Good afternoon Sanonius o/
o/
Quite so. When translating stuff, you gotta structure it at first, thoroughly. What is the subject in your sentence? What are predicates? And so on. So, the Goblin is hungry, but the Spirit is the one doing the defending against the goblin. What now? Thatâs where subordination of clauses comes into play. The spirit defends against a goblin. The goblin hungers. The spirit defends against a goblin who hungers/a hungering goblin. Know whadam sayinâ?
What youâve got here is:
The ghost, the naked man, he hungers to the hag and to the goblin to rags he would rend [implied: if he could, but he doesnât], he stands next in a book of moons I defend.
With to nominatives, phantasma and vir nudatus (nudus would be enough) that have to be one and the same thing, because the verbs are all singular, plus an enigmatic âI defendâ.
1 Like
Hmm, rightâŚ
I think I have to take a break from any complex translations and just read some grammar, seems like I need a lot more work on expressing the basic relations between things in a sentence. Iâll make the daily challenges easier.
An interesting little table about writing systems.
| Script | System |
|---|---|
| Sumerian / Akkadian cuneiform | Logographic / syllabary / abjad |
| Egyptian hieroglyphs | Logographic |
| Chinese characters | Phonosemantic characters* |
| Japanese kana | Impure** syllabary |
| Phoenecian alphabet | Abjad |
| Hebrew alphabet | Abjad |
| Arabic alphabet | Abjad |
| Greek alphabet | Alphabet |
| Latin alphabet | Alphabet |
| Nagari | Alphabet |
(*) Because of phonetic shift, now logograms in practice
(**) Almost all writing systems are impure to some degree
The path of evolution seems to be hieroglyphs => Phoenician => All other alphabets and abjads
And, of course, Chinese characters => kana.
But the question that is most fascinating is what the connection is between the three ancient root systems of cuneiform, hieroglyphs, and Chinese characters: they all rely heavily on logograms, and they were all connected by trade roots. Did, one asks, hieroglyphs and Chinese characters evolve from â or under the influence of â cuneiform or were they invented by their native populations?
1 Like
This is a similar debate to whether spoken language is monogenetic (arising from a single source) or polygenetic (arising independently from multiple sources.) My impression is that monogenesis is more likely â if we already were speaking languages by the time we migrated out of Africa, then they must have all originated at least in that continent. And it seems to me that paleontology-archeology supports that first claim.
Wait, what? Itâs not like you can do this with any two characters, just a select few, even for loanwords. For example, you canât create a âtraâ or a âstaâ.
I mean add any vowel to any consonant,
not any consonant to any consonant
ăŚăŁăăăăŁă˘ - Wikipedia
âDiâ donât exist, only Chi + "
so ă Te -> ă De is used and small i 㣠-> ă㣠Di
Ah, ok, sure. I was confused by your examples of ăŤă then, with what you meant.
Still, many Japanese will pronounce ăŚăŁăăăăŁă˘ as ăŚă¤ăăă¸ă˘ anyways.
Since @bugcat did not put up a language challenge, hereâs a grammar challenge.
The cook grills a steak.
The cook grilled a steak yesterday.
The cook will grill a steak tomorrow.
The steak is grilled by the cook.
The steak has been grilled by the cook.
The steak will finish grilling. (in 10 minutes, after that we can focus on plating the food)
The cook wanted to grill a steak.
The cook would have grilled a steak. (if you hadnât had dinner yet)
The cook could grill a steak. (or he could bake an egg instead)
The cook couldnât grill a steak. (he never learnt how)
Hey cook, grill a steak!
I saw the cook that grilled a steak. (I didnât see the other one that boiled vegetables)
The steak grilling cook was tired.
2 Likes
In English you just say âThe cook grilled a steak yesterday.â
or⌠âThe cook has grilled a steak.â â (usually implying it was very recent, immediate)
âThe steak will be grilled tomorrow.â
Very informal / rude (circumstancial)
Grammatically correct, but a little vague. How do you know the other cook didnât also cook a steak? Usually, you would be more specific; such as âI saw the cook that grilled my steak.â
2 Likes
This one never makes sense to me, since the steak grilling has finished, so it should be a perfect tense, right?
âThe cook grilled a steak yesterday when suddenly the phone rangâ â both actions are ongoing in the story
âThe cook has grilled a steak yesterday, so we still have some other leftovers as wellâ â the action of grilling a steak has finished
How about âThe steak will have been grilled by tomorrowâ (itâs a huge steak that takes days to grill!)
But not ungrammatical 
Imagine a grumpy hungry millionaire ordering his kitchen staff to get him his dinner.
But that will unnecessarily make the sentence more complex as well
1 Like
Has doesnât depend on whether or not the action is finished. Thatâs mostly implied by the word yesterday unless otherwise stated. Has, being the past tense of have, has a strong sense of connection. To use it in relation to something that happened yesterday feels wrong precisely because it finished so long ago. Has is usually only used instead of another time indicator (such as yesterday), not in conjunction with it.
âThe steak will finish grilling tomorrow.â It is unusual to use the past tense on an ongoing item.
This example I gave implies the process will both begin and finish tomorrow.
Correct. Just adding context.
It is only unnecessary if you know for sure that the other cook didnât grill any steaks. Because youâre specifically differentiating between one cook from another, specific details are warranted.
2 Likes
Thanks for the explanation, I fixed the two sentences. Hurray, now Iâve had an English grammar lesson today as well!
âDid you see that cook, the handsome one who was boiling vegetables?â
âNo I just saw the cook that grilled a steak, and he wasnât handsome either.â
2 Likes
Fine.
I think this is fine⌠to me the below would sound a little more natural, but I donât think yours is wrong.
âNo I only saw the cook that grilled a steak, and he wasnât handsome.â
â adding âeitherâ on the end is technically correct, but sounds quite formal, you wouldnât normally hear it. The reason for using only instead of just is because normally when you hear âI just saw âŚâ it is used synonymously with âI very recently saw âŚâ
I donât think itâs wrong, but it sounds unusual to me.
Too lazy to do proper translation, but in latin, the verb needed has to be in the following moods and tenses. Iâll let @bugcat do the dirty work 
Present indicative
Perfect indicative
Future indicative
Present indicative passive
Perfect indicative passive
Future indicative passive
Infinitive +modal verb âwants toâ. Also possible: participle future active + auxiliary âwasâ.
Perfect subjunctive active
Present subjunctive (greek would use optative)
Infinitive + imperfect indicative of auxiliary âcanâ
Present imperative (greek would use imperative aorist)
Ore wa steeko wo gurirrushite no kuuku wo mita, I guess. Not as spectacular in latin, just use a relative pronoun.
Steak grilling cook also with a relative clause, but a participle in greek.
Next on Language Learnerâs Library: What is this ârelative pronounâ Sanonius is talkinâ about? Stay tuned for another latination declination sensation thatâs stunning the nation! ⌠Right after heâs after returning from doing groceries later this forenoon!
2 Likes
The Latin relative pronoun looks like this:
Case \ Gender: masculine : feminine : neuter singular
Nominative: qui : quae : quod
Genitive: cuius : cuius : cuius
Dative: cui : cui : cui
Accusative: quem : quam : quod
Ablative: quo : qua : quo
Plural:
qui : quae : quae
quorum : quarum : quorum
quibus : quibus : quibus
quos : quas : quae
quibus : quibus : quibus
Note that the nominative and accusative of the neuter are always identical.
The relative pronoun takes the case according to its role within the relative clause, but its gender and number according to what it relates to within the main clause.
Exercise. Weâll focus on the nominative and the accusative, for now. Convert the two main clauses into a main clause and a relative subordinate clause as in the examples, and translate the result into english. Again, nevermind the word order, important is agreement of Case, Number, Gender; however, put the relative pronoun at the beginning of its clause, just like you would in english.
Titus Marcum vidit . Marcus Corneliam amat. > Titus vidit Marcum, qui amat Corneliam âTitus sees Marcus, who loves Cornelia,â
Titus vidit Marcum. Marcum amat Cornelia > Titus vidit Marcum, quem amat Cornelia âTitus sees Marcus, whom Cornelia loves.â
Marcus adspectat Corneliam. Marcus Corneliam amat. > Marcus adspectat Corneliam, quam amat â Marcus awaits Cornelia, whom he lovesâ.
Your turn!
Feles edit murem. Feles murem cepit (caught). (replace murem here)
Hic est filius meus. Valde amo filium meum.
Brennus puer valde immodestus est. Brennus non adiuvat matrem suum.
Spiritus te defendit a monstris. Monstra te devorabunt.
Virum cognoscimus. Vir in Italiam venit.
Galli in pace vivebant. Caesar Gallos vincit.
1 Like
Thanks for these great posts @Vsotvep @Sanonius @square.defender
Iâve just got to have a coffee or two and Iâll be with you 
English is an alphabet, just an impure one. Each letter does have a consistent set of sound mappings.
First of all, separate letters from digraphs (letter combinations denoting one sound).
Iâm not going to use IPA systems because I donât know them, but just a basic phonetic script to show my point.
Consonant letters:
b = /b/
c = /k/ or /s/
d = /d/
f = /f/
g = /g/ or /j/
h = /h/ but is sometimes silent
j = /j/ except in Iberian loanwords
k = /k/
l = /l/
m = /m/
n = /n/
p = /p/
q = /kw/
r = /r/
s = /s/ or /z/
t = /t/
v = /v/
w = /w/
y = /y/ or /i:/
z = /z/
Consonant digraphs:
ch = /ch/
ci = /sh/
ph = /f/
sh = /sh/
ti = /sh/
th = /th/, but differentiated into two similar forms
Vowels:
a = /a/, /a:/, or the schwa
e = /e/, the schwa, or acts as a lengthening code for another vowel
i = /i/, /i:/, or /âeyeâ/
o = /o/ or /o:/
u = âhard /u/â, âsoft /u/â, or /u:/
Vowel digraphs:
ae = /i:/ or /e:/
ai = /e:/
au = like in laud (except in âSaudiâ and âmauveâ)
ee = /i:/
ea = /i:/
ie = /i:/
oa = /o:/
oe = /o:/
oi = /oi/
ou = /ou/
oo = /u:/ or soft /u/
Vowel-consonant multigraphs:
all = like in ball
air = like in fair
ar = /a:/
are = like in fair
augh = /or/ or /a:f/
ay = /e:/ (except in âquayâ)
ear = like in bear
ew = like in few
or = like in poor
ough = seven different sounds
oy = /oi/
ow = like in cow
Finally we have our special rule that in [vowel-consonant] the vowel is generally short (when the consonant isnât r) and that in [vowel-consonant-e] the vowel is generally long.
2 Likes
It helps to understand that many sounds were pronounced differently at the time in which the Old English orthography was being abandoned for a new one based on French. For instance, in Middle English (aka. the Medieval form) the letter i usually represented an /i:/ sound like in Europe, rather than an âeyeâ like in âpieâ.
A good example is that âballâ was originally pronounced exactly as itâs spelt.
For more information about this, read about the Great Vowel Shift.
Another case is the sound of ci in musician. It was first pronounced myoo-zi-see-un, then myoo-zi-shee-un, then finally myoo-zi-shun. This was a phonetic change going on during Shakespeareâs lifetime, aka. Early Modern English.
The difference between English and other languages is that other languages have âorthographic reformsâ that redefine their spellings phonetically. For instance, I believe Japan had a major one in about 1910 in which they made diacritics on kana and removed hentaigana. Then, in living memory official kanji were limited to less than 2000. Similarly, as far as Iâm aware Spanish and Portuguese have had major spelling reforms in the last 150 years. But English-speakers have prioritised long-term orthographic stability over precise phonetic mapping (and I personally am comfortable with that.)
2 Likes