Pastelland Forum

Oh, there is absolutely nothing Scandinavian about the GDL. Take the adjectives for instance, in our corpus we have:

• papirusirna empatolis
  papirusirna 'HELP' owritens
  farkavikk halvist erstir
  farkavikk halvist douce
  ognumbarok ersterosa
  ognumbarok douce
  ognumbarok trijstejs

(Actually, this is the entire corpus in the sense that this is all we have that could give us a sense of the syntax at hand.)

Anyway, it is obvious here, that in each the word order is:

• noun+adjective(+adjective)

This, while in Scandinavian languages as in the relatively closely related English:

• (adjective+)adjective+noun

Like, sure there are ways that could flip around, Scandinavian languages like switching the word order around when adverbs move around – especially then – but it is still hard to see how it would happen when all the others have done the complete opposite.

Then there is the matter of the numbers. The author very clearly stated himself (in Facebook) that the numbers 1, 2 and 3 are ersteroza, douce and trijtens respectively. Now, compare this to the Old Norse, whence this language must arise from if it is indeed Scandinavian (for laughs, I added both PIE and PG numerals, i.e. the older forms as reference too):

PIE – PG – ON – GDL
*Hoi(H)nos > *ainaz > einn > ersteroza
*duoh₁ > *twōu > tveir > douce
*treies > *threjiz > thrīr > trijstens

This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Neither does it help with the form erstir, which while close to the ON fyrstr (first), would imply that the ON word for one is fyrsteroza or something like that. Halvist, now that, that could come from PG *halbaz > ON halfr > GDL *halv, with the -ist being a suffix that creates a noun or perhaps it is there for gender agreement.

The obviously participle owritens is pretty interesting, since it apparently has the stem *writ-, while the ON brach of the Germanic family had developed the PG *writaną to rita, losing the w, while almost all other branches of the family kept it. This implies that ON and GDL had their supposed common ancestor between ON and PG.

On the other hand the prefix o- obviously means "on" and that is *ana is PG and á in ON, only later does the sound á turn into a å or /o:/. So this implies that the language is of the East Scandinavian branch and it split much later than ON stopped being a thing anymore.

Really, it is all a mess.

......what do you want from me?
I use to have nightmares about a non-existing room in high school.

Room 302.
"Can't enter due to the English language."



It was only recently I realize why the number 302.
Room 101 in George Orwell 1984.
The room that all men fear.

— O'Brien wrote:You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.

@Anteroinen: I see; so something like this would be more appropriate?

frystir halvist farkavikk
tveice halvist farkavikk
frysterosa ognumbarok
tveice ognumbarok
thriejs ognumbarok

@WiQ: Sorry... I don't really understand the relevance of your post.

The Abacus wrote:@Anteroinen: I see; so something like this would be more appropriate?

frystir halvist farkavikk
tveice halvist farkavikk
frysterosa ognumbarok
tveice ognumbarok
thriejs ognumbarok

Not quite, it would be extremely unlikely for the words first and one to converge by accident or analogy because they are used so much. All numbers are, though series of numbers do show tendencies of becoming rhyming in certain languages.

One possible way to analyze these forms would be to assume that they are different genders of the word for first (in the case of erstir and ersterosa at least) there is clearly an erst stem there. Ir and er might be plural suffixes, because they often end in r in East Scandinavian languages at least. I'm not so sure of -osa, it would seem to serve no purpose at all.

Tveir > douce isn't really weird because of tv > d or even ei > ou, the r > c bothers be more.

"Douce" looks more like Latin, I think. Perhaps that language is supposed to have received some sort of Romanic influence?

OnyxIonVortex wrote:"Douce" looks more like Latin, I think. Perhaps that language is supposed to have received some sort of Romanic influence?

But that would be more like twelve, wouldn't it.

That's right... it's the same problem, that "ce" doesn't seem to belong in there.

Anteroinen wrote:But that would be more like twelve, wouldn't it.

Wait, what do you mean? What twelve?

Vortex wrote:"Douce" looks more like Latin, I think. Perhaps that language is supposed to have received some sort of Romanic influence?

While "douce" does look Romance, it's the only word I see there that seems so. I have no idea about "papirusirna" though, since the English word "paper" has its origins in Latin.

Vurn wrote:

ENIHCAMBUS wrote:Is there any language that doesn't has any irregular verbs and exceptions to grammar rules?

Well, as far as I know, Finnish has either none or very few irregular verbs. Except that there's simply just a lot of verb types that conjugate in different ways, though each with their own seperate (though probably similar in many places) rules. Unless you consider the da/desu copula a verb, then Japanese has just a single irregular verb, aru, to be (when speaking of inanimate entities).

Actually bullshit, Japanese verbs aru, suru, kuru, iku, gozaimasu, irassharu and ossharu are all irregular to some extent.

Ha!