tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 25 20:30:32 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Atlantean language
Yeah, because it ONLY uses words from the canon. Nothing else. Ever.
Isn't that funny? The other one, Historical Atlantean, is "method-based",
imitating his style, prizing his art (and it is an art, he did a really,
really great job).
This new one isn't restricted to the Proto-Indo-European roots, Old Chinese
words, Classical Hebrew words, California Penutian words that Okrand used in
the Canonical words. It uses those same source, following Okrand's method
and logic (sound rules,etc) as closely as possible while still maintaining
the creativity necessary for such an exact imitation. It's not as hard as
it sounds once you figure out a few of his words.
Quick example: Atlantean for "year" is "yanut" (YAH-nut). It's something
like Proto-Germanic *jar from whence comes English year and German Jahr
combined with the root from which Latin annus, year, came from. And the t
is explained by some variation within there.
So he does things like combines different traditions within Indo-European or
he picks one tradition that's straight-forward (like "lud" for "person" from
the Slavic) or that's entirely obscure but tracable (like "makit" for "king"
from the Old Irish word for "lord" or "noble", the same place where the Mc
in McDonald's comes from). And there's hidden jokes, too, like that last
one, most of which are really nerdy. No Ching and Chang's yet (the Siamese
twins?) or ghoti's.
ghunchi'wI' 'utlh writes:
> I'm confused. You're calling the method that emulates Okrand's work
> "less canon-based" than the one you developed?
>>>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
Canidate for Linguistics B.A. at
Michigan State University
404 E. Owen Hall
East Lansing, MI 48825
Cell:1-906-370-3624