| subjective - | objective (directly or indirectly) | |
| personal | kra, she, he - | krað (kradt), her, him |
| possessive, genitive | kras, her, his - | (same) |
| possessive, determiner | krans, hers, his | |
| reflexive, singular | kraself, herself, himself | |
| reflexive, plural | kranselves, themselves |
| subjective | objective (directly or indirectly) | |
| nominative | kra (she, he) | krað (her, him) |
| possessive, determiner | kras (her, his) | (same) |
| possessive, genitive | kraj (hers, his) | |
| reflexive, singular | kraself (herself, himself) | |
| reflexive, plural | kranselves (themselves) |
And "worser" is even worse ... ;)
Two loves I have of comfort and despair,
Which like two spirits do suggest me still:
The better angel is a man right fair,
The worser spirit a woman colour'd ill.
And "worser" is even worse ... ;)Quote from: William Shakespeare"Two loves I have of comfort and despair,
Which like two spirits do suggest me still:
The better angel is a man right fair,
The worser spirit a woman colour'd ill.
"Worser" is is not used because we've been taught as children that this is wrong... But without really understanding why.
I think there's a technical reason...I'll look it up in more detail later. Typically we'll say something like "even worse" or something like that.
Well, I'm no English-speaking native but... Isn't 'worse' simply an irregular form and nothing more ? Worse is a comparative already, so I think it doesn't make sense to say worser. I mean, you wouldn't say, for example, that an anvil is "heavierer" than a hammer.
| subjective | objective, directly or indirectly | ||
| nominative, singular | kra (she, he) | kran (her, him) | |
| nominative, plural | kre (they) | kren (them) | |
| possessive, determiner, singular | kral (her, his) | ||
| possessive, determiner, plural | krel (their) | ||
| possessive, genitive, singular | kraln (hers, his) | ||
| possessive, genitive, plural | kreln (theirs) | ||
| reflexive, singular | kran-self (herself, himself) | ||
| reflexive, plural | kren-selves (themselves) |
subjective objective, directly or indirectlyDo we really need all of these? I mean i don't have any sort of doctorship in english but do we have something this race specific like do we have nominative plural for cats like cets? It doesn't seen to make any sense to have race specific. Having gender specific eg. he/she/kra does make sense but do we need those others for real.
nominative, singular kra (she, he) kran (her, him)
nominative, plural kre (they) kren (them)
possessive, determiner, singular kral (her, his)
possessive, determiner, plural krel (their)
possessive, genitive, singular kraln (hers, his)
possessive, genitive, plural kreln (theirs)
reflexive, singular kran-self (herself, himself)
reflexive, plural kren-selves (themselves)
gemmiteI'm really nitpicking here but does Kran even have fetuses? If there isn't a word for those maybe adding a word for that aswell? :D maybe Kratus lmao
an unborn kran fetus
She went to her home on the beach. There was a new mat before the door, but it was not her. She said aloud to herself, “Now, that is strange!”You would need to insert a new phrase and compound that sentence to make it intelligible, of course:
There was a new mat before the door, but it did not belong to her.You could just also
She went to home of she on the beach. There was a new mat before the door, but she did not own it. She said aloud to the self of she, “Now, that is strange!”And, so on. Increasing the flexibility of language allows for more nuance in expression and better narrative voice; we should resist the tendancy to simplify things when the losses outweigh the gains.
gemmiteI'm really nitpicking here but does Kran even have fetuses? If there isn't a word for those maybe adding a word for that aswell? :D maybe Kratus lmao
an unborn kran fetus
Now, I had a question for you: with an older post in this thread, you said that ‘kraselves’ sounded better to you than did ‘kranselves’; does that have something to do with Finnish vowels? I don't know much about Finnish phonology, so I don't know how frequently the ‘ns’ combination occurs.Well, it could be. After several secondsof thinking i couldn't figure any word with 'ns' combination so i suppose it's not that often. But most propably it's just me being me since now i'm really confident kranselves is way better for it's consistency and makes way more sence.
Again, thank you for your useful comments, Dihilin. Do not think that I do not appreciate them simply because I disagree — although, as you say, the plural cases could certainly be cut from the proposal if people don't like the vowel change.Thanks for you, good that actually someone has the effort to think about the nouns and whatnot language things. You said you are intrested in linguistics? Ever considered about the language projects in the wiki?
| subject: | object: | |
| nominative singulare: | kra(he, she) | kran(him, her) |
| nominative plural: | they(they) | them(them) |
| possessive determiner singular: | kral(his, her) | |
| possessive determiner plural: | their(their) | |
| possessive genitive singular: | krals(his, hers) | |
| possessive genitive plural: | theirs | |
| reflexive singular: | kranself, kraself(himself, herself) | |
| reflexive plural: | themselves(themselves) |
All I can say is to look at the English equivalents beside each kranic pronoun: English already has at least as much variety with its pronouns as does this proposal. What would English look like if you replaced the pronouns shown in one cell of the table above with those of another?
Konroran's desire pushed kra so hard that sleep was something that was rarely seen.So, I then began thinking about what would be the objective form of the pronoun. I wondered why their pronoun so nearly resembled the name of their species. I figured that they had no pronouns, exactly, but a form of inflecting nouns which indicated case in the same way that pronouns do in English.
| subjective | objective, directly or indirectly | ||
| nominative, singular | kra (she, he) | kra (her, him) | |
| possessive, determiner, singular | kras (her, his) | ||
| possessive, genitive, singular | kras (hers, his) | ||
| reflexive, singular | kraself (herself, himself) | ||
| subjective | objective, directly or indirectly | ||
| nominative, singular | kra (she, he) | kran (her, him) | |
| nominative, plural | they | them | |
| possessive, determiner, singular | kral (her, his) | ||
| possessive, determiner, plural | their | ||
| possessive, genitive, singular | krac (hers, his) | ||
| possessive, genitive, plural | theirs | ||
| reflexive, singular | kran-self (herself, himself) | ||
| reflexive, plural | themselves |
different pronouns serve mainly, according to what I observe and my conlanging, to differentiate without decribing exactly who you're talking about.That is one function of pronouns in most languages — as a convenient handle, — but, as I described above in this reply, I was figuring that there is no pronoun per se in Kranic–Lemurian as there is in English.
Those elements which I think to be inarguably necessary are these:since they're inarguable points :P, I'll nevertheless argue about them.
- The objective form ‘kran’ — most languages have that distinction, which helps to distinguish between the passive and the active format, and I think Kranic–Lemurian deserves the same distinction, too.
- The change of the ‘S’ to something else. Both ‘L’ and ‘C’ occur in Kranic names, and I take the ‘C’ to be a alveolar or palatal fricative — not simply another letter for the same sound as ‘K’. The phonetics of ‘L’ seem somehow possessive–ish to me, and ‘C’ is not too different in its phonetics.
My proposal has both ‘kral’ and ‘krac’, but other people can use either interchangeably and I shall personally — in my “headcanon”, if you will — see that as unfamiliarity with the Kran–Lemur language. I will have each of my characters, those who speak Kranic–Lemurian well, know and use my proposal regardless.
I figured that they had no pronouns, exactly, but a form of inflecting nouns which indicated case in the same way that pronouns do in English.The consequence of that however is that all/a subset of nouns would follow an inflection scheme, which is fine but personally I would rather have Common be closely tied to English except for some vocab(for obvious reasons). Because that way there's no translation that would happen between us and our characters(save for when they speak a different language).
The absence of the ‘S’ in my latest revision is indicative of the fact that I've never seen it in a Kranic name. It occurs in Lemurian names, but I figure that any difference is accounted as an accent, rather than a dialect, and is a difference of phonemes which do not cause collision.
I personally like the ‘ln’ combination, and I use it in a few of my own conlangs. It could be ‘lg’ if that seems more kranish.
By having only one form of the pronoun, you will need to rephrase and complicate that statementComplicated and simple sentences are really subjective to the reader and to what they are used to, what to use is complicated may simply be clear to another and what we find a normal sentence may be overly convoluted to another. But at this point I'm really just arguing about the general topic rather how specifically about the kran/lemur language in particular.
Were you suggesting that a kran dialect, or the whole of the Kranic–Lemurian language, lacks the distinction between objective and subjective pronouns — thus handling them syntactically the same as English does its nouns?
You guys have too much spare time!!! :D :D :D