Word Sovereigns Collective Language's Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Word Sovereigns Collective Language's LiveJournal:
|Saturday, February 23rd, 2008|
Are we still here?
Is this community still active. If so I'd like to choose:
dufu - cheese.
That's all just cheese.
hida - cow.
behe - milk, to milk.
|Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008|
There wasn't much of a lalapufe
with the Wikidot wiki, especially since at least one person was having trouble getting it to work at all. So I made a new wiki at Wikispaces! mahanulo koke kodo_kd
's suggestion of shortening the name of our language to Pobale, so I used it for the URL: http://pobale.wikispaces.com/
Please give it a try, and let us all know if this one works well for you!
|Friday, January 4th, 2008|
Hi! I'm new here...And I come bearing new vocabulary. And a question :)Pufe
- To suddenly begin. To commence. To start to happen. To appear. Brand new. Just now. Out of nowhere. Surprise. Poof!
koke mahamanu - I suddenly begin to love you.Pufe
lalagepo - Contageous laughter breaks out.
Now, this is my question. How shall we greet people? How shall we say hello, goodbye, and everything in between? Should there be simple words that mean "hello" and "goodbye" exclusively? Should they come from compounds, or become a new meaning of an existing word? You get the point of my question. I'm just bringing it up for us to think about...And I'm fine with being patient until someone makes a word for "meeting" or "departure" or something of the like :P
|Monday, December 10th, 2007|
proposition of koke
Koke (koh-keh) [ko"ke]
Verb form: to like, to love, to show affection
adjective/adverb form: lovely, affectionately
noun: love, affection
comparison: like, as (for this it shifts to [koke"]
mahanulo koke mahamanu- I love you(did i use it right?)
mahanulo koke gepo- i love to laugh
mahanulo koke lalagepo- i like contagious laughter
mahanulo koke lalesinigepobale
!- i like lalesinigepobale
its nice to be able to start posting examples completely in our language :)
|Thursday, December 6th, 2007|
MAHA :: indicates pronomialization; attached to any word, it connotes identity, entityness. While potentially taken to mean that the world is, thereby, a living world, it’s more concrete sense is to emphasize that “things” are not just “things we can use as we want,” but should be “respected,” and used in a more cooperative, rather than purely utilitarian, sense.
MAHANULO :: the pronomialization of zero, conventionally used to indicate “I”. The word derives from zero, because an “I” without a “you” or an “other” of some sort does not exist. As such, the word has an implicitly social sense; that is, mahanulo incorporates the sense of “I-in-the-world” into itself; it is not a solitary, isolated, disconnected ego.
MAHAMANU :: the pronomialization of one, conventionally used to indicate “Thou/you”. As with mahanulo, mahamanu is social in orientation, and does not indicate a stand-alone ego. Mahamanu distinctly links the speaker of the word, and the target of the word.
Conversationally, the MAHA may be dropped, with only nulo and manu informally indicating I and you/Thou. This usage also can indicate a gap between two speakers; if one begins speaking of the other as “manu,” this likely indicates a problem, point of disagreement, or alienation. Conversely, both speakers may use maha for I and you/Thou both, thereby erasing the distinction between themselves. For English speakers, this might prompt confusion and or requests for clarification, but for native speakers of Lalesini-Gepobale, there is no confusion as I and Thou blend into the union of the two, with agreement and disagreement, perception and misperception held intact. Lastly, both mahanulo and mahamanu posit a generic “I” and “Thou” … that is, they are grammatical markers that do not embody the points of view of the speakers, as the pronouns below do.
VATA :: the non-distinguished, context, surroundings, environment. To make a distinction means to distinguish x from not-x. Effectively, maha makes a distinction, and grants identity to the thing distinguished. Vata identifies everything not-x. As such, vatamahanulo can me “everything that is not me,” but more typically implies one’s worldview. It will frequently be that this worldview (the set of values, beliefs, and significances that govern how we are in the world) will not always be explicit. If one is a democrat, for instance, there is the democratic worldview, of which a given person is a specific exponent. This sense of world view or context applies both to cases where one’s point of view is clear and clearly understood, as well as cases where worldview may be shaping how we are in the world without being particularly aware of it. Vatamahamanu refers to the same in another, and sometimes means “unconscious” in that usage.
SINI :: in this context denotes the “third entity” that is generated when two people converse. If I speak with you, then the “we” of our conversation, distinct from I and you, is sinimahanulo (“we” from my point of view) and sinimahamanu (“we” from your point of view). Sinimahanulo can also mean an “us” distinct from other people in the vicinity. If four people are waiting to go, “Sinimahanulo (go)” can me “just he and I” go. Sinimahamanu, by contrast, would mean “we all go”. Similarly, one can be vatasinimahanulo, which is to self-identify as a them (with negative connotations) apart from the remaining “we” of a group. The rare vatasinimahamanu estranges everyone, seemingly from everything. It could be an apt translations for Marx’s “alienation” or “existential condition” vis-à-vis the universe.
The usual model of conversation posits two individual speakers (I and you, or speaker and other). Lalesini-Gepobale recognizes six elements that participate in a conversation (listed later).
HANU :: “the you in me that I understand” or “what I mean when I say ‘you’ to you”. Where mahamanu generically embraces an “other” as such, hanu specifies the speaker’s sense of who that other is. As the “you I observe,” it implicates the speaker’s point of view, more than the other’s nature. This distinction is poorly supported in English, and almost always overlooked. English says, “You’re a jerk,” as if the jerkiness is a fact of the “you”. Lalesini-Gepobale natives would say “Hanu (jerk),” which says “From my point of view you are being a jerk.” The word is derived from the inner compound in mahanulo.
MANU :: “the me in you that you understand” or “what you mean when you say ‘you’ to me”. If hanu draws attention to a speaker’s point of view with respect to an other, then manu draws attention to an other’s point of view with respect to a speaker. As the “I you observe,” it draws attention to the other’s point of view. “Manu (jerk)” would have the sense of saying “From you’re point of view I’m a jerk.” Derived from the outer compound of mahamanu, its similarity to the informal use of mahamanu as “manu,” could be problematic. However, since “manu” itself will often mean a problem or a gap between two speakers, this usage is apt. Context should otherwise provide sufficient clarity.
MALO :: “the me in you that I understand” or “what I hear when you say ‘you’ to me”. Derived from the outer compound of mahanulo, this pronoun refers to the other’s “you I observe”. If someone calls me a jerk, “Malo unfair” draws attention to the other-speaker’s point of view. It does not negate the accusation; it simply draws attention to the point of view making the accusation.
HAMA :: “the you in me that you understand” or “what you hear when I say ‘you’ to you”. If malo is used by a speaker to draw attention to the other’s point of view of them, hama is used by a speaker to draw attention to the other’s point of view of how the speaker sees them. It is derived from the inner compound of mahamanu.
English makes describing this difficult, but consider the point of view of the speaker. There are four elements: the “I” and “you” that the speaker uses from her perspective, and also her perception of the “you” and “I” that the other uses. The speaker has no direct access to the “I” or the “you” of her other; she only has her observations of these. These four elements are reflected in hanu, manu, malo, hama.
If English speakers were in the habit of saying “From my perspective, you” (hanu - the speaker’s “you”), or “What I’m hearing from your perspective is I am” (manu – the speaker’s perception of other’s you) at the beginning of every sentence, then these two pronouns would be less confusing. Note, though, that these are variations of “you”. How does one say “I”.
Malo is “the me in you that I understand” or “what I hear when you say ‘you’ to me”. While using mahanulo (or maha, or nulo) for “I” is acceptable usage, in a problematic conversation or argument with an other, my “I” becomes malo, the “I” that I assume you understand when I say “I”, and the “I” that I assume you mean when you say “you”. In English, the fact that the speaker’s “I” and the other’s “you” are not the same is lost or ignored in conversation. Malo, hanu, manu, and hama help to underscore this difference.
Hama is the identical pronoun, but understood by the speaker from the other’s point of view. Hama is the “I” you intend when saying “I” to me, and the “I” you assume I mean when I say “you” to you. As such, when one uses hama, this is not an “I” statement. Hama means “Your ‘I’ from your point of view as I see it”.
Used alone, hanu, manu, malo, and hama connote a sense of distance, or a problem usually. This is not always the case, of course—I do not need to be arguing with you to reference how you see me. However, during arguments or other heated conversations, a conciliatory gesture may be suggested by adding maha to hanu, manu, malo, or hama. (This parallels simply using maha to denote both generic “I” and generic “you” in a conversation.)
Also, since hanu, manu, malo, and hama all carry a sense of “from where I’m coming from” or “from my perspective,” the perspective itself may be isolated, so to speak, by adding vata. It is not typically used with assertions, but is a rejoinder that directly addresses another person’s framework for their statement in the first place. While “Hanu (jerk)” means “From my point of view you are being a jerk,” a response of “Vatahanu” would mean, “From my point of view you ought to consider your assumptions then.”
Lastly, the “third entity” of our conversation may be designated by sini with hanu, manu, malo, and hama as well. As such, sinihanu refers to the “we” (from the speaker’s point of view) that links the speaker’s use/meaning of hanu and the other’s use/meaning of hanu. Sini may be appended to hanu, manu, malo, and hama, of course.
In a dialogue, the six “participants” are sini (the third or “we”), vata (worldview), hanu (you through I), manu (you through you), malo (I as me), and hama (I as you) for each speaker. Self-consciousness of all of these is uncommon, even for native speakers of Lalesini-Gepobale. Mahanulo, mahamanu, maha, nulo, or manu (with vata and sini prefixes) are the norm. Whenever points of view, particularly as disagreements, come to the fore, however, hanu, manu, malo, and hama help to keep things much clearer.
The above is a lot to digest, and provides a very intricate variety of “I” “you” (and by way of sini) “we,” “you all,” and “they”. It leaves he, she, and it undefined. This is largely because I’d like to do without them, preferring either the Chinese approach (which just has one pronoun for he, she, and it), or having a much more broad range of definitions for gender pronouns.
I certainly don’t want “he” and “she” only. I propose there be 11 genders, and god knows what they all are. But that’s a separate post.
Proposed solutions to this “problem” would be welcome.
I made us a wiki! http://lalesinigepobale.wikidot.com/
All it has on it so far is a new version of the dictionary, so anyone who wants can edit their own dictionary entry. (We could use it for anything else we want too, for instance it's possible to add a forum or a chatroom.) I think I might have to approve new users, but if you go to where it says "How to join this site?" on the right then we should be able to get it worked out somehow. :) Current Mood: wiki
|Tuesday, December 4th, 2007|
a slightly different idea for making compounds
All I said at first about making compounds together with other people is that it should be done together, by mutual consensus. Turns out that advice isn't specific enough for anyone (even me) to follow it. :) When is a definition done? When is it started? What process of communication establishes it? It's very unclear.
So I thought of a new process. I would consider this just a refinement of the previous process. The process that I suggested, vague as it was, amounted to: "have a conversation about the meaning of the compound." What I'm suggesting here is a structured, automatically productive way of starting and continuing that conversation.
Fortunately there are two different compounds with each pair, so my first idea is that each partner in a pair has the right to start one of those two compounds going. For instance let's take as an example "baba" and "zuzu." (I've been using this example for a while, which is another way that people can grab a part of lalesinigepobale's history, if they'd like to retroactively have been an example! You could make me have been saying something really gepo!) My suggestion is that the owner of "baba" would get to start the conversation about "babazuzu" (since for one thing it would go near "baba" in the dictionary) and the owner of "zuzu" would get to start the conversation about the meaning of "zuzubaba."
The person who starts the conversation can say as much or as little as they want about the meaning of the compound, to seed its definition, and then asks a question about the meaning (ideally a sincere and broad question) to the other party. The other person answers that question, and asks another question back, etcetera. For example:
Person A: (Our-word) means darkness. Why would you use it on a sunny day?
Person B: Because what it really means is not being able to see; a blind person is always (our-word). Why would a blind person NOT be (our-word)??
Person A: Because it can also mean metaphorically that a situation is mysterious and difficult to find your way around. Could it mean that you're being confused by a sinister force, or only natural causes?
Person B: Only natural causes: it's like being lost in the dark, not like being blindfolded. If you're talking about literal light, can it be just very dim, or does it have to be pitch black?
Person A: It has to be so dim that you can't make out what anything is, or find your way around. If someone suddenly turned out the lights and threw you into darkness to confuse you, would it be (our-word)? (etc)
If necessary I suppose you could veto the original definition your partner suggests, like if you feel it's not an appropriate use of your word, but mostly it should be a cooperative process. Each person gets to start one side, so if your respective ideas for compounds don't make sense to each other, at least you can agree to disagree. :)
Here are some seed definitions & questions for "lala" to start things off: lalabale
: To share a pattern of light, for instance, a camera takes light into itself and lalabale
-s it so that you can watch the same picture many times. So if someone posts a picture of themselves, they're lalabale
-ing it, sharing its light pattern. If you post text, like I'm posting now, is that "lalabale" because the text is glowing after I type it, or does it only count as "lalabale" if it's something that's originally light itself, like a picture or movie, that you're sharing? lalagepo
: We already decided this means "contagious laughter." Would it be "lalagepo" if one person hears a joke, laughs, and then tells it to other people who laugh also, at the joke? Or is it only if people start laughing just from hearing the first person laugh? lalasini
: I keep thinking of this as "to share wrinkles with someone." It's like a certain kind of intimacy, when you spend time with someone & the details complications situations of your life start to be identical with theirs. Is "lalasini" to know someone very well, or do you start to "lalasini" someone the first time a sini of their life is the same as a sini of yours? lalalale
: I like your definition
of lalalale as the realization of the power of lala. I thought of it in this sentence: "The RIAA and MPAA haven't yet had the lalalale
, so they think that they can sue mp3s out of existence." Is "lalalale" particularly the realization of that expansive, uncontrollable quality of lala, or does it also have to do with lala's other characteristics, such as the "six degrees" of connection between people? lalanulo
: To share something with no one, or only with yourself. Secrets are included, but also all those of your personal thoughts & perceptions which just happen never to be revealed. Can someone tell you "make this a lalanulo," keep this secret, or is that a contradiction because they've already lala
-ed it to one person at least, you, and it's no longer completely private? Or, similarly, if something's meant to be a "lalanulo" and is accidentally revealed, is it no longer a "lalanulo," or is it "a lalanulo which has been revealed"?
So there's my plan to start us off towards actually making a bunch of those 48,020,000 compounds and no one ever suggesting that lalesinigepobale has too few words ever again. :) Too many, more likely. :)
|Monday, December 3rd, 2007|
a new name for our language
My plan all along has been to name our language natively, which is why I've just been calling it "our language" or "this language." I figured that we'd have a good name for it someday when someone makes a word for "language" and maybe a word for "collective," but as I've thought over the first four words chosen in our language, lale, sini, gepo & bale, I realized that they describe exactly what my vision for this language is:
because we experience each other's creations and each other.
because each word is a sini
made rich by its owner, and because it's more about relationship than about identity.
because it's a place to be joyful together & enjoy each other's company.
because everyone can shine bale
onto their words' meanings until those meanings are perfectly bale
So my new name for our language is: lalesinigepobale
(I am also inventing here a sort of lalesinigepobale chengyu
made of four words. If anyone else wants to make some lalesinigepobale chengyu, go right ahead; there's an astonishing number of combinations possible even with the few words we have so far.)
It's been a pleasure exploring lalesinigepobale with all of you so far. I have gotten a lot of mail from people worrying that this project might not "succeed," but I assure you that it is already perfectly successful. The next way that I plan for lalesinigepobale to succeed is just to slowly build the number of contributors until there are a lot of interesting words. That's not especially difficult to succeed at either; it's just a matter of persistence.
This is the first real name lalesinigepobale has been given, but I don't think it will be the last. At its heart lalesinigepobale is a language which is always expanding, always discovering, adding & accepting new things into itself. I plan to stay with lalesinigepobale and see it through to where it goes. I hope y'all will help me lala
it to the world.
|Saturday, December 1st, 2007|
Since I've made a mess of my words, I lala the following bale of them in the interest of creating lale for them. All words may be used as nouns, verbs, adjectives, or relations in sini (x) sini or vata (x) vata constructions. (PS Mungo, I changed pili to maha, and I am happy with it now. Also, if you think it is better for treeing or tracking each word, maybe each of the below should go on their own page? I didn't want to put up five separate posts. Breaking things up would seem helpful.)
digi (DIH-gee) :: quantification, or amountyness. This makes any word into a count, quantity, or numeral. Most frequently used to indicate numbers (digimanu, digitovo, etc).
maha (MAH-hah) :: pronomialization, or identity-as-such, (possibly) making a distinction as a grammatical operation. This makes any word into a "pronoun". There are only two root usages, however: mahanulo (“I” or the distinction of this self-identified identity as such) and mahamanu (“you” or the recognition of another other-identified identity as such). More simply, mahanulo and mahamanu function as “I” and “you” respectively. Anything may be pronomialized. I suspect that there may be a “maha” in front of every noun, but that it has been long-dropped as gratuitous; as such, informally one can use nulo and manu as “I” and “you”.
gigo (JEE-go) :: to gift, a gift, to place (a word) in the commons. A gift may be given conditionally (“gigonulo”) with strings attached, or unconditionally (“gigomanu”). Whether conditional or not, the sense of a gift is never lost, such that the word (gigo) cannot be made to connote to a contract or corporate/business interest. Gigo itself is self-referentially unconditional; a business attempting to gigo something could only be the target of giggling. In a sense, currently all words are gigonulo, conditionally lala to us all.
vata (VAH-tah) :: drawing a relation away. If making a distinction means cordoning off x as distinct from everything else (not-x), then as a noun, vata points to the not-x. A vatacar would be everything but the car. Vatalala (or lalavata) would be (taking lala as an expansion) both the reduction of the space into which the lala expands and/and/or the denoting of the spaces into which the lala did not expand. Similarly, as a verb, vata indicates all of the actions not taken, either as actions or potentials (it might be necessary to distinguish these eventually). Thus, If I lala with you, it means I vatalala no one else. Or, if I vatago, that points to that I did not read, did not eat, did not drink, ad infinitum. Vata may be understood in relation to sini. If sini (x) sini draws a specific kind of relation between A and B, then vata (x) vata points to everything else that sini excludes by drawing the relation. However, Dr. Barton says that sini merely draws the relation, it does not specify what kind. If it turns out that there is a default sense or relation that sini (x) sini draws, then vata (x) vata is the converse; if A sini B draws out the similarities between A and B, then A vata B would draw out the not-similarities of A and B. However, it seems that there will be such default, and one does not need a sini to understand vata. The contrast is for the sake of understanding. So, where sini (x) sini draws a relationship between A and B, vata (x) vata emphasizes the surrounding distinction that makes (x) into (x) in the first place.
How to Count to an Octillion or More
Since I've made a mess of my words, I lala the following bale of them in the interest of creating lale for them. All words may be used as nouns, verbs, adjectives, or relations in sini (x) sini or vata (x) vata constructions. (PS Mungo, I changed five and six ... they become gross with usage. I won't change them again.)
For the following words, there are many other compounds yet to be added. All of these base words, however, are gigo (in the commons). The only sovereignty I'd want to consider for them would be whether the word goes first or second in a compound, i.e., lalamanu or manulala, if even that.
nulo (NEW-low) :: zeroness, nothingness, void, perfection (in the sense of total potentiality), blank slate, colloquially 0. By itself, nulo indicates "seconds," diginulo is "zero". NOTE: As a time indicator nulo means the xth second, not x seconds. Nulozahi is the 5th second; nulo-diginulo would be 5 seconds.
manu (MAH-noo) :: oneness, unity, mystic union, perfection (in the sense of total expression or total non-contradiction and non-distinction), the one, colloquially 1. By itself, manu indicates "minutes," digimanu is "one". Like nulo, manu indicates the xth minute, not x minutes. Manu-telinulo (30th minute) versus manu-digitelinulo (minutes 30).
tovo (TOE-voe) :: twoness, duality, distinction (as a noun, not a part of grammar), pairs, thesis/antithesis, twins, colloquially 2. By itself, tovo indicates "hours," digitovo is "two". Tovo-sekamanuzahi is "(hour) 6:15". This is the most common designation for time. Tovo-digisekamanuzahi would be 615 hours.
teli (TELL-ee) :: threeness, triality (particularly in love triangles), synthesis, synergy, alchemy, by extension a symbol of sorts for a couple's pair-union (which is really just synergy again). By itself, teli indicates "day" (as in day of the week). Teli-manu is "Monday". Telidigimanu is "three days". Digiteli is "three". NOTE: While our calendar week may only have seven days, this does not prohibit words or senses for telitete, telinine (8th day, 9th day), or higher.
folu (FAH-loo) :: fourness, quadrality (particularly for polyamory), perfection (in an all-encompassing sense, as in "the four corners of the world" but still naively so). By itself, folu indicates "week" and functions like the other time words. Digifolu is "four".
zahi (ZAH-hee) :: fiveness, quintality (again, particularly for polyamory), disappointment or excitement (that the perfection of 4 has been lost or transcended). By itself, zahi indicates "month" and functions like the other time words. Zahimanu is "January". Again, a word like zahimanuzahi (15th month) is not prohibited; zahidigimanuzahi is "15 months". Digizahi is "five".
seka (SEH-kuh) :: sixness, sextality (yes, you guessed it; again, particularly for polyamory), the reconciliation or new synthesis of the disappointment from 5. In practical terms, it signifies the peace but stagnation of a new resolution, and may be understood as a balancing of the perfect 4 with all of the subsequent contradictions presented by the world. By itself, seka indicates "season". Sekateli is "Autumn," sekanine (9th season) is permissible, sekadigiteli is "three seasons," and digiseka is "six".
seve (SEH-vay) :: seveness, septality (ibid), existential despair (all the struggle and hard work of the six has now been shown, again, to be incomplete), the displeasure of having to discover yet more or the release from the stagnation of the 6. By itself, seve indicates "year," and behaves like the other numbers. A person's age is indicated as seve-[number].
I'm seve-folumanu (year-four-one; 41st year), not seve-digifolumanu years old. Digiseve is "seven"
tete (TEH-tay) :: eightness, octality (ibid), nostalgia (the contradiction of the 7 has been resolved; everything snaps into place again, but the sense of accomplishment felt at the 4 is not repeated, because now the naïveté of the 4 has been replaced with the longer experience of the 8, hence the nostalgia), wishing for how it used to be and forgotten how it was. By itself, tete indicates "decade". The 60s were tetesekanulo. Digitete is "eight".
nine (NIHN-uh) :: nineness, nonality (ibid), either the renewed vigor of a second childhood (that the totality of one's nostalgia is not the end-all be-all after all) or crushing cynicism that life continues to throw more at you, the breakdown of systems and logic under the sheer weight of accumulation. By itself nine indicates "century" and functions like the other words. Nine-manunine is "19th century". Diginine is "nine".
Numbers are constructed on the simplest possible scheme; they are simply listed. Each number begins necessarily with digi. Thirteen would be digi-manuteli (number-1-3). As a point of style, the dash after digi may be omitted, however for longer numbers, I recommend placing a where a comma would be: 5238 = digi-zahi-tovotelitete.
If you happen to have a string of identical numbers, this can be indicated with [number of numbers]’[number]. Thus, 777 can be written, digi-teli’seve (number – 3 – sevens). The year 2007 could be sevetovo-tovo’nuloseve (year – 2 – two 0s – 7). Thus, “November” could be zahimanumanu or zahitovo’manu. Your choice. When speaking, the digi may be dropped, but only when it is clear you are speaking of a number (likely when answering a question). Also, when ‘ is used, the accent is on the second syllable of the word before it, and there is a slight pause before saying the word after.
NOTE: Tovomanu is not “12.” It’s “the first minute”. Digi-tovomanu is “12”. Digi-tovo’manu is a variant of “11” and is pronounced DIH-ji-toe-VOH-MAH-nu, not DIH-ji-TOE-voh-MAH-nu.
In written form, fractions may be indicated with a tilde: ~manumanu would be 1/11; the ~ is pronounced as a finger snap. No doubt some poet will have referred to “the inverse of the first second” or “over the first minute,” which is what ~manumanu means literally, but context will almost always guarantee it is 1/11 instead.
If for some reason, an ambiguity is problematic, the grammatically correct compound to indicate a fraction is ~manu at the beginning. As such, ~tovo (or ~manutovo) would be ½, ~teli (or ~manuteli) is 1/3, etc., ¾ would be teli~folu (or ~manuteli~folu), and 5234/18 would be zahi-tovotelifolu~manutete. In the last two cases, if miraculously they were ambiguous for some reason, one would have to use ~manu at the beginning. The double-tilde in such words should be highly unusual.
Of course, this resorting to tildes is me avoiding either making a compound with something that exists, which I think would be too long just to indicate a fraction, or grabbing another word for the sake of indicating a fraction. (I do like the idea of finger snaps though.) If ~ is acceptable, it has the meaning of “over” but if someone prefers to have a word for this, then “over” might be included in its definition.
NOTE: if you have the misfortune to have to say, 3,192,678 or some other equally enormous number, again, one simply lists the numbers: digi-teli-manuninetovo-sekasevetete. However, sometimes you just want to say, say, 832 billion, or perhaps 832 billionths. Numeration to the rescue.
Nulo is used to indicate powers of 10 from 10 through ginormous, while ~nulo indicates the corresponding fractional values.
Hence, nulomanu = 10s (the metric deca-) and ~nulomanu = tenths (the metric deci-). Similarly, nulotovo = 100s (hecto-), ~nulotovo = hundredths (centi-). Nuloteli = 1,000s (kilo-), ~nuloteli = thousandth (milli-). From ~nuloteli on, each next step is a power of 1,000: nulofolu à millions (mega-) or millionths (micro-); nulozahi = billions (giga-) or billionths (nano-); nuloseka = trillions (tera-) or trillionths (pico-); nuloseve = quadrillions (peta-) or quadrillionths (femto-); nulotete = quintillions (exa-) or quintillionths (atto-); and nulonine = sextillions (zetta-) or sextillionths (zepto-). And just if you were wondering, yes, this can continue indefinitely, as soon as the computer geeks name units beyond nulomanunulo, i.e., septillions (yotta-) and septillionths (yocta-).
The word stands alone, unattached, following the number. Hence, “Bill Gates has digizahitovo nulozahi-dollars” Or, “The new laser at Lawrence Livermore Labs can make cuts digizahinulo to digi-manuteli’nulo ~nuloseve-meters wide”
I propose, but won’t further specify here, that these large number indicators are always attached to whatever unit they are talking about. If a “meter” was “mete” then a femtometer would be ~nulosevemete (~nuloseve + meter), a millisecond would be ~nulotelinulo (~nuloteli + second), 10s of years would be nulomanuseve (nulomanu + years), a light year would be approximately digi-zahi.tete nulosekamile (nuloseka + miles) if “mile” is a mile, and Bill Gates has digizahiseka nulozahidola, if “dola” = “dollar”. [Again, I’m not specifying “mile” for mile or “mete” for meter, or “dola” for dollars. They’re just placeholder-examples.] If, somehow, there is no unit to go with it, then “maha” should be used. E.g., digiteli nuloninemaha (“three septillion-things”).
Of course, the unit for the light-year itself should be the “baleseve”.
Some might object that, say, threeness presupposes a number 3 in the first place, so that teli should be the number, not digiteli. Or that "threeness" insists there's some Platonic "3" out in the universe somewhere. We discern threeness, I think, when we arbitrarily group things together, and then quantify them with the word 3. That intuition that puts the things together in the first place is the "threeness," is "teli".
I want to change mono to manu (and pipi to maha). Which brings up the playful possibility of what to do about mono and pip. Does they stay stuck as "the essence of one" and "that which pronomializes anything" or can I gigo it back into the commons for a redefinition? Would it still retain its lalamanu in the dictionary, while the subsequent lalatovo would become the primary definition?
You see? I'll make a virtue out of my "wait ... I have something different"
It'd be interesting to track the ramifications of words as a branching tree. In terms of tracking though (alphabetization), I would think a compound like lalamanu (an algebra term? Expand first, as in expand first, and then multiply?) would be found as a branch of lala not manu, and vice versa for manulala. Navigating through posts to find words and definitions will ultimately be untenable. Links are good, but an old-fashioned linear dictionary is wanted. Something I can search through, even if what I find links me back to somewhere else.
|Friday, November 30th, 2007|
There is an article of bad faith is digging at the premises of a venture, but I want to assure you, I'm not trying to undermine the project at it's core.
Having said that, how will this project reconcile language sovereignty with language as it is actually practiced. Language, precisely, is a biologically necessary, and necessarily consensual domain for human beings. The the enshrinement of sovereignty literally amounts to social violence, all the more so when there are limited language resources to begin with.
Obviously, so far people are being nice and not hogging words. Even my list of numbers (or list of numerical essences) isn't meant to corner the number market. Frankly, I'd rather have such elemental words be in the commons. It seems that there should be some kind of mechanism for this. As such, a word that is gigo (JEE-go) is a gift. When it is monogigo, the gift is unconditional; when it is nulogigo, there are strings attached. Currently, unless specified otherwise, all proposed words are nulogigo. Gigo is the relinquishing of sovereignty, both a noun and a verb. As a preposition, it can be used to confer temporary or permanent sovereignty to someone else, person, or thing. Gigo itself is self-referentially monogigo. It might seem like the word has some relationship to commerce, business, or management, but its inherent nature as a gift (conditional or otherwise) makes it non-analogous with corporate management or contracts. This is just an inherent part of the word, and attempts by businesses to veer its sense toward perpetuating poverty through market capitalism is transparently such a ruse, that most businesses have long given up the temptation.
There are some weird lovely ironies that crop up from the constraints you've provided. In principle, if you coin a word, you must manage a word. There may be limited time-resources, if I have to "babysit" all the numbers, as it were. Also, I'm not feeling particularly proprietary about them. Even so, proprietary over word means sounds like it could slide into fascism or non-communication in the blink of an eye. There is no mechanism (short of banning people) from inventing compounds or mining out meanings in people's words. This itself seems merely to lala another's word, with lala connoting to a connotation itself, or an unauthorized use?
And what happens when the sovereign leaves? Does their word, or proprietary vocabulary gogi to the commons automatically? And if you return after a long absence, can you rune (reclaim, return) your word (provided, of course, that you can digi your sovereignty in the first, or overcome the principle of monogigo that gifted the word to the commons by one's absence)?
|Wednesday, November 28th, 2007|
my word for mungojelly
noun pronounced lay-lee
- The quality that gives a sense of pleasure, beauty and connection, to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as moments of epiphany, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.
- a sense of experiencing something innately true yet indeterminable about oneself, especially through external influence or environment.
- something of (1 & 2) that has effect on several, many, or innumerable, often interlinked, levels.
Example: Much lale is found to be hiding in the sini of the world.
It was lale as she had never come across it before...
I was filled with a sense of lale
As an adverb: she danced lale; he wrote lale
And as an adjective: It was a lale moment; the bale was so lale
|Tuesday, November 27th, 2007|
: valley in the mountains; enclave; wrinkle; a place with a hidden richnessWhen building a house, be sure to include a sini for each of the children.adjective
: with a "lala-able" hidden richness, such that the richness is NOT the source of the hiddenness"You're building a house out of bamboo?"
"What a sini idea! I think I'll build one too!"
"Great!" preposition group
: used to draw a grammatical valley of hidden richness between two subjects or one subject and one object, i.e. a relation.
"X sini Y sini Z" draws the relation Y between X and Z.
In English, we often mix up predication and relation (Heinz von Foerster, Perception of the Future and the Future of Perception
) and hide one of the members of the relation: "Learning the guitar is very simple" is not pointing to an inherent quality of "Learning the guitar", but to its relation to people: "Learning the guitar was simple for me" or "Learning the guitar will surely be simple for you" or "Learning the guitar would be simple for the average human". Sini sini is a way to point to the very juiciness of talking about this relation.
The relation can be symmetrical: I sini (mutual-admiration) sini you.
or asymmetrical: I sini (victim of) sini (the capitalist system).
Sini sini can similarly link together two sentences (or even larger structures):He didn't turn off the lights last night. sini example-of sini He never turns off the lights!Interjection
: used to chide someone for over-generalizing, for missing the hidden valley of richness; used to prompt someone to restate what they just said using the relation structure."How can they be Americans if they can't speak English?"
As a noun or adjective, Sini is pronounced with both syllables unstressed: sini
. In the preposition group, two sini's are pronounced differently: ...SIni...siNI...
, or, in advanced speech, can be contracted to an "interword": ...SI'...'NI...
. As an interjection, pronunciation may vary.
Well, so far we have had two very brave people who have contributed words! I've started a dictionary at http://ixkey.info/sovereigns/dict.html
which links to your definitions. I wrote "first-lala" for the link to the first time a word is shared-- when someone joins with a meaning like "first" or "initial" or "beginning" I would like to make a compound with them for this purpose please. :) http://ixkey.info/sovereigns/dict.html#balehttp://ixkey.info/sovereigns/dict.html#gepohttp://ixkey.info/sovereigns/dict.html#lala
I've been thinking about it, and I think the next thing we need to do to make it easier for people to get involved is make it brightly bale
just exactly how someone is supposed to lala
a new word. My idea is that we could make a questionnaire (or in Livejournalese, a "meme"!) for people to fill out.
It seems like the questions we all answered so far are: What does your word mean? What grammatical category or categories does your word fit into, and what does it mean in each of its roles? (What does your word mean if it's used as a noun, or as a verb, or as an adjective, etc?) What are a few examples of how to use your word?
I'd also like to ask: What name would you like to have listed in the dictionary, and is there any other contact info you'd like included?
BTW, Kassie, I listed you as "Kassie," so tell me if that's right! :)
Does anyone else have any ideas for questions we could ask people about their words?
|Saturday, November 24th, 2007|
ok, my word is Gepo. (pronounced geh-po)
it means "To laugh" in verbal form, in noun form it means "funny" adjectively it's the same.
the person telling jokes is gepo. the jokes he tells make me gepo. part of his act is to move around in a gepo way.
[am I doing this right?]
My word is bale
(pronounced "bah-leh", rather than "bail", I think), and its basic meaning is "light".
As a verb it can mean (transitively) "to light up", "to illuminate" and, secondarily, "to make clear", "to explain", "to provide an example/analogy", or (intransitively) "to shine".
As a noun it means "light", "a source of light" or "lucidity", "clarity". It can also be used poetically as a metonym for the Sun; or as a synonym for "glory".
As an adjective it means "bright", "clear", "lucid" or "shiny".
As an adverb it means "clearly".
You can bale
a darkened room, but you can also bale
a tangled legal case. Stars, lightbulbs and glow-worms all bale
can be described as a wave or as a particle. It is also a desirable quality when writing prose. Current Mood: calm
|Thursday, November 22nd, 2007|
my word is lala
I have chosen for myself the word "lala."
"lala" means to share something which is increased, not expended, as it is shared, such as ideas, information, or feelings. :)
You can't lala
a piece of pie, but you can lala
the recipe. When someone's very happy or unhappy, they'll often lala
that feeling to those around them. Some people try to lala
their religion or politics to others. You can lala
mp3s on the internet.
If "lala" were used in a more nounlike way, I suppose it would mean an idea, a piece or information, or a feeling.
I've developed this language, and now I've lala
-ed it to you. Next I'm looking forward to taking an equal role with all of you in following the course I've charted! Please ask me any questions you have about "lala," and please ask yourself & each other most of the other questions you might have. :P Anyone want to form a compound with me? :) Current Mood: excited
Every syllable in this language is made of one consonant followed by one vowel. The consonants are:
b d f g h k l m n p s t v z
And the vowels are:
a e i o u
Any pronunciation is OK as long as the sounds are all distinct from each other. I chose the letters so that there's just one (range of) sound generally associated with the letter by English speakers. That way there's not too much to learn, for those of little linguistic sophistication. (For those with more: One proper pronunciation is to associate each letter with what it symbolizes in IPA!)
There are therefore 70 possible syllables: ba be bi bo bu da de di do du fa fe fi fo fu ga ge gi go gu ha he hi ho hu ka ke ki ko ku la le li lo lu ma me mi mo mu na ne ni no nu pa pe pi po pu sa se si so su ta te ti to tu va ve vi vo vu za ze zi zo zu
Each word is just any two of those syllables together, such as badi, fifo, gagu, keke, nino, pipi, sato, home (pronounced "ho-meh", not "home"), lulu, miho, hatu, vovo, etc. There are 4900 such combinations (70 times 70).
Each pair of two words can form two different compound words together. For instance, "baba" and "zuzu" can make the two compounds "babazuzu" and "zuzubaba." (The meanings of both babazuzu and zuzubaba are to be decided jointly by the two sovereigns of baba and zuzu.) Theoretically then there could be as many as 48,020,000 different two-word compounds.
The language is analytic & isolating, that is, the words are always in the same form; they don't take affixes or change based on their grammatical role. This makes it easy to look up words you encounter, and ensures that words will never accidentally transform into each other, preserving their sovereignty.
All other grammatical questions I'm leaving to the future & to the community. In particular, anyone has the option to give their word its own syntactic properties. A new member who chose for their word to describe a tense, a mood, a gender, or to be a pronoun, an article, a question particle, or any other grammatical function that they can imagine-- something totally new? please? :)-- would naturally direct the course our grammar takes.
I have tried to prescribe as little here as I believe is absolutely necessary. What I have suggested, therefore, is fairly carefully considered. I believe that this structure will serve us as "good fences," as in "good fences make good neighbors." The rules are intended only to keep each person's word distinct from every other in spelling & sound, so that we may each have a place to stand. That done, I feel that I must step down immediately-- must leave any further decisions that someday demand deciding to all
of us together-- if I am truly to offer this to you as your
language. Current Mood: determined
what led me to invent this new language
Collective conlanging, languages constructed by groups of people, is one of the great passions of my life. I have had several successful experiences of community language creation, and witnessed & participated in many more failures, and based on this experience & on long contemplation I have invented this simple frame, this scaffolding, to which I hope you will help add the flesh & bones that will bring us to a truly new form of expression together.
The most difficult part of creating a language together is the process of reaching consensus on the meaning of newly invented words. It's especially difficult if the goal is to discover meanings which are different from those already existing in natural languages. Speakers may be open to & consciously striving for new meaning, but the only frame of reference they share with the other participants is the natural language distinctions they both already know. Drift towards English/European word meanings is therefore a problem which languages like Lojban and Klingon must continually be vigilant against.
The method which I am now proposing to create and share new meaning is very simple: Each person is given absolute authority-- sovereignty-- over one of the words of the language. All questions as to what that word means, and how it is used, are directed to that person. In this way we can each contribute our unfettered creativity & expressiveness to breathing life into our own corner of the language, filling each word with the kind of complications and distinctions that are the life blood of living languages.
The sovereign control which you have over your own word means that no one else has any standing to tell you that you are wrong about your word in any way. You can explore whatever meaning you choose, however you choose, and everyone else must respect your vision & attempt to use your word faithfully. In this way we can guide each other to subtle meanings, to unobvious distinctions in the qualities of our world, which are different than those that came before and different than those we had previously imagined on our own.
I have also built into my scaffolding a social process of word creation: Compounds can be made out of any combination of the primary (sovereign) words, and the meanings of those compounds are to be decided jointly by the sovereigns whose words are involved in the compound. This is how as a small community we will be able to create a language together which has as many words as we need to express ourselves fully. Through creating words together in pairs & small groups, we will connect deeply with each other's meanings & weave them together into a full tapestry.
This is my love, my art, my passion, but I can only create it with your help. I am hoping there are enough people out there who have some semantic vision they want to share, some new type of expression they wish that they could express, enough people who would like to take a turn together and walk down a different path, to see what we can find. I'm hoping that you're out there, and if I can find you, I promise to give your words a home in my mind & in my breath, & to devote great and unceasing energy to fulfilling your new visions. Current Mood: hopeful