Present, then that’s your prerogative. But I don’t agree with that approach and I think people, especially when they’re starting to study History, should always attempt to make an effort at understanding the context, the people and the concepts of the time instead of automatically thinking, “oh how can I relate to the present?” or “how is this relevant for the Present” – because chances are than by doing that, they are simplifying historical processes and concepts. This is the best of chances. In the worst of chances, people are trying to distort some historical figure or event into agreeing with the point they want to make about 21th century politics and society – despite the fact that when you actually go down to study said historical character or event you realize that no, the point of them is radically different because they lived in a different time that does not have a direct correspondence to our situation.

Of course leads to the question to the History is for.

Personally I don’t have an answer to that question yet. If you, do. Great. Congratulations. I don’t. I’ve been studying for years and I don’t have an answer. But I do know that the answer to History’s “utility” or purpose is not necessarily the present. It might be, sometimes. But it’s not always. And when you talk about the present and connections between the Present and the Past I think it should be kept in mind that it’s not a straightforward process and it’s not in order to judge people from the past with the views we have today.

Once you do that, once you start judging* a 17th century person or a 18th century person or 13th century person through our own political and social views, then your understanding of history will be lost and whatever history you write will be terrible. Because those people did not think like us. And if you want to understand them and what they did and what they thought and what led to this or that event you need to make the effort.

If I approach the Revolt of the Comuneros in 16th century from a 21th century notion of what Revolts and Revolutions are, I will not understand what the Comuneros were talking about at all. If I approach the religious wars in Europe during the Early Modern Era from my own 21th century views on religious matters, then I will never, ever understand anything about religious history. I will never understand how the Reformation came to happen. I will never understand how the 30 years war came to happen. If I approach Luther or Thomas More from the view of someone who approaches modern religious fanatics (As bad historians tend to do) I will never understand anything about Luther’s motivations. What fanaticism is for us in the 21th century is not what fanaticism and religious feeling was in the 16th century.

*Of course that people always bring their own views to their work but they should make the effort to understand the context.

saint-just-deactivated20170124

It’s not a matter of whether or not we agree on the pedantic minutiae of the 18th/19th century. As you say I am taking issue with your view of history. Again, I think it’s lovely to have a strong background in history, but taken alone that knowledge is about as useful as a degree in psychology without a comparable backing in sociology, anthropology, history, et cetera.

I suppose the dispute ultimately comes down to my belief that academia for the sake of academia is one of the reasons that the academic “elite” are failing so thoroughly to contribute substantially to necessary social change. I view you as a manifestation of this diseased state of affairs (see: “a historian should understand the past. That’s the prime thing. The present comes afterwards”) and am accordingly repulsed by your efforts to impose your standards -standards I view as fundamentally inimical to societal progress- on others. I would argue that anyone with the privilege of a formal education has a responsibility to society, an obligation to apply that education constructively on behalf of those lacking such privilege, a mandate to which your stance runs contradictory.

The original post was a simple comment on the unlikelihood of white males being the catalysts for change. In the modern world, that is an appropriate assessment and one which deserves emphasis. As this point is being made in the context of fan works based on a work of historical fiction, I feel comfortable prioritize the contemporary applications of the post over the historical aspect of the reference point, which I deem so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

Putting the past first means setting it aside from the present in what can only be an artificial fashion. We are beings living in the present, our understanding is shaped by the present, attempting to convince ourselves that we are capable of stepping entirely outside of the framework of our own sentience in order to play at objectivity is the most laughable arrogance. Whatever your intentions, your understanding of the present necessarily informs your understanding of the past; the manner in which history is studied ought to reflect this. Otherwise, well, you’re just wasting time. Academia does not and should not exist in a vacuum. It should be one of the most strident pillars of social advancement.

If you intend to label the expectation that a discipline interact meaningfully with the modern world with an eye to improve said world as “utilitarian” then you are correct in your assessment that we won’t be seeing eye to eye at any point, as I can see no purpose whatsoever in any institutionalized pursuit which does not actively seek to elevate our conditions. Such trifles are, at best, hobbies, in which an individual certainly has a right to indulge… but surely history can serve as something more significant than a hobby.

frederick-the-great

I think the prime point here is that we are coming to the subject from different points of view, you are coming to the subject at hand from the point of view of someone who has a concern with the present (According to your blog you are a sociology major so this is likely also a question of methodology and theoretical approach) and History - with everything that it implies such as the need for context etc.- is peripheral in those concerns (or at least not central) and I am coming from the point of view of someone for whom History IS the prime concern.

“It’s not a matter of whether or not we agree on the pedantic minutiae of the 18th/19th century.”

For me, this is exactly the point and my concern. The “minutiae of 18/19th century” was precisely why I answered the OP and the person who subsequently replied. You have turned this into your own narrative about academia and elitism and the “Ivory Tower” while making a whole bunch of assumptions about me which I have ignored because this is tumblr and it’s usually how discussions unfold here.

Despite this, you haven’t offered a single historical argument that contradicts the view that French Revolutionaries from mid 19th century did not have the concerns (regarding gender, race and sexuality) that people who are today trying to enact social and political change have. And that they did not view sexual or racial identity in the way that we today look at those identities. And that, finally, their prime concerns were different (republicanism, the start of the question of class struggle). To stress that was the only point of my answer - although I will admit to having been too caustic in my first reply. What you infer, however, is your own issue not mine.

You reblogged this because you wanted to scold me. You have. You will understand that I have no interest in prolonging this scolding, especially after it has been established that we are not remotely convinced of the benefits of each others approach to the subject.

rspringler

@frederick-the-great I’m impressed at your aplomb. And honestly, Hamilton seemed to me like a perfectly germane reference point- it projects our modern values of diversity and meritocracy backward onto the frequently vile Founding Fathers, and obscures their roles in creating and upholding structures of inequality and violence.

Viewing history as a just a venue to enact our contemporary pieties not only muddles the essential struggles and motivations of the times, it renders our own current viewpoint unquestioned, unchallenged, transparent; because of course, we nowadays have the Right Way to view history.

My own understanding of what it meant to be gay was shaken tremendously, and for the better, when I studied the construction of “homosexual identity” through time and learned just how different a life people like me have lead throughout history. Do I know exactly, objectively what it was like? No, of course not. But–I am richer for working to get out of my perspective on identity, morality, behavior, etc. AND a lot less credulous when a politician is doing something “on my behalf.” I don’t see how saint-just can take the attempt to read the past on its own terms and get arrogance out of it. Viewing the issues of today as simplistic ‘eternal struggles’ that we can read clearly through history is a scary and common nationalist gambit.

daribenetka

The ignorance some people are kept in makes me so angry

medievalpoc

1800s Week!

Konstantin Andreyevich Somov

Portrait of Alexander Pushkin

Russia (1899)

Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin is considered by many to be the greatest Russian poet of all time, as well as the founder of modern Russian Literature. As for his style, he has been claimed variously by Romantics, neo-Classicists, and Realists.

His grandfather*, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, was an African kidnapped and brought to Russia. He became a major general, military engineer, and nobleman of the Russian Empire. Pushkin wrote an unfinished historical novel about him entitled Peter the Great’s Negro. Abram Gannibal’s son, Ivan Gannibal, also rose to military prominence, garnering victories in the Russo-Turkic war, and founded the city of Kherson.

Pushkin is usually credited with developing Russian literature. Not only is he seen as having originated the highly nuanced level of language which characterizes Russian literature after him, but he is also credited with substantially augmenting the Russian lexicon. Where he found gaps in the Russian vocabulary, he devised calques. His rich vocabulary and highly sensitive style are the foundation for modern Russian literature. His talent set up new records for development of the Russian language and culture. He became the father of Russian literature in the 19th century, marking the highest achievements of 18th century and the beginning of literary process of the 19th century. Alexander Pushkin introduced Russia to all the European literary genres as well as a great number of West European writers. He brought natural speech and foreign influences to create modern poetic Russian. Though his life was brief, he left examples of nearly every literary genre of his day: lyric poetry, narrative poetry, the novel, the short story, the drama, the critical essay, and even the personal letter.

[x] [x] [x] [x]

*great-grandfather; the distinction thereof is apparently quite important to some

thequeensclock

Hey, MedievalPOC are you going to keep on lying and forging truth to everyone?

Because here is the thing with you. You spread inaccuracies like wild fire.

Now, it is true that Pushkin’s great-grandfather was from Ethiopia, Abram Petrovich Gannibal. And Pushkin was incredibly proud of him. Nobody can take that away from him.

But that doesn’t make Pushkin POC or even Black, because guess what, that is presentism.

“Who isn’t, you say? Hardly any “ism” these days has much of a scholarly following. Yet presentism besets us in two different ways: (1) the tendency to interpret the past in presentist terms; and (2) the shift of general historical interest toward the contemporary period and away from the more distant past.” Lyn Hunt — Against Presentism

Pushkin would have just called himself Russian like any other Russian during his time. Seriously, stop applying 21st-century views where they do not belong. This is a historian’s worst nightmare because you are not seeing the correct perspective and thus making false conclusions. How can you see from the perspective from a guy who lived in 1700s-1800s Russia? You read. You read, read, read, never ending reading and researching because if you think I could have done my project on 19th-century European literature from the perspective of a 21st-century view? You are mistaken.

So NOW onto the picture.

The portrait you have up there was created by Konstantin Somov in 1899.

When did Pushkin die? Well, in 1837.

The portrait you have was created 62 years after Pushkin’s death.

HERE are portraits of Pushkin.

A self-portrait made around the 1820s.

A portrait made in 1800-1802 by Xavier de Maistre as Pushkin was a child at the time the portrait was made.

Created by Orest Kiprensky in 1827.

I have to wonder why you didn’t use any of these? Especially the most famous one, by Kiprensky. Oh right, because you purposefully manipulate images to suit your present narrative and of course this website gobbles at everything.

Pushkin was a Russian man of Ethiopian descent. But he was also a Russian man of German descent. And even of Scandinavian descent. But I’m not going to call him German-Russian here.

la-vie-en-lys

The portrait you have up there was created by Konstantin Somov in 1899.

When did Pushkin die? Well, in 1837.

Ahahaha, I’m dying. xD

@medievalpoc, you pathetic, desperate liar.

thequeensclock

I mean what the hell is she expecting? For Pushkin to raise from the grave and proclaim that the portrait is the best one?

Why didn’t she use portraits that was made during his time alive? Or the self-portrait?

Oh, do I have to wonder?

daribenetka

Ouch!

chasecharmer-deactivated2018101

isnt it spooky how sometimes when you become aware of something it pops up all over the place

and not just like ‘i never noticed before’ like, it was not there before but now its EVERYWHERE

literally just last night i got interested in conlangs and ive seen three different posts about them in the past like, fifteen minutes

laretluval

The Chalaylas

The Chalaylas is the longest surviving contiguous work in Western Eylastal. It tells the story of the defeat of Drios by Uras, despite divine opposition. Many passages are well-known through translations into Hixtal. I’ve distinguished these in boldface.

Chalaylas Urov swa Driov

Aharo cwi aványir adzelir swa sewlir sadhalir kay egmov so, cyat nwa voydhósa laylim ivlir te ti ecyo aynon sunanon efró. A sadhar so ek Uren tartebla, ol èov tiryo Dria egmo sco, agáhte Uras agadríabla, ga nelsho glarion ta tiryatôs.

Ga onlo Uras genwon Driathon, e naryo norov opyês egmien, swa onlu fehi engei ton so, shta edzu asi kay mot áveken; cha'y naru prôvilúlis evrulon, swa genulnon athoron Driathen, swa'y obnu Fortesmo, ga bliov sa, cha'y gyaru Driar fi mot zahus men.

Niy aysho adzel Rahas Uzar ko swa tasco “Urat lei nari sha, ti trefi bladhi gyatsu athelon, è semza ga, ta nelki, cetson sa? Heth twari bladhim athriôs nwa fo am adri engi adzelis selát; te bladhu amon fo el roy swa cwar swa shtendi vekti; nol anari sha.”

Agáhte sfetyo Uras adzelar, “Shtalá cyatari sha tor athron men?” Swa tar côcharya Rahas, “Tiryaví sca sha aványa Driacétsien!” Cha tasco Uras, “asi tirim shwi, shtalá nwa cetson si ef aprien?” Niy cyuriécyo Rahas sadhazar, rwa tasco “Charismá to malpien!

Sha karaví athoriz niyov ha, swa ihu prôvilúlus tólki fa, rwa harbi sfia ta swa metri ta, ti semza cetson scaya tira sa; cha adzelbúloy ceri sfia noy, cay Urat ti achari adzel sha, swa asi scoy ek tarim ivlir sco, sha voydhi say’ numeya vanyêsmá.”

Ga shwendo Rahas Uren swa niylá, ga aysho Driar genwon cetson lo, swa taryo sfeto “Driel driathon, heth twas ga hagya Urel cura fo amétra heth swa prôvilúla sa, swa trefya gyatsu harba tiryatôs.” “Sa zweri mo!” tas Dria pelion, shta peliécyo ‘haryo ágano.

Ol evrulon tiz shwendo Uras ko, kay feflu sheflis nubnon shtecanon swa'y eliu ayni etwis tôvaltá; ga hokto Uras saknon bednanon. Rwa haryo hesyu, beldatúus vef, scay pomdu garis evron calanon, swa te byo Uras froyo shtahte lo, cul desfr samu kay ol eyanon.

Sadhari naru samu kay amtá, sarlúlis so, swa elitsus bu kay, kay eliálu monyu capsius cha evriul swa omris eliáy. “Sarlúlit cay!” tas Uras pelion, “Vwex naro sfia engi vodhi say’!” Cha tar côcharyo mona “Asi soy; ca aydhu amel sta swa driôráy.”

Niy thesis corvu Uzar swa niylá, kay aniarlu tar el enlias: ga Mawgras, Ublas, Bednas swa selát, ga Shakas, Hèas, Genas, Eshentas; cha Sarlas monya naryo nei si, shtahtá ektaryo Genas swa ga tas “Ga trefya shawya Eriádnôs sca, te hagya ga niy engov, Sarlias.”

Am icnon Uras vrner thoriz ko ton genulir èn prôvilulanir, swa óra onli kulis anfu kay ti thokti sádharis kay niyalir atólku aga driacetsôs shu. “Hex adzelcélit” hesyis galanir è iku thoktis ko; ga 'ceryo lo tarósus Rahen “Bulôsmá ibnir!”

Niy nol a golga so ek enlôsáy, ga Golgas tartel engir golgalir –shta ahi ayshu engi tartelis– sadhara mona drien vewzanir kay 'numon enanon ol egmov ko; ga anwaharyo engir sadhalir è sfetu kay swa fevlu Uzar fo, swa ga akarso Golgas evrulir.

Ton apro noron numon Ragnas so, ga gulmo ehaharyus golgen mo. “Cay Ragnel bwi haróso pelya heth!” tas Golgas ishu holwiz Ragnen ko, swa chio, “Cektu niyi bubis na ek seku chagu genwo diulôs el vecthelis, ta tólka Uras fa, ga insa bladhanu, ga neli so!”

Ol genul samyo Uras icnon so kay obnu ta en lugal adzelnir en helcanu, ga atra bulo ash, swa tasco “Urel tólkanu imlir, cay pelyêt, ga mektáfya Drio sca!” E ánwe froy ko Uzar vektalir. Ga Fèmas banranu tar tasco lo, “E nerya tirês heth ha sèmbilir.”

Ton sèmbion e anfo tirês ko tsi ímar Urov corva ek firáy, swa tasco “Adzelcélat, vanya sha, shtalá bir sha ek gala sefyeráy?” Cyahtá aceryo ga azeryo tir miánwiôs, e Uros mihaláy, swa aysho tiriz roy arnúilir, swa cyuriblo cyataryo “Culiáyt!

Shtalá shwi emlim eth, ti mawgi ha! nwa adzelúle vweti hihu na, ti hescu himu nalinir kay fa, swa swari sha cyatari atri sha ni bulo adzelnir, e narye soy; ga aysha monya glawdas teya sa.” Swa árso Uras adzelroy ton lo aceryo tirês scaya Rahias.

È samyo Uras imov tiron so, kay huytu evrulir kay vecis ko. Niy naru calis insuiya si, swa ishu vecis diuliz tov lo è blias siralir atyár ga ko: swa'y hexu drio tartelio sco swa sfetu driar ehaharius swa agatiru huytiya búbnaro.

Casamyo Dria cetsin lurah lo 'k misúmya rahroy badwar arnunon; swa tasco, “Tiryat men, e narya glad: ga vlatya galu 'f monon plistanon è pomdu amen egmov: cha selát, Ni gladen glawden bwanro Ayvathon; swa niy mektáfya agadriablus. Alyár abánris tiren driathon!”

Athoron sèmbon tirin sfetu kay ek cyuribla, kay roybli arnunon, e tasco Elês, “Tya, lo zeri sha tor galnon nol, kay engov genulnon, kay saru nelyov drio athelôs? È aru laya, voydhu froyanon.” Ca Uras, ga vivékto sreto lo, ga tas, “Bu amen enlus edhanon!”

“Ek mawgi sha!” e taryo shuylon sco, swa tiz côcharyo Uras, “Asi mo, ga Rahas aga himu sa, tya èn, trefúla tar nol ayvathon nwa so swa cweri ta, ti èn isewa sa, miroybla sa, swa monyo egmar ko tsi onla royon royamawgranon swa seku amen ftetu adzelo.

Selát vex kay ek genulnon ta scoy ek bulya adzel himu noy: èn sa, ash kay aceru scoy, rwa harbu èn, swa chagu amen luya Drios fa. Swa twari chio luya shta asi sa, kay hescuví sfiiya Driar sca, kay shtendi vewzis tay swa nelei. Niy twari eltá fteti Rahos fa.”

E tasco Elês, “Èna sreta sa; visúnov èn lupòmdu 'men alyár.” È beldu kay tso sèmbin, a suna so, swa'y pelyahúlwu prôvilulis tar, ti atra bulo vanyan Rahen sco. Ektesyanir tay Uren Eshentar lutréfu kay ekcapso Rahen fo, ga goga hovlin hewliz adzelar.

Visúnov veldon gyarin pomdu kay ek banris vuyblir prôvilúlanir; swa bu kay gogo capso flason ko, swa'y meldu gladu gyaru feknalir. Swa felwe fenwin Rahen ko atyár, ga bulnu vuyôs agnir sadhanir dra ash mot vektius, kay samyu nol ek saru adwir diulgenwalir.

Niylá lupòmdo ágabanras ha cha sfetyo icnon froyin adzelar ga tólka agnus harbon afi ga. Kay deftu veci drilulnir alyár tsi banralir aványan Prôvilyen cha Ragnas, ga atólko banros tar, ga fwasyo glado taryo ráhroyon amétra ta ti shwenda banriar.

Alyár abánris, cha eís anyár ga aysho Rahas edhanir nol lo chahúlwo ga caroyen malpien anélko swa aráho Uzar sco, “Niy búbit bwuli hivu sefya noy! Swa ni ekcapsas vyacha mawga so; ek deftôm adzelcharnu bulôsáy! Niy sarex adzelo chanáliôs!”

Ga shwendo ko cha ayshu royis lo, kay omru veldo fwasyir dhèlanir, swa siris rayi óra banranon, ta vlatyo benda hosen hovlanir paroyan gogan capsen lófanon. Swa tas drilúlis sfeto hemanir “Ek ngawge froy, bu kay ni galis nol caroyôs Rahen icnon gyaralir!”

Niy shwendu kay, ti seku, caliz ko, swa'y samu nol sfiiya driar mo, kay gyaru adri adru hosanon swa'y banranúis Ragnalúlus sco, ga Fèmas aga Ragnar gliadnon. Pagládnon anwakaru thekti ko tsi povalir gogen driadiulin; rwa Uras swa sarlúlis oltá so.

Kay diulon lugénwin haru ta, ti harbahúlwo noron veldanon, cha monyi hesyatsúi kay nol so shta úo pómbi genis sèmbanon. Aceru elitsúnon vewzu lo, kay vewzis ralen kalon driulon; kay clèvi naru dhemzu vanyalir swa'y ftetu fo sarlúlus gyaranon.

Monúa anfo Uras èn alyár swa shawyo súo tiro vewzo sco, ga onlan icyan gladen meldion; rwa ga izvésyo Uras glados ko, swa gyaron kay anyár, swa glar atyár; cha tov asámyo Urov gladlays so, ga vektanir swa royin cwarin èn mot Rahen; feho ga chagósa fo.

Cha hetlo aysho nelyen gara lo, swa gliad samyo vewzov glaribla, swa saryo Uras ta swa tasco, “Sha! ek nei, ti ek evrulinon sa!” Swa tar côchásco Sarlas, “Asi soy, ca nwari ivnon anwo, Uriat; sesyósoy nwanfi niyov enlinon.” Swa ecyo sadhvarósov elias.

Amtá kay sèmbiz cetsin Drien ko, swa tóval poviz ko tsi iliz tay. E Enês Etwanir nol tartebla, shta raryu etwis kulanon caláy, swa opyon semzo tira Dria so ek engatir cha culon tiriays. Swa byo ga onlo lesto shnaro nol swa dimu arnuu ek misatháy.

Ga tasco veclir ímov cetsien: “Hex adzelcélit, tirnu egmiar! Mizeri sfia scaya amen cèn ek tirnis aprov monyar Fortesmar? Niy sèmbon narya enga nalias en sèmbon calov bliov; nwa ta tar. Cay Sarlat, tirat egmar agmanir, swa Urat galir vuyiz, nwesyiar!”

Ga tasco Sarlas, “Tira nelyar sha, sha cèar shethar soy swa nesyadmá!” Swa kay izvésyu vecis gladius, swa tasco Uras, “Tiryat ulta sa. Sha driya tira semzaví nol soy cyat nisyen men, ta celu Nalis fa; swa tirya vewle tiryat niy anát ca venrays nayan tiraveken sca.”

Ga tasco Dria, “Vekti sfia scay’ abúlya hivu nali adzelis, dra cèa lèru kay tor ivu nay’? Kay vyehu icnon engi aydhiis en monov plistov arnunir, kay ha, swa engi pelyis imir, sòrênis, swa aftaliri, agaveki, hwi swa afta ehu icnon sewsliis.

Tya èn, selát, ga Rahas omr ko swa sfetyo omr sretus ivir sco.” Swa tasco Uras, “Chio tasco omr ga cula sta; a tiradmá heth fo.” Rwa sfetyo sfeto Dria cetsion, “Ga bulya nelyo metri nesyio; shta afi adra metratira sha, swa voydhi ason genwanon efró!”

Swa hulwo Dria vózon galedmá, Acènu tartalu lugénwalir swa vewzis tay, kay diulon èn stu, kay eylu tartus edhielanir 'hu balyo iclir Rahas sunefró; swa ahi lemzu genis pòvanir swa apru pulti hihu engov lo. Kay haru froyon vecis hesyalir.

Niy cyuriécyo Uras; alyár ga ko swa samyo Drion gladen ili so, cha hèvyo Dria venros Uzar sco swa temzo tóval sèmbo galo lo; ga hacyo flaylon tira cetsion è èn ahèvyo Sarlas enlo sco swa myatyo ta lusèmbin huyto ko swa'y calshu genwi pòvis ómov fo.

Ga Uras beldalir è kay erèn, cha sto kay anfu èn lugenwanon; rwa vyehu kay palémzir pòvalir swa'y ktahu sfinon lemzon genwanon swa ulto tóval genwus cultanir swa tóval pòviz, samu ehwanon swa saru chagôs prôvilúlien. Ênúe chage noron sunanon.

Tya èn! Drilúlis prôvilulus so, swa ehu trefu ayno athelo swa tiryo Uras vewlon sunanon, swa Sarlas evruliz anát ga ko. Cha aydho Dria sto diulion sewzósa genanir, cha tirya sto ta banranuus; diul bednar ko swa pómbo 'l egmov semza cetson so.

#conlang #poem #epic #whoa #amazing

vilikemorgenthal

I’m bored in class #5

Back in school, back to my old antics. Today after one hour sitting in the front row, I thought of the Spanish word ‘rey’ and must have been thinking at the Latin original ‘regem’ at the same time because I wrote down GURYE.

Immediately I felt this would be a perfect word for ‘king’ in one of the classical languages of my Ambetau project (of which I talked a little about here). This project has been a lot on my mind lately, because I began drawing the map of the focus continent. Instead of working for my thesis. Nobody’s perfect.

But in my conworlding, the history of the Master People, the Suner (the ethnicity whose culture defined those of the entire continent for the millennia to come), does not begin with the classical languages and the establishment of the first Wizard kingdoms. It begins with a slave revolt against the Ubyrs, on the Lost Continent far in the south, with the flight of thousands through the jungle, with the founding of haven-cities by the shore, with the second flight on the northern sea when their masters found them again, biding them ruin.

So I tried to work backwards to get to Proto-Suner:

To gurye /gurje/ (t=0) I thought of gurðe at t=-1, implying a ð > j change before /e/. It was inspired by a similar change (if I’m not mistaken) for Siwa, the masterpiece conlang of Étienne L. Poisson (buy his book!). In other environments, it may have changed otherwise (we’ll get to it in a moment).

Then I thought of a d > ð /(V,R)_V where R is any sonorant (here /r/), that gives us gurde at -2.

Where does that /g/ come from anyway? It could have “always” been there, but I elected for it to arise from an old prenasalized consonant, thus ᵑgurde at -3…

… that in turn arose from a voiceless prenasalized obstruent, thus ᵑkurde at -4.

These voiceless prenasalized obstruents are comparatively rare. To explain this one, I thought of vowel deleting in certain environments such as before a nasal, and word-finally. At this stage, the aesthetics of the word appealed me enough that I “stopped the diachronic time-machine” and declared it a piece of Proto-Suner lexicon. It was ankurdi. The vowel at the end would have been deleted if not for the impossibility of certain CC codas; so it was just lowered to /e/.

How does this word break down? An- ha the right shape for an augmentative; -i looks great for the thematic vowel of the ‘human’ gender. As for the root kurd-itself I have currently no idea.

But this notion of gender/noun class drove me to associate the -i suffix (and any other gender suffixes to come) to number. Because it’s rare for a morpheme to only mark gender, I decided to change the suffix in the plural, to -il. Now it makes the evolution of this particular word look very interesting:

ankurdil > ᵑkurdiʎ > ᵑgurdij > gurdī > gurdin > gurðin > gurźin

The final /l/ palatalized next to /i/, then changed to /j/ and disappeared, lengthening the vowel. The appearance of a final -n is actually my misunderstanding of the phenomenon of nunation in Semitic languages: I thought it was the spontaneous birth of a nasal at the pause. Turns out that in real life, nunation is a purely morphological thing. Well, allow me to propose for my conlang the V[+long] > Vn /_#. It makes intuitive sense… sorta? Anyway, then the /i/ palatalized the /ð/ to give /j/… that immediately hardened to /ʑ/ ‘cause /ji/ is not a valable sequence. So the final paradigm for ‘king’ is:

GURYE sg – GURŹIN pl

I hope it might grow to become a full conlang some day.

Thoughts about the nunation?

daribenetka

This is amazing!

#conlang #proto-conlang #proto-language #linguistics #sound change

kiraemon

me every day tbh

conlangery

Fascinating example

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

sparagagne a cołaxion