Concerning the word 'khoy' in Atrus' prayer--what does it mean? I
have heard several theories, such as that it is a combination of the
prepositional prefix kheh- and the possessive suffix -oy, which would
mean "for my" or something like that. I'm pretty sure though that
those two elements couldn't be directly juxtaposed, since both are
meant as noun modifiers. Here, there is no noun.

If the '-oy' is indeed the suffix 'my', then I think the 'kh' here
must have a different origin. Remembering that 'oy' is possessive, I
thought of 'okh'. What if it is a contraction or simplification
of 'okh + oy'? That would have a meaning roughly like 'of my'.
Perhaps the indication would be a possessive adjective, such
as 'mine'. Not sure how well that fits into the text, though. Any
thoughts?

- Leenay, who has changed her email address due to overwhelming
spam :\

(K'laa, if you reply this time, cc my personal address so I'll be
sure to get it.)

Oh, I'd love to, but I think I'd bet on no response. Or a very
cryptic one, at best. Maybe if I post it to the Lyst, Rawa will see
it...I'll think about it. It's almost more fun just to speculate, you
know?  I have some more wacked out ideas like that. Once I have a
little time, (i.e. once finals are over with) I may post them.

--- In languagelyst@yahoogroups.com, "Leenay Stutzman"
<gaerielleenay@a...> wrote:
> Does it seem odd to anyone else that we only have three object
> pronouns? Well, okay, four, if you count the plural you, shemtee.
> But, still. I really think we need a word for "it", at the very
least.
>
> Here are my thoughts on the subject, and my apologies in advance
for
> technicality and length--I tried to make it as clear as possible.
> Bear in mind that this only hypothetical reasoning here.
>
> So--we have subject pronouns as suffixes, which seem to bear some
> relation to the corresponding object pronouns, like so:
> I        -(none)  and me (obj)    zoo
> you       -em     and  you (obj)  shem
> he/she/it  -en   (no known obj)
> we       -et     and us (obj)     set
> you pl   -tee    and you pl (obj) shemtee    (which seems to be
> fairly straightforward pluralizing of "shem", you sg.)
> they     -eet    (no known obj)
>
> Given that the ending for 3rd person remains the same regardless of
> gender, -en for he and she as well as it, it seems likely that the
> object pronoun would do likewise. It's possible that there would be
> gender distinction, or at least animate/inanimate distinction,
having
> one word for he/she and another for it, but it seems most likely
that
> it would be all the same word. The same goes for 3rd person plural--
> the word for "them" is probably the same regardless of whether
male,
> female or inanimate things are indicated.
>
> So we are missing two pronouns which we tend to use rather
frequently
> in writing--3rd person. I find it interesting that it is only the
3rd
> person forms that are missing, however, I have no idea why that
would
> be. The D'ni are all about description, and it is almost always
these
> forms we use in describing things. So, being extremely
hypothetical,
> how plausible is it that we could extrapolate the remaining forms
> from the ones already given?
>
> It seems fairly evident to me that, at least in all cases except
the
> 1st sg, the object form is directly based off of the subject ending
> (or vice versa). And also, it appears that the only difference is
the
> addition of a sibilant before the ending, a form of /s/. I have no
> theory at present as to why the ending, if there ever was one, was
> dropped in the 1st sg, but I will leave that out of my discussion
for
> now. The fact remains that the object form, at least, of the 1st sg
> does in fact begin with a sibilant, /z/. It is, however, the only
> example of voicing.
>
> So, my working hypothesis is this--suppose originally it was simply
s+
> (ending), the endings being more or less the same as they are now.
> This would give us:
> 1st sg - soo
> 2nd sg - sem
> 3rd sg - sen
> 1st pl - set
> 2nd pl - s'tee
> 3rd pl - seet
>
> So, obviously some of these words are problematic, which is likely
> why they took the different forms which we currently have. The 2nd
sg
> form "sem" is actually attested somewhere, I believe, as a form
> of "shem", although apparently in error. However, it is interesting
> to note that it is a plausible variation that could easily go both
> ways.
>
> Sen, obviously, is the same as the word for 3--assuming the
language
> evolved this way, it is logical for there to come to be a
difference
> between the two words. And it seems further logical, at least to
me,
> that it would follow the 2nd person form in aspirating to /sh/.
There
> are other possibilities, but I think that is the most likely.
>
> As far as soo > zoo is concerned, that seems a fairly natural
change
> to me also. Possibly the voicing to /z/ vs. aspiration to /sh/ has
> something to do with the fact that it is followed by a back
> vowel, /oo/, rather than a front vowel like /eh/.
>
> As I pointed out above, shemtee seems to be a pretty
straightforward
> plural form of shem, and I see no reason why that should have been
> different. When it became an ending, instead of the rather clumsy -
> emtee it was simply cut to the part of it that actually makes it
> plural: -tee.
>
> Then, for 3rd person pl. According to my hypothesis, this began
> as "seet". I see no particular reason why there would have been a
> shift in this word, except perhaps the circumstantial evidence that
> every other form except "set" _did_ change. The likely choices for
> this word if it did shift would be "zeet", "sheet", or
> perhaps "tseet". To me, it still seems most likely that it would
have
> simply remained "seet". It sounds the most "D'ni" to me, if you
will.
>
> Thus, I give you The Highly Hypothetical Theoretical Complete
Object
> Pronoun Chart of D'ni:
> 1st sg - me: zoo
> 2nd sg - you: shem
> 3rd sg - him/her/it: shen
> 1st pl - us: set
> 2nd pl - you pl: shemtee
> 3rd pl - them: seet
>
> And voila! we have our missing pronouns. Note, however, that I am
NOT
> suggesting their use in any kind of serious manner. This was merely
> an exercise in linguistic curiosity, of a sort, and is not intended
> to be taken as anything other than a hypothesis of a possibility. I
> have made considerable assumptions in several places in order to
come
> up with this, and it is likely that I am quite wrong in several, if
> not all points. But I thought it was interesting enough to share
with
> you all, and I would appreciate some comments or feedback if you
have
> any thoughts on the idea. Shorah! :)

Sounds interesting. Maybe someone should run this by an "offical"
source and see what sort of response we get (if any).

Sure, but like I said, be careful where and how you use it because it
is total and complete guesswork. ;) Useful though, yeah.

Wow, and thanks very much. This will make writing so
much easier! I don't do anything serious, just for fun
so this will help incredibly.
Thanks again
Katianna

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Does it seem odd to anyone else that we only have three object
pronouns? Well, okay, four, if you count the plural you, shemtee.
But, still. I really think we need a word for "it", at the very least.

Here are my thoughts on the subject, and my apologies in advance for
technicality and length--I tried to make it as clear as possible.
Bear in mind that this only hypothetical reasoning here.

So--we have subject pronouns as suffixes, which seem to bear some
relation to the corresponding object pronouns, like so:
I        -(none)  and me (obj)    zoo
you       -em     and  you (obj)  shem
he/she/it  -en   (no known obj)
we       -et     and us (obj)     set
you pl   -tee    and you pl (obj) shemtee    (which seems to be
fairly straightforward pluralizing of "shem", you sg.)
they     -eet    (no known obj)

Given that the ending for 3rd person remains the same regardless of
gender, -en for he and she as well as it, it seems likely that the
object pronoun would do likewise. It's possible that there would be
gender distinction, or at least animate/inanimate distinction, having
one word for he/she and another for it, but it seems most likely that
it would be all the same word. The same goes for 3rd person plural--
the word for "them" is probably the same regardless of whether male,
female or inanimate things are indicated.

So we are missing two pronouns which we tend to use rather frequently
in writing--3rd person. I find it interesting that it is only the 3rd
person forms that are missing, however, I have no idea why that would
be. The D'ni are all about description, and it is almost always these
forms we use in describing things. So, being extremely hypothetical,
how plausible is it that we could extrapolate the remaining forms
from the ones already given?

It seems fairly evident to me that, at least in all cases except the
1st sg, the object form is directly based off of the subject ending
(or vice versa). And also, it appears that the only difference is the
addition of a sibilant before the ending, a form of /s/. I have no
theory at present as to why the ending, if there ever was one, was
dropped in the 1st sg, but I will leave that out of my discussion for
now. The fact remains that the object form, at least, of the 1st sg
does in fact begin with a sibilant, /z/. It is, however, the only
example of voicing.

So, my working hypothesis is this--suppose originally it was simply s+
(ending), the endings being more or less the same as they are now.
This would give us:
1st sg - soo
2nd sg - sem
3rd sg - sen
1st pl - set
2nd pl - s'tee
3rd pl - seet

So, obviously some of these words are problematic, which is likely
why they took the different forms which we currently have. The 2nd sg
form "sem" is actually attested somewhere, I believe, as a form
of "shem", although apparently in error. However, it is interesting
to note that it is a plausible variation that could easily go both
ways.

Sen, obviously, is the same as the word for 3--assuming the language
evolved this way, it is logical for there to come to be a difference
between the two words. And it seems further logical, at least to me,
that it would follow the 2nd person form in aspirating to /sh/. There
are other possibilities, but I think that is the most likely.

As far as soo > zoo is concerned, that seems a fairly natural change
to me also. Possibly the voicing to /z/ vs. aspiration to /sh/ has
something to do with the fact that it is followed by a back
vowel, /oo/, rather than a front vowel like /eh/.

As I pointed out above, shemtee seems to be a pretty straightforward
plural form of shem, and I see no reason why that should have been
different. When it became an ending, instead of the rather clumsy -
emtee it was simply cut to the part of it that actually makes it
plural: -tee.

Then, for 3rd person pl. According to my hypothesis, this began
as "seet". I see no particular reason why there would have been a
shift in this word, except perhaps the circumstantial evidence that
every other form except "set" _did_ change. The likely choices for
this word if it did shift would be "zeet", "sheet", or
perhaps "tseet". To me, it still seems most likely that it would have
simply remained "seet". It sounds the most "D'ni" to me, if you will.

Thus, I give you The Highly Hypothetical Theoretical Complete Object
Pronoun Chart of D'ni:
1st sg - me: zoo
2nd sg - you: shem
3rd sg - him/her/it: shen
1st pl - us: set
2nd pl - you pl: shemtee
3rd pl - them: seet

And voila! we have our missing pronouns. Note, however, that I am NOT
suggesting their use in any kind of serious manner. This was merely
an exercise in linguistic curiosity, of a sort, and is not intended
to be taken as anything other than a hypothesis of a possibility. I
have made considerable assumptions in several places in order to come
up with this, and it is likely that I am quite wrong in several, if
not all points. But I thought it was interesting enough to share with
you all, and I would appreciate some comments or feedback if you have
any thoughts on the idea. Shorah! :)

> Well, there's a big hole on the page with the puzzle itself;
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20000824002214/www.rivenguild.com/explorati
on/puz
> zle6.html
> ...under "Word List". (Listed, oddly enough, as wordlist.jpg.) But
you're
> probably right, it's probably not going to be a "clue" list per se.

My guess, it's probably a just literal list of the words used in the
puzzle, and the puzzle itself simply shows them in their proper
places. I'm not sure what the point would be, but not having been
around when it was being solved and talked about, I can't make a
better guess.

> Yeah, that's a really cool site. Unfortuantely, as you said, it's
> usefulness is extremely limited. I don't know for sure if there ever
> was a clue list. If there had been, wouldn't there be someone
> somewhere who knew what the words meant? But I don't think any
> definition has been given for them.


Well, there's a big hole on the page with the puzzle itself;
http://web.archive.org/web/20000824002214/www.rivenguild.com/exploration/puz
zle6.html
...under "Word List". (Listed, oddly enough, as wordlist.jpg.) But you're
probably right, it's probably not going to be a "clue" list per se. Still,
the context would be useful.

Dave III

Yeah, that's a really cool site. Unfortuantely, as you said, it's
usefulness is extremely limited. I don't know for sure if there ever
was a clue list. If there had been, wouldn't there be someone
somewhere who knew what the words meant? But I don't think any
definition has been given for them.

> If I remember right, there are some words from the crossword that
> are specifically marked as a suffix, like -ahl or whatever. In fact,
> I thought that I had found a pair of them, one as a suffix and one
> not, but the same spelling, both from the crossword. Need to go back
> and look at my copy of the dictionary, which I've done extensive
> scribbling on. :)


The good news is I found the D'Ni Crossword puzzle solution, but I couldn't
get hold of the Clue List. Would you have that graphic available, anywhere?
Or know where I can find it?

This link: http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://rivenguild.com/
...proved to be a valueable resource (after a LOT of digging) but it wasn't
complete. Rather frustraiting, actually. ^_~

Dave III

If I remember right, there are some words from the crossword that
are specifically marked as a suffix, like -ahl or whatever. In fact,
I thought that I had found a pair of them, one as a suffix and one
not, but the same spelling, both from the crossword. Need to go back
and look at my copy of the dictionary, which I've done extensive
scribbling on. :)

I've been doing some research and the D'Ni Dictionary at
http://www.eldalamberon.com/dni_dict.htm has a reference to a D'Ni crossword
puzzle, which obviously spawned a WHOLE lotta words not yet translated. I
remember having seen it a long time ago, but the Riven Guild website has
gone away, taking the crossword with it. Is there another place I can find
an image,  or has the books shut without a bookmark? ^_^

Dave III

 

Yeah, Good Year, I hadn't thought of that one. Actually, it would be 'Yahr rahm', since adjectives are supposed to follow verbs. Or how about _Sekhehmah ehrthyahr rahm_ 'Have a good year!' And "New Year" would be _yahr nee_, so 'have a good new year' would be something like _Sekhemah ehrthyahr nee rahm_.

> Shorah bredovah!
>
> I don't celebrate Christmas, but this is an interesting question I
> think. How would you say Merry Christmas, or some other Christmas
> greeting, in D'ni? Peace to the world isn't quite the same as "peace
> on earth" but it's close. :)


The word "Christmas" (or it's related ceremonies) never struck me as being
as important as what they are meant to celebrate; Peace on earth, Goodwill
to All,  a belief-slash-hope for the future, generosity of spirit, freedom
from fear, family bonds, raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, etc.
etc. etc....

The idea is to celebrate these things with freinds and family, and maybe
with a few strangers too. What you call it doesn't matter; The Winter
Solstice, Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanzaa, A Big Party At My House In Late
December, George P. Burdell Day; the important part is to remember the
Reason for the Season.


So, Shorah Bredovah! and Rahm Hahr! (Good Year!) ^_~

Dave III

Shorah bredovah!

I don't celebrate Christmas, but this is an interesting question I
think. How would you say Merry Christmas, or some other Christmas
greeting, in D'ni? Peace to the world isn't quite the same as "peace
on earth" but it's close. :)

C'mon, guys. Doesn't anybody have any comments, criticism,
something? I know it's not perfect, okay, I am sure of it. So far
all I've heard is people like it, which is great, I really
appreciate that. But come on, some specifics? Something I should try
to fix? Or at least questions? Pleeeeeeease?

So, um, yeah. Or how about a contribution of your own? Mine was
really long, but that's pretty rare for me. It's the longest thing
I've ever written that's not in English. I have some shorter things,
actually a few Bible verses was some of the first D'ni stuff I did,
but I wasn't very happy with the way they turned out. But I'm sure
some of you must have done some similar bits of translation or
whatever.

Okay, if you don't that's fine too. But I have a hard time believing
no one in this group has anything to say. I know a couple of you
always have at least two cents worth. ;)

~Leenay

I'm done at last! Here is everything, I think, the D'ni text and the
English version, followed by my notes and a literal translation,
line by line. Wow, this is reeeaaally long!

~Leenay


Devokahn
Ehrthhahr lehkehnehn ehrthlehnah
tehrthdovah nee rihlteh lehshtee;
ehrthdovah okh rihl gihtsahth,
rihl soygihth gah rihl shorah.
Kotorneet fehseht t'tahm,
koshehntoeet seht brehgahlon;
gahth rihl lehdormadheet seht,
grehzuh rihl kokehnehn kosehleet.
Dokroeht f'lehnah meht,
b'kahmto, rihl tahgahmeht.
Bahrehleht lehshteeot khrehyahr;
gor rehmehn gah mahrehnteht,
hooreht devokahn t'tsahvahl.
R'rovtee kotaygahneht, loymaht
oshahnihn, kehneet gahth t'seht.
Mehreet dho tsahveht, tsahno
bokehneet t'seht frehrooay;
shehntoeht fah keelehn fehrthgor,
chooreht, tsahveht, taygahneht.
Choorehm mrehfehnah, gah toolehm,
tsahvehm khehshorah, t'devokahn,
taygahnehm kahm sehkhehm mehtyahr.
Lonehm mot kahm kehnehn prihn
pahm tehn, kehnehn voohee kahm
kehnehn tsahno; g'keelehn bihv
chehvehm rehbahrehltahn, gah
tahgahmehm lehmahrnehn seht bihv.

Hope of 9-11
A year has been a journey
in a new world with no rules;
a world with no safety,
no stability, no peace.
They spat on us with fire,
they took us to the ground;
but we are not defeated,
the end has not been written.
We move on in this journey--
to what place, we do not know.
We make our rules for each day;
time flows on and we follow,
finding hope in our living.
The people we loved are lost,
yet they are with us still.
They watch us live, forever
they'll be with us on the way;
taking one step at a time,
learning, living, loving.
Learn from this story and grow,
live for peace, live in hope,
love what you have today.
Discover that what is small
or simple could be what is
eternal; and every step
thank the Maker, and know
that he has made us all.


Notes:
Ehrthhahr lehkehnehn ehrthlehnah
    a-year has-been-it a-journey

tehrthdovah nee rihlteh lehshtee;
    in-a-world new with-no rules
("rihlteh" doesn't have an official translation, but I went ahead
and used it, as I think 'without', which I got from Khreestrefah's
dictionary, is a reasonable speculation; also I debated about
whether it should be 'nee' as in 'Terahnee' or 'neeah', as
in "kortee'nea"?)

ehrthdovah okh rihl gihtsahth,
    a-world of no safety
(Not sure if 'okh' should be a separate word or not; I think the
rule is separate if it applies to more than one thing.)

rihl soygihth, gah rihl shorah.
    no stability and no peace

Kotorneet fehseht t'tahm,
    did-spit-they on-us with-fire
('feset' or 'f'set'? I went with 'feset' based on 'fesev' "on Age"
which is in Gehn's Journal from the soundtrack; BTW I find it
interesting that we have a word for 'defeat' but no word of any kind
meaning attack, fight or strike, etc)

koshehntoeet seht brehgahlon;
    did-take-they us to-the-ground
(I don't know about this application of "shento" 'take', but I
figured it's at least as abstract as it's use on Aitrus' map)

gahth rihl lehdormadheet seht,
     still not have-defeated-they us
("gahth" also from the D'ni timepiece on the map--I think that is an
official translation, yes?)

grehzuh rihl kokehnehn kosehlehn.
     and-the-end not was-it wrote-it
(grezuh=gah rezuh, I think you can do it that way... Also, Khrees'
dictionary again, 'kokenen ko-' as a passive construction, for "was
done-whatever" which, I think, appears to be a valid observation)

Dokroeht f'lehnah meht,
     are-moving-we on-journey this
("met" has interesting characteristics--should it be "metlenah"? The
map has both 'bahtsahnah met' for 'this map' and 'metm'lah'
for 'this lizard', a seemingly arbitrary distinction--I went with
the former, obviously, because 'f'metlenah' sounds odd...and is
probably ungrammatical :))

b'kahmto, rihl tahgahmeht.
     to-what-place, not know-we
("kahm" and "to" is, I know, speculation again, both in Atrus'
prayer; but 'what' is the logical meaning for 'kahm' as it is used
there, and "to" 'place' makes sense to me as "tomahn" 'house' would
then mean 'place of existence'...I think. I compounded 'kahmto'
after 'kahmrov', also in Atrus' prayer)

Bahrehleht lehshteeot khrehyahr;
     make-we our-rules for-the-day
(I was going to have 'each day' using "pod" from the Riven Journals,
but I just couldn't get the sentence to work--'for each
day' "kheyahr pod"?)

gor rehmehn gah mahrehnteht,
     time flows-it and follow-we
(This might should be "gahmahrentet" instead, I don't know)

hooreht devokahn t'tsahvahl.
     find-we hope in-living
("tsahvahl" after "teegahl" 'working')

R'rovtee kotaygahneht, loymaht
     the-people did-love-we, though

oshahnihn, kehneet gahth t'seht.
     lost, are-they yet with-us
(I was very tempted to try to extract a verb "oshahn" or
maybe "oshah" 'lose' from "oshahnihn", but I restrained myself. :D)

Mehreet dho tsahveht, tsahn
     watch-they how live-we, forever
("mehr", watch: no idea where this word is from, but Khrees' has it
coming from RAWA, so I figured it was safe enough; I know there's
some question whether "dho" in Atrus' prayer is the same word
as "thoe" 'how' in BoT, but it seems fairly evident to me
that "thoe" is just a creative spelling for an audience conditioned
to pronounce 'th' as in 'thin')

bokehneet t'seht frehrooay;
     will-be-they with-us on-the-way
(I adapted the word "rooay" 'route', being the closest to any kind
of word for path, road, way, etc)

shehntoeht fah keelehn fehrthgor,
     take-we one step at-a-time
("keelen", step: ooh, new word! new word! Cooooool!!)

chooreht, tsahveht, taygahneht.
     learn-we, live-we, love-we
(I was going to use "choorahl, tsahvahl, taygahnahl" but I decided
the other sounded better, although I left it in the English version.
Another word from the dictionary marked as given by
RAWA, "choor" 'learn'.)

Choorehm mrehfehnah, gah toolehm,
     learn-you from-the-story and grow-you
(I know this sounds as if it should be imperative, but I purposely
left it out; it is implied in the English version the way I left it,
but it could be interpreted either way. I kind of liked it simply as
a statement, a confirmation, You *are* learning, growing, etc)

tsahvehm khehshorah, t'devokahn,
     live-you for-peace, in-hope
(same as above)

taygahnehm kahm sehkhehm mehtyahr.
     love-you what have-you this-day
("kahm" agehn, and this time I did tack "met" on the front, 'this-
day'='today')

Lonehm mot kahm kehnehn prihn
     discover-you that what is-it small

pahm tehn, kehnehn voohee kahm
    or simple be-it could what
(Oohh, new word agehn! The "kenen voohee" 'could be' construction is
from BoT)

kehnehn tsahno; g'keelehn bihv
    is-it eternal; and-step every
(Use of "bihv" 'all' attributively for 'every' from the D'ni
proverb, up on DRC!)

chehvehm rehbahrehltahn, gah
    thank-you the-maker and

tahgahmehm lehmahrnehn seht bihv.
    know-you has-created-he us all.
(Should probably have "mot" in there, and I don't know about "set
bihv" either, but rewording it kept giving me too many extra words.)

End of notes, but also, the question was asked in the MC forum about
the stress pattern, which syllables do you accent on? As far as I
know there is no official rule about stress, but I tend to stress
either the first syllable or the root word. Anyway, I posted there
the stress I used when I wrote it, which I'll admit is a little
irregular, so I'll put it in here just for clarification.

EHRTHhahr LEHkehnehn ehrthLEHNah
TEHRTHdovah nee RIHLteh LEHSHtee;
EHRTHdovah OKH rihl GIHTSahth,
rihl SOYgihth gah rihl SHORah.
KOtorneet FEHseht t'TAHM,
KOshehntoeet SEHT brehGAHlon;
GAHTH rihl LEHdormadheet SEHT,
GREHzuh rihl KOkehnehn koSEHLehn.
DoKROeht f'LEHNah MEHT,
b'KAHMto, rihl tahGAHMeht.
BAHrehleht LEHSHteeot KHREHyahr;
gor REHMehn gah MAHRehnteht,
HOOReht DEHvokahn t'TSAHVahl.
R'ROVtee koTAYgahneht, LOYmaht
oSHAHnihn, KEHNeet gahth t'SEHT.
MEHReet dho TSAHVeht, tsahn
BOkehneet t'SEHT frehROOay;
SHEHNtoeht fah KEElehn FEHRTHgor,
CHOOReht, TSAHVeht, TAYgahneht.
CHOORehm mrehFEHNah, gah TOOLehm,
TSAHVehm khehSHORah, t'DEHvokahn,
TAYgahnehm kahm SEHKHehm mehtYAHR.
LONehm MOT kahm KEHNehn prihn
pahm TEHN, KEHNehn VOOhee kahm
KEHNehn TSAHno; g'KEElehn bihv
CHEHVehm rehBAHrehltahn, gah
TAHgahmehm lehMAHRNehn seht BIHV.

I finally finished the 9-11 thing I was working on. I think it's the
longest thing I've written in D'ni so far. Whoo! :) I posted it with
a general English translation to the Lyst and in the writings forum
at MC. I'll have the analysis and translation notes up, here, as
soon as I get them into readable order, later today or tomorrow.

Okay, I'm in the process of writing a 9-11 remembrance in D'ni. I
was going to use the word _enday_, build, which I thought was an
official translation. But I was going back thru my material trying
to find where it is attested, and the only example I could find was
in Gehn's Journal.

The journal has _rehehndaytahntee_ which has been translated as "the
builders." But I thought I had seen it used someplace else, and I
can't find it. The translations from the journal are mostly guesses
unless it's a word found somewhere else that we already know the
meaning of. So I don't want to use _enday_ unless I can find it
somewhere else, or be fairly sure that the guess is correct.

It sounds like a good guess to me from the context, but I don't know
enough about the guilds to be sure. I'm a linguist, and the society
and cultural structure, while it is interesting, isn't quite as
fascinating to me, so I haven't memorized all the known guilds or
anything.

I wish Cyan would've given us the translation of the journal; can
you imagine how much more we'd know, not only of vocabulary, but of
the grammar, just from that? It'd be so much easier even to make an
informed guess with just a little more info; but then every time we
do get new stuff, it's never enough. :D

~Leenay

Kay, here's a question kheshemtee:

What is the best way to make a noun from a verb? The only example
I've is the suffix -tahv, which seems to make a noun from an action
verb. At least, I think that's the only way I've seen it used.

Would it still make sense to use that suffix for making words like
*tsahvtahv* "life", from *tsahv* "to live", and *taygahntahv* "love"
from *taygahn* "to love"?

Or would it be better to use another suffix like -ahl, which, I
think, creates present participles or something like that? Like
tsahvahl "living", and taygahnahl "loving"?

> --- In languagelyst@y..., "Lannie Da" <lahnee_mehdni@h...> wrote:
> > Greetings, everyone!  I just joined this lyst, and wanted to
> introduce
> > myself.  I am Lannie (or Lah'nee R'Ahrotahn on the Lyst) and I'm
> from
> > California and Kentucky. :)
>
> You're from Cali *and* Kentucky? :)
>
> But I know what you mean. I live in Kansas, but I am really from
> Indiana. Just trust me on that one.
>


Heh. I just moved to Virginia from Georgia and New Jersey. ...I'm seeing a
patten here. ^_~

Dave III

--- In languagelyst@y..., "Lannie Da" <lahnee_mehdni@h...> wrote:
> Greetings, everyone!  I just joined this lyst, and wanted to
introduce
> myself.  I am Lannie (or Lah'nee R'Ahrotahn on the Lyst) and I'm
from
> California and Kentucky. :)

You're from Cali *and* Kentucky? :)

But I know what you mean. I live in Kansas, but I am really from
Indiana. Just trust me on that one.

Oh, yeah, and I'm from D'ni too. ;)

~Leenay

Greetings, everyone!  I just joined this lyst, and wanted to introduce
myself.  I am Lannie (or Lah'nee R'Ahrotahn on the Lyst) and I'm from
California and Kentucky. :)  Hope to learn a lot on this lyst.

Lannie

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

-----Original Message-----

Actually, it sounds very practical-- if the said D'ni characters/words actually existed. :) You are talking about the Garo-hevtee, which Anna explains to Atrus in BoA? I've always been fascinated by the idea of those words, since they can contain so much information in a single character. It would definitely make programming much easier. Not that I've done any, but to have a single "letter" or word that would convey a whole concept like that would have to simplify things.

Wouldn't it be cool if someone designed some kind of 3d engine (a la
Doom or Quake) that used D'Ni as a programming language? Something
that, with a mere description, could be translated into a 3d image,
something that could be shared through the internet, and (what the
heck, since we're dreaming) be used as some kind of chat forum?

Also, have you ever noticed how sentences that start off
with "Wouldn't it be cool if..." usually go on to describe something
almost completely impossible, or at the very least entirely
impractical?