lvxferre

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Quebecois French is 50% English. English itself is 99% French. This means Quebecois French is 50%+99%=149% French, making it more French than French itself. So it's ULTRAFRENCH. It's one of the main candidates for the mother of all languages, alongside Hebrew and Sanskrit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I live in a temperate area of South America. Usually winter isn't that harsh, but we got two big cold waves this year.

I also hate summer, but that's a problem for the future me of December :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Albedo would say otherwise.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I actually like cinnamon in some meats. Never tried it with pork, but why not?

And the sugar probably caramelises once you fry the bacon, so it's probably not as sweet as it might look like.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Che schifo.

Sorry for the gratuitous usage of Italian, but I don't think there's any English word or expression that accurately describes what I feel about it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

We had some pretty chilly nights the last weeks, in the 0~5°C range, so Siegfrieda is often asking to be covered. And by "asking" I mean: she stares me, scratching her blanket, and sometimes meowing, until I grab her blanket and cover her. It's a mix of cute and annoying, because she sometimes gets too hot so she leaves her blanket, only to ask again five minutes later.

And sometimes she finds smart ways to control her own temperature, like this:

She's also visibly happy when I go sleep - it's like she got a huge self-heating pillow (my body). I don't mind cuddling, so it's a win-win.

In the meantime, Kika (who gives no fucks about weather) reacted to the winter in a different way: she still hates cuddling, but she's clearly more needy. Her "mrrown-own?" = "pet me! pet me!" has become more frequent. I even left a chair near my desk, just for her - within my arm's reach.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

[Speaking as a mod] Thank you for sharing this. Seriously. It's such an amazing resource I'm listing it in the sidebar, to increase visibility - starting now.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago

Peer reviewed by my neighbour's dog. She'd probably add "even if you see no threat, and even if you don't give a fuck about humans, it's better to bark anyway just to be safe". Except in posh paper speech.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Fair point on the attitude changing towards neologisms.

Well, it was just a cheeky thought anyway.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

She's cute until you remember her true vampire form. :D

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I see two ways to do so:

  1. Have multiple agent noun affixes, each for a type of agent. For example I feel like Spanish -dor is more often used for someone who's repeatedly doing something, while -nte is someone doing it now.
  2. Apply the affix not to the base form of the verb, but to a conjugated form, in a way that preserves tense/aspect/mood information.

So, as an example of #2. Let's say your conlang has the verb "lug" (to do), and here's part of its conjugation:

  • indicative perfect past - lugene (they did)
  • indicative imperfect past - lugavo (they were doing)
  • indicative habitual present - lugien (they often do, they typically do)
  • indicative progressive present - lug (they're currently doing)
  • [etc.]

And your agent suffix is, dunno, -bor. Most languages would apply it into the base form and call it a day, so you'd get "lugbor"; you could instead do something like

  • lugenebor - the one who did
  • lugavobor - the one who used to do
  • lugienbor - the one who often does; like Spanish "hablador" (one who talks often = talkative)
  • lugbor - the one actively doing it; like Spanish "hablante" (one who's talking now = speaker)
  • etc.

I feel this would go well with an agglutinative language. Just make sure the distinction between adjective and noun is clear, otherwise your conspeakers will conflate the nominalising and adjectivising suffixes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Romance languages are really messy in this aspect, and there are multiple competing suffixes:

  • -dor; see amar→amador, hablar→hablador(a). The OG agentive nominaliser, in Latin it was -tor/-tōrem. Eventually it got a feminine version, as Spanish -dora.
  • -triz; the original feminine of the above, from Latin -trix/-trīcem. I think it isn't productive any more.
  • -nte; see amar→amante, hablar→hablante. From Latin present active participles, like -āns/-antem. Originally it was a way to handle the verb as an agent adjective, and more conservative grammars still describe it only like this, but neither Latin nor the Romance languages care too much about the distinction between noun and adjective, so... so yeah.
  • -ero/-era, the one you listed. From Latin -ārius/-ārium, -āria/-āriam, -ārium/-ārium. Originally it formed nouns from adjectives, and rarely from other nouns (X-arium = "where you keep X"). People started spamming it in other parts of speech.

I listed them as in Spanish but in the others it's the same deal. And the confusing part is that there's always some subtle semantic distinction; for example an hablador is someone who's talkative, but an hablante is whoever is speaking.

view more: ‹ prev next ›