Welcome
to ~ Benokömö ini
There’s a comprehensive list
of Volapük links here (and here) which includes a bi-directional dictionary and
courses for revised Volapük by Ralph Midgley, a good overview of the language
by Ed Robertson, a history of the language by Don Harlow, and the Vükiped
(Wikipedia), in which you can find the names of countries.
Volapük
(literally: “world’s language”) was created by Johann Martin Schleyer in
1879/80. It was the first major constructed IAL (international auxiliary
language, or auxlang), pre-dating Esperanto in publication, and at its zenith
near the end of the 19th century it had an estimated quarter of a
million speakers. It was successfully revised in 1930 by Arie de Jong.
On
this blog-like page, I set the language out as I’ve found it, and give my
thoughts and opinions along the way. Let me make it clear that what follows is
a personal exposition and interpretation of the language, so should not be
taken as definitive. Furthermore, even though it might look like it, I’m not
seriously advocating any changes to the accepted revised version of the
language; there’ll probably never be an auxlang that satisfies all the people
all the time, and I understand that for a given one to operate, most of the
speakers must give it a little slack.
There
are nineteen consonants, as shown in this table with their IPA/X-SAMPA values:
|
b |
b |
|
n |
n |
|
c |
tS, dZ |
|
p |
p |
|
d |
d |
|
r |
r |
|
f |
f |
|
s |
s, z |
|
g |
g |
|
t |
t |
|
h |
h |
|
v |
v |
|
j |
S, Z |
|
(w) |
w |
|
k |
k |
|
x |
ks, gz |
|
l |
l |
|
y |
j |
|
m |
m |
|
z |
ts, dz |
Every
English website you go to gives you a different take on the vowels of Volapük!
I think this uncertainty stems from the fact that they’re “European” in nature,
and so are difficult to “translate into English.”
There
are eight of them, namely: a ä e i o ö u ü (i.e. the German set; alt +
132,148,129 for the diereses). I see them as having “long” and “short” versions
(roughly corresponding to their stressed and unstressed instances
respectively), which I now set out (again, in X-SAMPA for received
pronunciation). Note that in their official forms they only have one version
each, and that [a\] = centralised [a]/[A].
|
Vowel |
a |
ä |
e |
i |
o |
ö |
u |
ü |
|
Official |
a\ |
E |
e |
i |
O, o |
2, 9 |
u |
y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long |
A: |
E@ |
eI |
i:, I@ |
O:, @U |
3: |
u:, U@ |
y: |
|
Short/Alternative |
{, V |
E |
E |
I |
Q |
@ |
U |
y |
I use the first long o
by default, and second one before other vowels and at the end of words. I try
to avoid using the short e (for the sake of distinguishing it from ä),
and I never use the short u, as it’s very similar to my first long o.
When
two or more vowels follow each other, they’re sounded separately, maybe with a
little slurring. When some vowels are followed by a y, you get a
diphthong; for example, the pronoun oy (one) is pronounced [OI].
The
primary stress falls on the last syllable (not including those in marked
suffixes), and every-other preceding syllable takes a secondary stress; in
other words, the pattern is: …-ó)(o-ó)-(o-ó)-(o-Ó). This is a sensible
approach, but I think it would be greatly improved if the case endings were
de-stressed like the marked suffixes, because as things stand, when you move a
word from the nominative into another case (or vice versa), the whole pattern
shifts, e.g. /%vOl.a\.“pyk/ (Volapük) becomes /vOl.%a\.pyk.“i/ (Volapüki).
The
letters are “named” in the following way: vowels as themselves, consonants as
themselves + e. The alphabet is thus recited: a ä be ce de e fe …
Bonus:
Graphs showing the letter-frequencies [1] [2] [3]
Every
noun in Volapük has a stem, which starts and ends with a consonant. The
language is non-isolating, meaning that the major noun roles are indicated by
endings or particles, not by their positions in the sentence. In particular,
six cases are thus indicated (the first by elimination), and any plurality is
indicated by then adding an s (just like in English) giving the
following simple paradigm (studan =
student):
|
Case |
Singular |
Plural |
|
Nominative |
studan |
studans |
|
Accusative |
studani |
studanis |
|
Genitive |
studana |
studanas |
|
Dative |
studane |
studanes |
|
Predicative |
studanu |
studanus |
|
Vocative |
o studan! |
o studans! |
Here’s
a dense sentence showing the main five cases in use (note the German speech
marks – the default, but not compulsory, choice for Volapük):
“The
studentA gave the teacherD the dog’sC dinnerB,
Dave.E”
„StudanA ägivom fidediB dogaC tidaneD, o Dave!E“
Genitives
always follow the nouns they modify (cf. the situation with adjectives).
Because of the explicit case markings, the above sentence, if divided into (i)
subject, (ii) verb, (iii) direct object & possessor, (iv) indirect object,
and (v) person addressed, can be rearranged into any of the 16 possible
orderings with absolutely no change in meaning. In practise, though, people
usually go SVO in Volapük.
Analogously
to the English choice of a possessive adjective or the preposition “of” (the
Queen of England, England’s Queen), Volapük offers the choice of either using
the genitive or the preposition de (from, of) to express the genitive
idea (thus Jireg de Linglän, Jireg Lingläna). My preference is to
use the genitive with Volapük words, and de with non-Volapük words if
the el (see next section) is absent.
Unlike
the English genitive, the Volapük one can only ever modify, never can’t stand
alone. I once suggested that the article il be introduced to give us a
stand-alone genitive, but I doubt it ever will. See the pronouns section for
more info.
The
partitive case (e.g. “of the books” in the sentence “I’ve read three of the
books”) can be formed in three ways: with the genitive, with de, or with
se (out of). I tend to use se, so as not to create a false sense
of possession, though I’m mindful of the possibility of creating a false sense
of motion!
Point
of information: for a place of origin, the preposition di is used, not de.
The
dative and the predicative are used specifically to complete transitive
verbs: the former when there’s an indirect object, the latter when there’s
an additional direct object. It’s important to recognise when these parts of
speech occur. The predicative case is exceedingly rare, and is not used at all
by most users of the language. An example sentence where you could use it is:
“they elected him president” – “him” is the direct object (in –i), and
“president” is the complement (in –u). Alternatively, you could say
“they elected him to the presidency” (ädavälons omi preside) which
avoids a predicate.
No
definite or indefinite articles are used in Volapük, which I believe is the
case for over half the world’s natural languages. There is, however, an article
el for non-Volapük words and in general anything that can’t take case or
number endings. El precedes its words and takes any affixes for them on
their behalf (so they needn’t be modified in any way themselves). If the word
is male or female, el takes a gender prefix – hi or ji
respectively – giving hiel and jiel. (Note that they don’t read
as Mr and Ms, which are söl and läd resp.) These three articles
are very common in real-world Volapük texts.
The
adjectives of Volapük end with the suffix –ik (with the exception of a
few special ones, such as the demonstratives), and their natural position is after
their nouns. When in this natural position, they’re invariant, but when they’re
moved (to the front, or into a predicate) they must agree with their noun –
that is, they must adopt any number or case (accusative, dative, predicative)
endings it may have. This rule is an ingenious way to avoid unnecessary
agreement whilst at the same time allowing variable word order. There is,
however, one (unlikely) situation where it becomes problematic: when the
subject noun directly follows another noun, e.g.
“The
old man rides the horse” à “the horse the old man rides”
In
this Yoda-style phrase, the adjective bäldik (old, elderly) follows jevod
(horse) but also precedes and agrees with man, so we cannot say with
certainty which of the two nouns it modifies. But changing the rules of the
language to prevent rare ambiguities like this would be excessively drastic;
the common sense solution is to rearrange the words should such a problem
arise.
When
there’s more than one adjective, they form an orderly list, where any
separation by commas or e(d) (and) is optional. A neat word that’s worth
mentioning here is the alternative “and” ä(d), which extends the range
of a modifying word, as shown in the example below.
“Very
dark and very dry bread.”
„Bod vemo dagik e vemo sägik“ (6 words) or „bod vemo dagik ä sägik.“ (5
words)
Comparative
and superlative adjectives are formed by the addition of the suffixes –um
and –ün respectively. The preposition for unequal comparisons is ka
(than), the one for equal comparisons is äs (as), and for the
superlative you can use se (out of), de (of, from), or the
genitive. Clause comparisons of the form “the more/less… the more/less…” can be
made with the prepositions plü (the more) and läs (the less).
The
two principle determiners are at (this) and et (that). Others
include it (—self & own, as in “I myself prefer my own
idea”), ot (the same), and ut (the one(s), what, which): a nice
little alphabetical group. The biggest secret in Volapük is that ut, in
its adjectival role, is effectively a definite article! Though it could in
principle be used freely as such, it is only actually used in a few specific
situations, e.g. in sentences like “I know what you saw” (nolob uti, keli
älogol).
Adjectives
that aren’t linked to any nouns are considered nouns themselves (e.g. “the
blues beat the reds”), and in this role they take noun endings, such as –an
if they represent people.
Adverbs
are formed from other words by the addition of the suffix –o, and can
modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. For adverbs, they always go in
front; for verbs, they can go on either side; and for adjectives with nouns,
they’re placed in between the two, which is a very sound way of distinguishing
them from verb-modifiers.
Adverbs
of motion “to(wards)” and “(away) from” can be created by means of the suffixes
–io and –ao respectively. For example, from the word us
(there) can be derived usao (thence, from there) and usio
(thither, to there). These adverbs are morphologically related to the
prepositions of motion, which are described later.
Most
adverbs end with –iko and are straightforward adverbs-from-adjectives;
others have the –o suffixed directly onto the root. These latter
generally have special meanings, e.g. adelo (today), samo (for
example).
Here
are some common and important adverbs. Like the common conjunctions,
prepositions, and interjections given later, in order for them to be short,
many of them are irregularly formed, or primitive (i.e. their outer
letters don’t signify anything).
|
Always |
ai |
Maybe |
ba |
Also |
i(d) |
Here |
is |
Never |
neföro |
Not yet |
no nog |
|
Now |
nu |
*More |
plu |
Then |
täno |
There |
us |
Very |
vemo |
Already |
ya |
*The adjectives of extent pluik
(more) and nepluik (less) are derived from this root.
The
last thing I want to talk about in this section is the issue of the location of
adjectives. It seems arbitrary, but I think there’s a subtle difference between
the choices. When they precede their nouns, the listener/reader holds them in
his head, and then, when the noun arrives, he quickly “assembles” it in his
mind. When they follow their nouns, the listener starts with the basic noun in
his mind, and as they adjectives come in, he modifies it accordingly. If there
are lots of adjectives, then in the former regime the danger is that because
there are so many, the listener will have to run over them a second time after
the noun has come, to make sure he’s taken them all into account. In the latter
regime, because the noun is built up in an ongoing manner, this problem doesn’t
arise. For this reason, it’s arguably better to put adjectives after nouns –
and this from a native English speaker!
Here’s
a table of the principle subject pronouns:
|
I |
ob |
We |
obs |
|
You (sing.) |
ol |
You (pl.) |
ols |
|
He |
om |
They (masc.) |
oms |
|
She |
of |
They (fem.) |
ofs |
|
It (neut.) |
on |
They (mixed/neut.) |
ons |
|
One |
oy |
- |
- |
|
It (abs.) |
os |
- |
- |
The
plurals are simply the singulars with the familiar s suffix, and the
masculine, feminine, and neutral third-person ones are unforgettable once you
realise where they came from. The unpluralisability of os isn’t
accidental: it’s a very abstract pronoun that’s used to talk about das-clauses
(i.e. sentences), clock times, and the weather, which are singular by nature.
The
reflexive pronoun – for the third person(s) only – is ok (as in “he shot
himself”), and the reciprocal pronoun is od (as in “they loathe each
other”). Interestingly, because the reflexive will always have a subject
associated with it, meaning it could (hypothetically) always be given in the
singular, and because the reciprocal will always be plural, it would’ve been
possible to have them as the same word! But this would’ve been a bit confusing,
so things are fine as they are.
I
like the idea of having exclusive and inclusive first-person plural pronouns,
and so too it seems did de Jong, who introduced a latter – ogs (you and
I/we) – as part of his celebrated revision (the singular version, og,
meant “you or I”). It never caught on, however, so the two forms are
still both represented by obs.
There
is a polite second-person pronoun, or(s), which is only ever used in
poetic contexts.
The
relative pronoun (that, which, who) is kel. Relative clauses should be
bounded by comma(s).
Besides
the genitive, personal possessive adjectives can be formed by adding –ik
to the relevant pronoun, so “our” = obas or obsik, etc. You can
use either, though I mostly use the genitive form. Because adjectives can act
as nouns, these possessive adjectives can also be used as personal possessive
pronouns, so “ours” = obsik(s), etc. There’s no way to form possessive
pronouns from nouns, so instead you must use the genitive with a pronoun, e.g.
“I want the man’s” = „vilob oni(s) mana.“
All
of these pronouns – including kel – display the case and number of what
they represent. Case endings are suffixed before the number ending, giving “us”
= obis, “them” (mixed) = onis, etc. The advantage in doing it
this way round is that plurality can be unspecified – i.e. the s be put
in brackets – in a non-ugly way; witness the superiority of vödi(s)
(word(s)) over the Esperanto equivalent “vorto(j)n.”
Here
are some useful substantival and indefinite pronouns:
|
bos |
Something |
nos |
Nothing |
*al |
Each (thing) |
*seim |
Anything |
|
ek |
Someone, anyone |
nek |
No one |
alan |
Each (person) |
seiman |
Anyone |
|
*ans, *öm(s) |
Some (things) |
*som(s) |
Such a thing(s) |
*val |
All (things) |
*sem(s) |
Certain thing(s) |
|
anans, öman(s) |
Some (people) |
soman(s) |
Such a person(s) |
valans |
All (people) |
seman(s) |
Certain person(s) |
*These roots are also used as
adjectives, sometimes with and sometimes without the –ik ending. NB, al
also means “every.”
Suffixing
os to a demonstrative adjective creates a similarly-abstract pronoun,
e.g. etos = that.
Exclamatory
pronouns are formed by combining ki with a subject pronoun, so “what a
goal!” = „zeil kion!“ And the exclamatory “how” is vio, so “how
good!” = „vio gudik!“ Be careful not confuse these words with the
interrogative words described later.
There’s
been a lot of talk of the complexity and long-windedness of Volapük verbs. This
must surely be in reference to classical Volapük, because the system in the revised
version is perfectly reasonable and straightforward! Judge for yourself,
bearing in mind the amount of information that needs to be communicated in any
verb system.
Like
the nouns, the verbs have a stem, which is itself either the abstract noun that
describes the process of the verb, or the physical noun for the object or thing
that the verb is about. To form the infinitive, you add the suffix –ön,
and to form a participle, you add –öl. By way of example, distuk
= destruction; distukön = to destroy; and distuköl = destroying
(present active).
Verbs
conjugate according to subject, tense, passivity, and mood. To conjugate a
verb, you start by working out the person and number of the subject(s), and
suffixing the relevant pronoun to the stem. For example, binön = “to
be,” so “I am” = bin + ob = binob, etc. All the pronouns
you need for this bit are in the first table in the previous section.
Next,
you do the tense. There are eight
of them in Volapük, and they’re indicated by the addition of a single-vowel
prefix. Here they are, with examples from “to wait”:
|
Future in past |
ö- |
I was to wait, I was to be waiting |
|
Future perfect in past |
ü- |
I was to have waited, I was to have been waiting |
|
Pluperfect |
i- |
I had waited, I’d been waiting |
|
Past |
ä- |
I waited, I was waiting |
|
Present perfect |
e- |
I have waited, I’ve been waiting |
|
Present |
(a-) |
I wait, I’m waiting |
|
Future |
o- |
I will wait, I will be waiting |
|
Future perfect |
u- |
I will have waited, I will have been waiting |
Thus
far, the verb is still active; to make it passive, add the prefix p–
(making sure, for the present tense, to have added the otherwise optional a–).
The agent for the passive (if there is one) follows the preposition fa
(by), thus: “I’m hunting a goose” = „yagob gani“ and “I’m being hunted
by a goose!” = „payagob fa gan!“ I once wondered if it would’ve been
better to use accusative personal pronouns instead of a prefix to denote
passivity (i.e. to affix an –i to the verb instead of the p–).
The advantage would be that you couldn’t get confused between passive
conjugations and verbs whose stems start with a p, but the disadvantage
would be their possibly being mistaken for accusative nouns.
It’s
worth saying at this point that participles and infinitives can occupy any
tense and be active or passive, so when you form a participle, make sure it
represents what you want it to represent.
The
last major thing to deal with is the mood. There are six of them, and they’re
indicated by additional suffixes (additional to the subject ones already on the
stem, that is), namely:
|
Indicative |
|
|
Conditional |
-öv |
|
Imperative |
-öd |
|
Optative |
-ös |
|
Interrogative |
--li |
|
Subjunctive |
--la |
The
imperative and the optative are command forms, with the former being strong and
the latter mild, even half-hearted. Remember that, like the other moods, they
always include a subject: the person(s) to whom the command is intended. They
will always contain at least three syllables, which is a drawback in my view
because certain commands should be snappy one-syllable words (duck, stop, run,
etc). The good news is that interjections can be used instead (see later), so
many of them can effectively be reduced to two syllables.
The
interrogative simply creates yes/no questions (like the English “do” and the
Latin “-ne”). The marked subjunctive in Volapük is reserved for very
far-fetched notions, and isn’t normally used for realistic and/or sensible
stuff. The main conjunctions that introduce (un-marked) subjunctive clauses are
if and ven.
To
negate a verb, put the particle no in front of it.
The
preposition ad is used before infinitives to convey “for”
or “in order to,” like in “they play to win” („pledons ad gaenön“).
Similarly, adas is used for adjective-to-infinitive constructions, such
as “atoms are too small to be seen” („taums binons tu smaliks, adas palogön“).
That’s
about the size of it as far as verb conjugation and usage goes. Not exactly the
most complicated thing you’ve ever read, I dare say! I’ll now wrap this section
up with some further stuff on verbs.
You
can create modified versions of existing verbs with affixes, such as ge-
(re-) and fi- (to completion). See the section on word formation for
more.
“Let
us …” is conveyed by the imperative in the first person plural (–obsös
and –obsöd), e.g. „lärnobsös Volapüki“ = “let’s learn Volapük.”
“There
is/are X” = dabinon(s) X.
The
verb sötön (be duty bound) is used for “should/ought to” statements. And
“could” is the conditional future tense of kanön (be able). A further
“-ould” verb that I’d approve of would be an additional alternative to the
conditional (–öv) e.g. „vudön“ which currently does not exist.
If
a verb ending is added to an adjective, it creates an intransitive verb meaning
“to become the adjective,” e.g. jönikofs = vedofs jönik(an)is =
“they (some women) become beautiful.” Useful transitive verbs meaning “to make
(something) an adjective” are formed in exactly the same way, but with –ük–
instead of –ik-. For example, “she makes herself beautiful” = jönükof
oki.
To
convert a statement into a question, add the suffix –li to the verb, or
if there’s no verb, to something else. This suffix is marked (i.e. the hyphen
stays) and unstressed. (It was used as a free particle as well in classical
Volapük, like the Esperanto word ĉu, but such usage is now
prohibited.)
More
sophisticated questions can be formed with interrogative words. These are based
on the root ki, and the simplest ones are the adverb kio (what?)
and the pronouns kis (what? cf. os) and kim, kif, kin
(who? which one?) which you can see include the gender of what’s being asking
about if it’s known. Those pronouns can also be converted into adjectives, for
when the noun is known. Further along, we have kitimo (when?), kiöpo
(where? cf. -öp), and kikodo (why?). Questions of “how” are asked
with the adverb lio. Here are some examples:
Suemol-li atosi? = Do you understand this?
Kio binon-li in bok? = What’s in the box?
Kin(s) äfidon(s)-li biskutis? = Who ate the biscuits?
Köl kinik binon-li herem ola? = What colour is your hair?
Pen oba binon-li kiöpo? = Where’s my pen?
Lio hitik binos-li us? = How hot is it there (weather)?
Kisi cedol-li? = What do you think/opine?
The
ki– words are made interrogative by the nearby –li suffix; they
behave as indefinites in its absence. They were inherently interrogative in
Schleyer’s original, and I’m not sure that should’ve been changed, because the –li
feels redundant and the indefinite phrases can be formed in other ways.
There’s
a sizeable (arguably excessive) group of affixes in Volapük that can be
used to create new words, principally nouns, from existing ones. At least one
has cropped up on this page already: studan (student), which was formed
by combining stud (study; studön = to study) with the suffix –an.
Familiarity with (or at least access to) these affixes is important for both
reading and writing Volapük. Here’s a table of all the ones I’ve seen (grey =
not so important), which doesn’t include the “obvious ones” that are presented
elsewhere on this page, such as ik and s.
NB,
there are some “pseudo-affixes” which, instead of modifying roots, mark
families of new roots. These include –än (country, land), –in
(chemical element), –op (continent), –ul (month), –üd
(compass direction). Note that the presence of one of these pseudo-affixes
doesn’t necessarily make the word a member of that family (e.g. räptul =
reptile, not a month).
|
bai- |
In agreement/accordance with |
Bonded group of them
(cf. –ef) |
-ad |
|
be- |
Lets indirect objects become direct |
Highest,
most senior person |
-al |
|
da- |
Enhancement of meaning |
Abstract
noun of process (-tion, -ence) |
-am |
|
dä- |
Fragmentation |
professional,
do’er of thing (-er, cf.-ian) |
-an |
|
dei- |
Until death/for life |
Amount
(-worth, -ful) |
-at |
|
do- |
To fall until coming to rest |
Academic
discipline |
-av |
|
du- |
Through (motion, space) |
Recipient,
sufferer (cf. –an) |
-äb |
|
fäi- |
Sealed, closed, fastened (cf. mai-) |
Makes it more general |
-äd |
|
fea- |
Convert |
Mental
quality |
-äl |
|
fi- |
Finished, completed |
Makes it more
abstract |
-ät |
|
ge- |
Reciprocation* |
Makes it more
particular |
-ed |
|
hi- |
Male |
Group of them (cf. –ad)
|
-ef |
|
ho- |
De-sexed male |
Maker
(cf. –iel) |
-el |
|
ji- |
Female |
Collection, set |
-em |
|
jo- |
De-sexed female |
Makes it more
physical |
-et |
|
ke- |
Unity, camaraderie (fellow …) |
Mechanical
performer of human task(s) |
-ian |
|
lai- |
Continuation of action |
Inclination,
propensity for |
-iäl |
|
läx- |
Ex-** |
Container,
vessel |
-iär |
|
le- |
Opposite of diminutive |
Creates
a different but related word |
-id |
|
lu- |
Inferior, less, disjointed |
Manufacturing
device (cf. –el) |
-iel |
|
lü- |
In-law (step- = lu-) |
Diminutive (cf. le-) |
-il |
|
mai- |
Opened (cf. fäi-) |
Doctrine,
philosophy (-ism) |
-im |
|
mi- |
Mis-, mal- |
Less prominent type |
-od |
|
näi- |
Side-, off- |
More prominent type |
-ot |
|
ne- |
The opposite (de-) |
-ability |
-ov |
|
nü- |
Into (for the preposition ini) |
Abstract noun of
quality (-ness, -ity) |
-öf |
|
sä- |
Reversal, undoing |
Device,
tool, equipment |
-öm |
|
si- |
Outer-space related, heavenly |
Place |
-öp |
|
vi- |
Vice- |
Transitive
verb of “to make” |
-ük |
|
|
|
Endearment, animal
young |
-ül |
|
|
|
Musical
piece |
-üm |
|
|
|
Period of time |
-üp |
*For the “re- of repetition,”
the preposition dönu (again) is prefixed.
**This don’t look right; xe-
would’ve been better.
Quite
a few non-prefixes, particularly prepositions, can be used as prefixes, e.g. lio
(how?), mo (away), nen (without), ok (self), se
(out of). -Ok is a bad one, because it starts with a vowel and so can
make a present-tense verb look like it’s in the future tense. An alternative
should be created for it, e.g. „hok“, like the nü- for ini.
Here
are some examples of the differences between some potentially-confusing
derivations. Vögodan = a voter: vögodanef = the electorate; vögodanad
= a voting bloc. Kod = a cause: kodam = causation, the act of
causing; kodav = etiology, the study of causes; kodät =
causality; kodim = determinism. Reidön = to read: reided =
reading material, as something to read; reidet = reading material, as
physical paper with ink on it. Pän = a painting: pänod = a
sketch, an impression; pänot = a grand painting, e.g. a masterpiece.
Volapük
also bears compound nouns, with the structure {modifying noun + an ending}{base
noun}. Here’s an enumeration of the possible versions of “monkey-scissors”: lepajim,
lepojim, lepijim. The first uses the genitive
ending, and means “monkey’s scissors” or “scissors for monkeys to use”; the
second uses the adverbial ending, and means “monkey-like scissors”; and the
third uses the accusative ending, and means “scissors to be used on monkeys.”
The
more common of these are irregular roots, but the rest have regular endings.
Here
are some common conjunctions:
|
But |
ab |
Because |
bi |
That |
das |
So that |
dat |
While |
du |
|
And |
e(d)* |
If |
if |
So/therefore |
so |
Nor |
ni |
Or |
u(d) |
Derived
ones end with the suffix –ä. Some of them can be used as correlative
conjunctions, namely:
E…e… = “both…and…”, u…u… = “either…or…”, ni…ni… =
“neither…nor…”, & noe…abi… = “not only…but (also)…”
Nouns
take the nominative case after prepositions. Here are some common ones:
|
To |
lü |
Before/prior to |
bü |
From, of |
de |
By |
fa |
In |
in |
|
Into |
ini |
With* |
ko |
By means of |
me |
For |
pro |
On |
su |
*This signifies accompaniment,
not an instrument, so be careful not to confuse it with me.
Derived
ones end with –ü, e.g. kodü (because of).
Consider
in and ini; the former is static, whereas the latter is dynamic –
it describes a transition between the verb’s location and the prepositional
location. The rule is that prepositions of transitions to (onto, to
under, etc.) are formed by adding the suffix –i, and those of
transitions from (off, from under, etc.) by adding –a. These are
of course also the accusative and genitive endings (hence their origins), and
it should be noted that there’s no danger of confusion with accusative and
genitive nouns, because the irregular prepositions are irregular anyway, and
the regular ones will end in –üi and –üa, as opposed to –[cons.]i
and –[cons.]a. NB, the prepositions meaning towards and away
from are lüodü (“in the direction of”) and mo respectively.
Here
are some interjections: adyö! (bye), glidis! (hello – lit.
“greetings”), he! (hey!), si! (yes). Others are derived by means
of –ö, e.g. danö! (thanks) and fümö! (of course, sure).
Many interjections are interpreted as commands, e.g. stopö! (stop!) and yufö!
(help!), and are perhaps preferable to formal imperatives.
A
remark on glidis, the most famous word in the language. It’s the
accusative plural of the word glid (a greeting), so literally means
“greetings” (cf. “saluton” in Esperanto). When you say glidis! the idea is that you’re omitting the
“obvious” words from a sentence like “I send you greetings.” But this – the
expressing of a sentence in a single word – is textbook interjecting, so it
would perfectly acceptable (and perhaps preferable) to say glidö!
instead.
Here
are the building-block numbers (it’s a base-10 number system, as one would
expect):
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
100 |
1000 |
106 |
1012 |
106N |
… |
|
ser* |
bal |
tel |
kil |
fol |
lul |
mäl |
vel |
jöl |
zül |
deg |
tum |
mil |
balion |
telion |
N-ion |
… |
*This is only a numeral; the
adjective that means “not any” is nonik.
To
form a multiple of a power of 10, you prefix the multiplying factor to the
front of it, so 20 = teldeg, 300 = kiltum, etc.
To
form a combination of them, you line them up, biggest first, so 12 = deg tel,
456 = foltum luldeg mäl, etc.
Decimals
are given in what amounts to “standard form,” using the following:
|
10–1 |
10–2 |
10–3 |
10–4 |
10–5 |
10–6 |
10–6N |
… |
|
dim |
zim |
mim |
dimim |
zimim |
balyim |
N-yim |
… |
Some
examples: 0.08 = jölzim, 5.5 = lul e luldim.
Those
are the cardinal numbers. The ordinals are formed by adding the suffix –id,
and the denominators of fractions by the suffix –dil. (NB, there’s a
special word for a half, laf.)
For
multiplication, the unusual suffix –na is used, so “five times” = lulna,
etc.
Numbers
are handled like normal attributive adjectives (note that this means that ½ = teldil
bal, not bal teldil, and so on).
Last edited: June 09
I’m grateful to Ralph Midgley
for the corrections he gave me early on.
If you have any comments or
suggestions, you can get in touch with me by email.