• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Towards a Gvegh Grammar

robject

SOC-14 10K
Admin Award
Marquis
TOWARDS a GVEGH GRAMMAR

METHOD

Depending on the degree to which DGP has already done it, I'd cipher off of Arrghoun for conjugations (i.e. different sounds but the same tables), add in some enclitics, but replace the root verbs and nouns using the Gvegh word generator. Come to think of it, there must be some Gvegh wordlists out there somewhere.

DGP Vilani & Vargr

"Low charisma Vargr use more grammatical markers and a certain word order. High-charisma Vargr, on the other hand, may use bare root forms of words, and they have more freedom in choosing the structure of their sentences." p58

Page 42 terms: Kfaegzoukhin "Gvegh" (as a cultural group); kaenguerradz, "racial superiority".
Page 45 terms: Uerul "small one".
Page 51 terms: Zhosokh Urs "well-respected ear", llananae tourz "the devoured sector".


Page 58 also has proverbs which appear to illustrate several grammatical principles. Gary Thomas knows eight real languages, after all...

The explanatory text notes that proverbs are in "high charisma" form. This means the speaker "relies on the high charisma of the Gvegh race as a whole." This also means the phrases can be grammatically sparse/free. (This gives Gary the leeway and power of brevity.)


(#1) Thursuth gha kvaekh?
Where is death not allowed to go?

(#2) Ghakse faeng faeng faeng faengeg; dzedzdhoughz faeng faeng kufaeng udheg.
A pup's ball is the pups; a pup's teeth are the pack's.

(#3) Khofaeghorz gvegh gvegh gnaedh faeng vargr rrirrg.
Vargr speech without Vargr teeth.

(#4) Aekh kfaegzoukhin zersakha vargr; kfaegzoukhin zersakh kuvargr.
A Vargr without charisma is no better than a rock; a rock with charisma is better than an entire pack.


In order to tease out a structure, I'll start with #4 and go from there.

Kfaegzoukhin literally means "Gvegh culture" (p42), implying high charisma.

Vargr is clearly "[a] Vargr". The ku- prefix might mean something like "a pack of", "a group of", or some sort of collectivizer (not just a plural). Kufaeng from #2 is likely also a collective noun: probably "pack" given the usage in #2 overall.

Zersakh means "rock". That includes the form zersakh-a.

The second half of the proverb therefore reads: HIGH-CHARISMA ROCK [is-better-than] PACK-OF-VARGR.

The first half of the proverb might then read: NO/"WITHOUT" HIGH-CHARISMA, ROCK-IS VARGR.

Looks like #4 is an informal contrast, with the -a in zersakh turning the noun into an epithet of VARGR.


In #2, faeng faeng appears to be "pup"; the suffix -eg could indicate possession (like the English -'s suffix), while a noun following another noun (assuming ghakse means 'ball') indicates association. So, "the ball of the pup is owned by the pup".

Thus, dzedzdhoughz faeng faeng means "the teeth of the pup". Kufaeng udheg (see the -eg ending there too?) means "owned by the pack" or "the pack's".


Now on to #3. Duplication appears to imply an instance of a concept; here, gvegh gvegh means "speech". Its single form, Gvegh, is presumably the name of the language. Doubling it seems to turn the abstract noun into a concrete example of it: speaking in Gvegh, or just talking in general.

That says to me that "faeng" in #2 may be an abstract noun, and "faeng faeng" is its concrete form (a pup). But that runs into trouble with #3, where we have the form "faeng vargr" together. What is THAT?
 
Last edited:
Rob, if duplication is conceptualization, you've misread the faeng triple...

faeng probably is literally the literal of pup, while the double faeng faeng is the concept of puppyhood.

A pups ball belongs to puppyhood, while the pup's teeth belongs to the pup's pack.
More liberally, one's toys are one's childhood, one's fighting is for the pack.
 
That's possible, Wil. I was thinking it went the other way, but yes, duplication could represent the abstraction instead.

Given the translation by DGP, and given the other example gvegh gvegh = "an instance of Gvegh; Gvegh words being spoken", it seems that Gary was being perverse and switched it around. So duplication is the noun, and the single form is the abstraction.

gvegh gvegh = speech; words spoken
gvegh = Gvegh the language, or perhaps "gvegh-ness", high CHA?

faeng faeng = pup
faeng = "puppyhood"?


Back to your specific point. Duplication could be the abstraction, but the proverb as translated by DGP seems to say "pup" in both cases, and doesn't appear to be making a point about age, but rather pure ownership.
 
Last edited:
The main challenge here is that these proverbs are "stylized" and relatively verbless or free-form, which is in line with high CHA speech. That said, the proverbs demonstrate some prefixes and suffixes, and noun duplication.

ku- collectivizer
-eg ownership possession
-a possible adjectivizer, modifying the following noun

If I deconstruct zhosokh urs "well-respected ear" and llananae tourz "the devoured sector" from complete ignorance and using English word order, I could add:

-okh present perfective (zhos, to respect)
-(n)ae past perfective (llanan, to devour)

So I could then also say:

*zhosae urs, "once-well-respected ear" (good for an exiled ex-pirate captain)
*llananokh tourz, "the currently-devoured sector" (so let's go raiding elsewhere)

Similarly, kaenguerradz has a nice -adz ending that makes me want to make it an abstract nominalizer (kaenguerr, to be superior). If I did that, then duplication would create a concrete instance from the abstract:

kaenguerr, to be superior (verb)
kaenguerradz, superiority (abstract noun)
kaenguerradz kaenguerradz, the superior Vargr (noun)


All this makes Gvegh still rather European. Nothing really strange going on. That's not necessarily bad, though of course it is scoffed at by conlangers. Not that I care very much.
 
Last edited:
(#1) Thursuth gha kvaekh?
Where is death not allowed to go?


This one is almost impossible. It could literally be anything: I mean it's not just six permutations of three words. There are lots of concepts that could be expressed here that mean "where is death not allowed to go?"

But there is one possible help from #4: Aekh kfaegzoukhin, "without charisma".

MAYBE. Compare aekh with kvaekh. Yeah, it's a stretch, but work with me here.

(1) we need a term that has a negative in it
(2) aekh is a negative term
(3) we have kvaekh
(4) we literally know nothing about the nature or structure of this phrase

Therefore, kvaekh might as well be our negative term, similar to "forbidden", "is not allowed", etc. If so, it would be the verb.

Thus,

Thursuth gha [IS-NOT-ALLOWED]?

Assuming "gha" is an enclitic which modifies the verb, we have

DEATH WHERE IS-NOT-ALLOWED?

It's all conjecture of course.
 
Last edited:
While I'm scattershotting here, let's talk about...

kfaegzoukhin

...the Gvegh cultural sphere. Do YOU see some inflection going on here? 'Cuz I do:

kfaeg < Gvegh. One is the people, one is the language. So...

zoukhin means something as well. And -in or -khin feels like a nominal suffix.
 
I missed the fourth.
Then Faeng faeng looks to be the collective of pup.

Word Doubling occurs in several languages outside of adjective use.
In ASL, sign doubling is a gerund form. EG: crossed fists =work; doubled, =working.
In English, it's an emphatic assertion of literalness of the repeated word, at least when common figurative is a wider subset...
In Russian and english, it's got a poetic use as an emphatic and as a pluralized - but not in common speech.

So if we are using a collective abstract form...
The balls of the puppies belong to the puppies; the fangs of the puppies belong to the pack.
Scans just as well.

Or even "the balls of any pup belong to any pup; the fangs of any pup belong to the pup's pack.

That looks more linguistically likely.

Doubling as an "_X_ _X_" = "any _X_" as an abstraction layer.
 
> In ASL, sign doubling is a gerund form.

Yes, and that would work too. (So would doubling = pluralizer or "any" abstractifier) I agree that the "any" form looks pretty good.
 
Last edited:
> In ASL, sign doubling is a gerund form.

Yes, and that would work too. (So would doubling = pluralizer or "any" abstractifier) I agree that the "any" form looks pretty good.

Being more awake, it looks to be more:
"_X_ _X_" = "Any given _X_" Where X is a noun.

Which would make "Kforzung kforzung" be "Any member of the kforzung"

Raises an ugly question - concatenation of multiple groups?

"_X_ _X_ _Y_ _Y_" or "_X_ _Y_ _X_ _Y_"
 
Being more awake, it looks to be more:
"_X_ _X_" = "Any given _X_" Where X is a noun.

Which would make "Kforzung kforzung" be "Any member of the kforzung"

Raises an ugly question - concatenation of multiple groups?

"_X_ _X_ _Y_ _Y_" or "_X_ _Y_ _X_ _Y_"

Ugly or not, it's productive, so let's ratify it.
 
Back
Top