The Problem

Nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections - these are the parts of speech by which we currently categorize Dovahzul. They're familiar because they're the same parts of speech to which English is held.

Identifying parts of speech is useful for knowing which words in a language can be used which way. For example, "sword" is a noun, so I can say, "I have a sword," but I can't say "I sworded the bandit." "Fly" is a verb, so I can say "I'm flying to Chicago," but I can't say, "I took a fly to Chicago."

In Dovahzul we oftentimes encounter words that can be used as (what we perceive to be) multiple parts of speech. For example, tinvaak "speak/speech' can be both a noun ("aan pruzah tinvaak") and a verb ("mu fent tinvaak"). The word stin "free" can be both an adjective ("zu'u stin") and a noun ("zu'u lost dii stin"). In these cases, the way this is handled is to list in the notes, "this can be the adjective 'free' and the noun 'freedom'," or "this can be the verb 'to speak' and the noun 'speech'." Another possibility is to list each word multiple times for each English role it can fill. For example, have one entry for stin 'free' as an adjective and a separate entry for stin 'freedom' as a noun.

Here we see the problem - English's parts of speech are wholly inadequate for describing Dovahzul.

Describing stin as "both an adjective and a noun" or tinvaak as "both an verb and a noun" does the language a great disservice. Internally, the word stin is just stin. The word tinvaak is just tinvaak. Mul in the sentence rok los mul "he is strong" is the same mul in rok lot mul "his great strength." They shouldn't be classified as different words because "strong" and "strength" are different words in English.

The Solution

How do we proceed? We analyze the language and identify new parts of speech to describe Dovahzul. For example, if stin and mul can both be used as English adjectives ("free" / "strong") and English nouns ("freedom" / "strength"), then we devise a new part of speech that can be used this way.

Below is a list of possible parts of speech with tentative names:

Strong Verb

Strong verbs are used in the same way as an English verb and an English noun that means “the act of {verb}.” Strong verbs are the default behavior of verbs unless a canon noun is explicitly stated.

Examples: tinvaak, nir, krif, rel, grah.

Weak Verb

Weak verbs are only used in the same way as an English verb. It has a separate noun that means “the act of {verb}.” Rare in comparison to strong verbs.

Examples: dir, aam. These have specified nouns dinok and ahmik.

Noun

Dovahzul nouns are used only like an English noun.

Examples: dovah, zahkrii, tiid, strunmah.

Strong Adjective

Strong adjectives are used the same way as an English adjective and an English noun that means “the quality of being {adjective}.” Both strong and weak adjectives can also be used in the same way as English adverbs, specifically –ly adverbs. Strong adjectives are the default behavior of adjectives unless a canon noun is explicitly stated.

Examples: stin, mul, boziik.

Weak Adjective

Weak adjectives are used the same way as an English adjective, with a separate noun that means “the quality of being {adjective}.” Both strong and weak adjectives can also be used in the same way as English adverbs, specifically –ly adverbs.

Examples: vul, kras, hevno, munax. These have specified nouns vulom, krasaar, hevnoraak, and nax.

What does this change?

The main purpose of this is reorganization, classifying Dovahzul words using parts of speech designed for the language rather than classifying them according to the parts of speech of a different language.

In addition this also expands the usefulness of all words. For example, sahlo “weak,” according to these parts of speech, could then be used in the same way as the English words “weakness” and “weakly.”

What are now multiple words would be condensed into one. Specifically:

• Most -tion words like “action,” “division,” or “execution” would be condensed into their respective strong verbs; “to act / action,” “to divide / division,” “to execute / execution.”
• Most -ness words like “hotness” or “sharpness” would be condensed into their respective strong adjectives; “hot / heat / hotness,” “sharp / sharpness.”
• All adjectives would be usable as adverbs. Instead of needing to say phrases such as “with truth” or “with courage,” vahzah and krin could be used to mean “truly” and “courageously.”
• Strong verbs and strong adjectives won’t need separate dictionary entries that equate to separate English parts of speech. This saves a lot of time, and no longer requires “can be used as a noun or a verb” to be specified in the word notes. You will be able to tell at a glance which words can be used as both nouns and verbs, or both nouns and adjectives, without having to memorize which can do this.

I think that classifying something as a "weak" or "strong" part of speech would be really hard to understand. Saying that something is "both a noun and a verb" is easy to understand, and I have no idea how this could be a disservice. It's all one word, we understand that. Practice would make this concept clearer, but changing the description would not, as I believe it. I don't see why you can't have it under one word and then describe it as multiple parts of speech.

It's mostly a technical and organizational point, primarily in response to this common problem. Here's the difference between current dictionary entries and dictionary entries using the above terminology:

Kriivah (verb) murder. Noun or verb.

Kriivah (strong verb) murder.

It will require people to learn what a "strong verb" is but it leaves no ambiguity to how a word can be used. With so many words that can be used as nouns and verb, or adjectives and nouns, it's not really practical to just keep listing it in the word notes, which aren't visible from the main dictionary page.

Another example:

Stin (adjective) Free.

Stin (noun) Freedom.

Stin (strong adjective) Free / Freedom.

Words that may have separate entries can be condensed into one.

It's something that will take some learning but is a much better fit for the language than trying to keep everything according to nouns, verbs, and adjectives in the traditional sense. If someone were to ask, why can stin be used like an adjective and a noun, or why can tinvaak be used like both a verb and a noun, this gives a concrete answer that is internal to the language.

Okay. mindoraan. But what about listing it as "noun-verb" or "adjective-noun" in the stead of strong adjective/verb?

Sure, we could do that too. The above naming is tentative.  Another idea I had was "high/low verb" and "high/low adjective," trying to think of a way dragons would think about these concepts, if they did.

I am in favor of this change, definitely. Makes much sense. 

Perhaps these word classes would be easier to learn if they had more memorable relatable-to names:

• Strong verb could be "nerb" as in "noun-verb" (alt. "voun")
• Weak verb can remain as "verb"
• Strong adjective can be "adjverb" or "adjad" or something
• Weak adjective can remain as "adjective"

I know this is an older post, but I feel like it didn't get the reception it deserves, so I'm bringing it back in hopes that people just didn't see it.

I absolutely love this idea. It would really help us understand the concept and fundamentals of the language itself rather than seeing it as a word-for-word code for English. What a lot of people don't realize is that, while heavily based on English, Dovahzul is its own language. Literal translations from Dovahzul to English don't make perfect sense and really aren't supposed to. Dovahzul is much more abstract and flexible; trying to shove dragon words into English molds is a disservice to the language.

I think that if we classify these new parts of speech with names like "noun-adjective" or something like that, the problem won't be fixed because we'll still be confining the words to parts of speech that we (mostly) English speakers are familiar with. We'll be thinking "this word is both a noun and an adjective" rather than thinking "this word can both be a thing and describe a thing." By adding in a dovah concept, we come closer to understanding the language as the they do.

I actually really like the names that paarthurnax has come up with for the new parts of speech. Since strength and power are such important elements of dragon culture (especially in the Word department), it would make sense for them to label words according to their strength.

I know that this would mean some learning and rethinking, but isn't learning what we're all here for?

I like the strong and weak names. They make enough sense in context, and they sound like real grammar terms, at least more so than noun-adjective.

Thanks for the comments! This is an idea I'm personally very fond of, and I'd really like to move forward with it at some point. I'm grateful for the support! "Strong" and "weak" are my preferred terms too, and they are actual linguistic terms. It's just a bonus that they fit the language so well.

I really agree with everything you've said, Aaliizah. I have the same thoughts about the language as you do.

I am in favour of this movement. 

I lurk so much that I feel like such a butthole when I agree or give my input. I'm actually very aggressively learning Dovahzul (I've switched my phone to Runes) and so some conslidation and clarification would probably speed me along.

P.S. I lurk so much because I'm on here mostly when I'm work and my phone does not respond well to the formatting of this site.

paarthurnax

Thank you! I really appreciate that. :)  What makes you decide to bring any new idea into effect? Do a lot of people have to agree on it or do you make the decision yourself?

And Sketchi Devil, thank you for your input! Don't ever feel bad about sharing your opinion; that's what the forums are for! Trust me when I say that when it comes to lurking, zu'u thuru. :P  Seriously, this is my life. And I really admire you for your dedication to learning the runes. I wish I had the patience for that.

How many more opinions do we need to put this idea forward? I know! Get a strawpoll on the front page!

Ultimately I do make the decision  myself but it's good to hear other's input. If it's something a lot of people are adamantly against I wouldn't go through with it.

The main thing I was waiting for was to put the 5th edition dictionary together, so with that out of the way I think we're ready to make this happen.

Foduiiz

How many more opinions do we need to put this idea forward? I know! Get a strawpoll on the front page!

Or a poll system? Eh Paarthurnax? On a more serious note, I do beleive adding more parts of speech would save many people time, and confusion. You wouldn't beleive how much I struggle to learn these words. If it were a grammar thing, I would have gotten it at first glance. I am pro this change, how long would it take to reformat this?