Fahvos "why" has now been edited to druv. The companion fahlos "therefore" has also been edited to drus. A redundant word in thuz "thus" was deleted.
Word Revision Thread
 paarthurnax Administrator July 5, 2015 |
Fahvos "why" has now been edited to druv. The companion fahlos "therefore" has also been edited to drus. A redundant word in thuz "thus" was deleted. |
by paarthurnax
July 5, 2015
|
paarthurnax Administrator July 5, 2015 |
Liis Possibly, that depends if we say yu and yeh can be used as nouns or if they're strictly adverbs. Given their spelling, I'm inclined to say they're strictly adverbs, but a new word for "excess" could derive from yu, and possibly a new/separate word for "lack / to lack". |
by paarthurnax
July 5, 2015
 Liis Administrator July 5, 2015 |
*facepalm* I didn't even notice that Povaar was a noun... I think revising the word to the root of Yu is a good idea. I feel that it should be Yu_aak. |
by Liis
July 5, 2015
*facepalm* I didn't even notice that Povaar was a noun...
I think revising the word to the root of Yu is a good idea. I feel that it should be Yu_aak.
Yutaak, yuvaak, yulaak, yuraak (teehee on the pronunciation), yupaak, yubaak, etc.?
|
paarthurnax Administrator July 5, 2015 |
How about yulos "excess / to have in excess" and yevos "lack / to lack"? |
by paarthurnax
July 5, 2015
How about yulos "excess / to have in excess" and yevos "lack / to lack"?
 Frinmulaar July 8, 2015 |
This one ends with J. Does it fit within current orthography? |
by Frinmulaar
July 8, 2015
This one ends with J. Does it fit within current orthography?
|
Liis Administrator July 8, 2015 |
@Voj, No it does not. Seeing that "Koraavnu", "Blind" (lit. "Sightless") is based off "Koraav", "Sight", maybe Deaf could be based off "Hon", "to hear". Though Hon cannot serve as a noun and could cause problems. |
by Liis
July 8, 2015
@Voj,
No it does not. Seeing that "Koraavnu", "Blind" (lit. "Sightless") is based off "Koraav", "Sight", maybe Deaf could be based off "Hon", "to hear". Though Hon cannot serve as a noun and could cause problems.
Honu would be "Hearless".
|
paarthurnax Administrator July 8, 2015 |
Liis Is there any reason hon couldn't serve as a noun? The closest English equivalent would be "hearing," in the same way koraav can also be used as the noun "sight". Honvu would then be "without hearing" (must be -vu to differentiate it from honu "our hearing"). |
by paarthurnax
July 8, 2015
Liis@Voj,
No it does not. Seeing that "Koraavnu", "Blind" (lit. "Sightless") is based off "Koraav", "Sight", maybe Deaf could be based off "Hon", "to hear". Though Hon cannot serve as a noun and could cause problems.
Honu would be "Hearless".
Is there any reason hon couldn't serve as a noun? The closest English equivalent would be "hearing," in the same way koraav can also be used as the noun "sight". Honvu would then be "without hearing" (must be -vu to differentiate it from honu "our hearing").
|
paarthurnax Administrator July 8, 2015 |
@Voj, I have now edited this to honvu, and also deleted gevoj to merge "deafen" into honvu. Thanks for pointing this one out, Freymulaar. |
by paarthurnax
July 8, 2015
@Voj, I have now edited this to honvu, and also deleted gevoj to merge "deafen" into honvu. Thanks for pointing this one out, Freymulaar.
|
paarthurnax Administrator July 8, 2015 |
Perhaps shorten this to "Kriiv" to better fit the canon "Krivaan." Perhaps not, as this would create homonyms between "Krivaan" as "murderer" and "Krivaan" as the past participle of "Kriiv." Although, this exists in canon verbs anyhow that use "-aan" as their "doer" suffix. |
by paarthurnax
July 8, 2015
Perhaps shorten this to "Kriiv" to better fit the canon "Krivaan." Perhaps not, as this would create homonyms between "Krivaan" as "murderer" and "Krivaan" as the past participle of "Kriiv." Although, this exists in canon verbs anyhow that use "-aan" as their "doer" suffix.
|
paarthurnax Administrator July 8, 2015 |
Liis Welp, I actually did. I suggested revising a canon word. This isn't supposed to happen! |
by paarthurnax
July 8, 2015
Liis@Kriivah,
This word is listed as canon. Did you accidentally overlook that or am I missing something?
Welp, I actually did. I suggested revising a canon word. This isn't supposed to happen!
This thread is more than 6 months old and is no longer open to new posts. If you have a topic you want to discuss, consider starting a new thread. Contact the administrator for assistance if you are the author of this thread.
