Lit My Fan-Made Gand Conlang

Findswoman Word order is something that's not completely defined yet. The order I have used until now is the most common one of subject-verb-object (SVO), however, I'd prefer something less common to add to the alien feeling of the language. I know the least common is OVS (according to Mark Okrand, the designer of the Klingon Language), but I'd prefer some other in order to distance Gand Language from Klingon Language. Maybe OSV which would make it similar to Yoda speech. The options are:
SVO
SOV
VSO
VOS
OSV
OVS

Word order is important, but the verb and arguments have a one to one correspondence to the markers. The example from above:

Qoukiir rr'k't'ajor'a Zuckuss.
Qoukiir loves Zuckuss.

ajor'a (v) = to love (feeling)
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument
k' = prefix; polite, personal experience evidenced, indicative, imperfective, non-reflexive verbal head marker
t' = prefix; animate, accusative, third person argument

The head markers are "rr'k't'" which correspond thus:
rr' --> Qoukiir
k' --> ajor'a
t' --> Zuckuss

So the order of the markers has to match the general order of the sentence. It's possible to reorganize the sentence, but then the markers must be reordered too to match it:

"Zuckuss rr'k't'ajor'a Qoukiir" would mean "Zuckuss loves Qoukiir":

rr' --> Zuckuss
k' --> ajor'a
t' --> Qoukiir

Since rr' identifies the ergative argument and it matches Zuckuss, then Zuckuss is the subject of the sentence. Same for k' in relation to ajor'a and t' to Qoukiir.

"Qoukiir Zuckuss rr'k't'ajor'a" is ungrammatical. The marks correspondence is thus:

rr' --> Qoukiir
k' --> Zuckuss
t' --> ajor'a

If you compare that with the definitions:

ajor'a (v) = to love (feeling)
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument
k' = prefix; polite, personal experience evidenced, indicative, imperfective, non-reflexive verbal head marker
t' = prefix; animate, accusative, third person argument

you see that you are trying to match a marker corresponding to a verb with an argument which is a mismatch, same with t' and ajor'a:

k' (verbal marker) --> Zuckuss (argument)
t' (object argument marker) --> ajor'a (verb)

It works right if you write it thus:

"Qoukiir Zuckuss rr't'k'ajor'a" meaning "Qoukiir loves Zuckuss", maybe with some kind of nuanced emphasis as you suggested (that idea is interesting, BTW). Here the head markers match the verb and arguments correctly.

About emphasis, I have an emphasis marker which would explicitly mark a word for emphasis: "ta". It emphasizes the word following it. So: "Qoukiir ta Zuckuss rr't'k'ajor'a" would be a way to explicitly say what you want. But yes, an unusual word order may be used for a nuanced emphasis. That's a good idea to add to the richness of the language. What do you think?

EDIT: The more I think on what I wrote here, the more I like OSV as the canonic word order. Argument omission is an issue in this case, but that's a subject for another post.

 

Findswoman I want to ask a few questions about the following:

1. I understand you intend this to be the Gand worldwide language which would be one among many many more languages. Am I right?
2. What would be the etymology of the word?
3. Was the language known by any other name before been worldwidely accepted?

Thank you very much.

 

Yes, that's exactly right. The order of the head markers define the order of the sentence. If an argument marker matches the verb or a verb marker an argument, there is a mismatch and thus the sentence is ungrammatical. However, if you intend an argument to be the subject (for example), and it matches an object marker, it may be grammatical, but the sentence would be saying something you didn't mean to say. There is also the subject of argument omission (I think the linguistic term for this is ellipsis). An argument marker may be present without a matching argument. That's an idea that still needs more thought.

I've been thinking on this in terms of case, but the subject is still open to head marking too. I'm still not decided for sure, but I'm considering the total elimination of case and using head marking for everything, including sentence, clause, and noun phrases.

I've decided that OSV is the canonical word order for my Gand Language's sentences. So the way to write "Qoukiir loves Zuckuss" without any kind of special emphasis or styles is "Zuckuss Qoukiir t'rr'k'ajor'a."

Mirrors the way I have seen many languages are named in Star Wars. On Earth, there are a huge list of languages that are apparently named after the demonym of the place of origin. This makes me think on how the lingua franca, if any, would be named galaxy-wide if Earth would open to a (hypothetical) galactic community. Let's assume that language is English. Would it be called English galaxy-wide? Or maybe "Human Language"? What about "Earth Language" or "Terran"? I think "Gand Language" sounds more likely to be that case, just the way the language is called in Basic.

So it'd be "ancient tongue(crop) of the Book of Light". That'd be how it's currently known, but that's obviously not its name by when the Book of Light was written. Beyond this, I have little to comment actually. I have no idea about the ancient history of your Gand world.

I was thinking on ways to name my language and thought on asking you about your lore. I have a few half-baked ideas that may be alternatives, or various ways in which the language was named by its native speakers. I have two words in my lexicon meaning "language"; vrirueg and waar. "Waar" is an import from another Gand language (from another pocket colony). The etymology of "vrirueg" makes it mean "speech link" which emphasizes the attribute of a language of creating links or relations between people. The language itself was named "Vrirueg" in ancient times, which just means "language". When it was made the worldwide language, it was renamed Krarr'taarn, or "The Jewel of T'aarn", being "T'aarn" the region from where it came.

Two alternative names have developed after Gand opened to the galaxy. Both names have been brought by returning Gands who have spent much time with other species. Those names are Gand translations of "Gand Language"; Vrirueg'Gand and Gand'waar. Most locals regard those two names with contempt, but both names are becoming more and more common among Gands that travel around the galaxy.

Thanks for your replies. You know, exchanging ideas back and forth may spark more ideas.

 

I had been thinking on the dative case for a while and whether or not to get rid of case completely. I decided to eliminate case, so what would be a dative case is now head marked too. Consider the following sentence:

Ta'ra croun Qoukiir Zuckuss xx'and'rr'tn'binwa chin'firg'ia.
Zuckuss gave Qoukiir food today.

ta'ra = indefinite, equivalent to English "a" or "an".
croun (n) = food
xx' = prefix; inanimate, accusative, argument head marker
and' = prefix; animate, dative, argument head marker
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, argument head marker
tn' = prefix; polite, hearsay evidenced, indicative, perfect, non-reflexive verb head marker
binwa (v) = to give
chin (n) = sunlight (mass noun)
'firg = demonstrative suffix meaning "this". E.g. gand'firg = "this gand"
'ia = Suffix, marks a noun or verb as modifying the sentence's verb.
chin'firg'ia = today, adverbial phrase literally meaning "this sunlight".

In this sentence, the verb features four head markers: "xx'and'rr'tn'". The "and'" marker is the equivalent to the dative case and it marks the receiver of the sentence. In the sentence above, it matches "Qoukiir".

Some other things are worth mentioning here. Tense is not marked in the verb. The head marker that matches the verb is "tn'" which denotes perfect aspect, the action is complete. The adverbial phrase "chin'firg'ia" which means "today" gives the time frame where the action took place. Since the verb head marker also denotes that the speaker knows about it through hearsay, we can conclude this is already past action. That's why I translated it in past tense.

Comments? Suggestions?

 

Findswoman I have a few questions about your Gand lore to try to spark a few ideas on how languages are named within your Gand fanon.

• Was the Book of Light written before the organization of the worldwide monarchy, during it, or after?
• Is there a worldwide organized Gand religion?
• Is the name of the species/planet important to also name the language even before the world was still close to the rest of the galaxy and (presumably) most Gands never knew about out-of-Gand life?
• To dispel that presumption, does the average Gand grow up knowing about out-of-Gand life? Or, do they know about it at any age while growing up?
• Did the Gand tend to name the languages based on where it was spoken or rather who spoke it, or may they name their languages otherwise? h'zav'Gand seems to literally mean Gand Crop or Gand Language, so to your Gands, the race or world name seems to be relevant, is it so?

EDIT: I just realized I misunderstood something:

You intended it to mean the name of the current Gand Language earlier in history. I was thinking that you were talking about the language of the Book of Light, so my comments are wrong.

 

I had not thought about it, but I had been avoiding inflecting names just because it didn't feel right to. You basically just identified the reason! Now, I've been thinking on extending head marking to noun phrases too, so I have to work out how to avoid inflecting names within noun phrases.

I have made 10 of those markers, but there should be many more. To give an idea of how many there may be, the language is fusional and these verb head markers encode a whopping five features: deference (casual, polite, very polite), evidentiality (personal experience, deduction, insight, hearsay, personal belief, and assumption), mood (indicative, interrogative, imperative, and supplicative), aspect (progressive, perfective, imperfective, completive, incompletive, and inchoactive), and reflexivity (reflexive, non-reflexive). So the maximum number of verb markers would be 3*6*4*6*2 = 864. It wouldn't be feasible to make them all up. I actually didn't think there would be that many, so it's imperative to cull them. A feature I've already been considering to remove is the reflexivity. I also might remove mood and indicate it with other kinds of markers. I however would like to keep deference, evidentiality, and aspect in the head markers.

Tense is not marked in the verb, it's always indicated with adverbs. I have to say however that adverbs do not exist in the lexicon. Only nouns, verbs, and particles would be lexicon words. Adverbs are made with the 'ia suffix. The relevant words would be:

kor (n) = the present time
kuur (n) = the future time
tar (n) = the past time
'ia = Suffix, marks a noun or verb as modifying the sentence's verb, or an adjectival phrase.

As mentioned above, "today" would be "chin'firg'ia".

chin'firg'ia = today, adverbial phrase literally meaning "this sunlight".

Well, this is not a phrase actually, it is an adverb. So future action would be expressed by writing "kuur'ia" (in the future, or "futurely") after the verb.

I have had this on the back of my mind for a while. Why not explore it now?

Whr'ln'ajor'a.
(He) loves.

Whr'ln'binwa.
(He) gives.

whr' = prefix; animate, agentive, third person argument head marker
ln' = prefix; polite, hearsay evidenced, indicative, imperfect, non-reflexive verbal head marker

The "ajor'a" and "binwa" verbs are usually transitive verbs, but the sentences are using an agentive marker and don't have an accusative marker (BTW, an agentive-accusative sentence would be truly ungrammatical), so the sentences have been defined as intransitive ones, thus cutting off the objects. They just have no object, not even an elided one. So yes, they're intransitive sentences using transitive verbs.

We can go through one of two choices here; to declare them ungrammatical, or forcing them to mean something intransitive. Obviously, the subjects have been elided. The head markers demand a subject to be present, but they've been omitted. So we can use "he" as subject, since "whr'" is a third person marker.

So the sentences' meanings are "He loves" and "He gives" respectively, maybe "she loves/gives", but gender is not important in Gand Language. So what if the sentences just mean "he's loving" or "he's a loving person", or "he's a giver"? I used an agentive marker, which means the subject is in control (not of someone else since intransitivity doesn't have objects), but I may have used a patientive one which would have meant the subject has no choice but been like that.

Maybe context would define what the speaker means by forcing a transitive verb into intransitivity, and maybe the resulting sentence is just non-sense to the listener. As I see it, it's feasible to do it. Context would define the precise meaning.

I have also been toying with the idea of using an ergative marker without a corresponding accusative marker to mean reflexivity. The ergative marker makes the sentence a transitive one, but it lacks the accusative argument. So my thinking has been for the verb to revert the action towards the subject in those cases which is what reflexivity does.

Rr'ln'ajor'a.
(He) loves (himself).

rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument head marker
ln' = prefix; polite, hearsay evidenced, indicative, imperfect verb head marker

What do you think?

 

We prefer "gans."

 

I have hard to follow the discussion but it is interesting and I have to second Findswoman that this would be perfect in the Fanon thread.

 

Hello everyone. Quite some time has passed. Sorry for not posting, but I have been thinking on a few things and trying to distance myself from the Gand language as I have designed it until now so that I can judge it better. I want to write today about two special features of arguments and about personal pronouns.

The most simple structure for the transitive sentences is accusative-ergative-transverb:

Zuckuss Qoukiir t'rr'k'ajor'a.
Qoukiir loves Zuckuss. (lit. "Zuckuss, Qoukiir loves.", but without any special emphasis)

In this sentence, the head markers define an accusative-ergative-verb structured sentence. However, there are two special cases where either one of the arguments may be present with a complete absence of the other one. One would be "ergative-verb" and the other "accusative-verb", both arguments would be subjects.

(1)Qoukiir rr'k'ajor'a.
(2)Zuckuss t'k'ajor'a.

The first one has an ergative subject, but totally lacks the (accusative) object. The second one has an accusative subject (yes, it is a subject), but lacks an ergative argument (which is what actually makes it a subject).

What about the cases where they'd be written like this?:

(3)Zuckuss t'rr'k'ajor'a.
(4)Qoukiir t'rr'k'ajor'a.

The head markers on both (3) and (4) indicate that the sentence is structured as Object-Subject-Verb (OSV) (accusative-ergative-verb), but there is only one argument on each sentence. In both sentences, one argument has been elided. Which one of them has been elided usually depends on context, but there is a bias towards the ergative, so that both Zuckuss and Qoukiir would commonly be matched with the ergative head marker (rr'), thus leaving the accusative marker unmatched (elided); so the sentences would respectively be interpreted to mean:

(5)Zuckuss loves (him).
(6)Qoukiir loves (him).

So then, (1) and (2) should mean something else. On a previous post, I suggested the sole presence of an ergative marker to mean the action reverts back to the subject. So a sole ergative marker is the way to write a reflexive sentence. Thus (1) means:

(7)Qoukiir loves himself.

I suggested on a previous post that reordering the sentence would be a way to place emphasis on a part of the sentence. When the subject and object switch places, there is a nuanced emphasis placed over the object of the sentence. So then:

(8)Qoukiir Zuckuss rr't'k'ajor'a.
(9)Zuckuss is loved by Qoukiir.

The (9) sentence is written in passive voice, however, switching the arguments as in (8) is not actually the way to make a sentence in passive voice; it's just reordering the sentence, so (8) is not in passive voice. Passive voice is used in languages like English to bring the focus of the sentence to the object by making it the subject. It could be argued that passive voice is unnecessary for a language featuring such a flexible syntax. However, Gand may have a quirk that could be called passive voice. The way I propose to build passive voice is by using solely an accusative argument, making (2) mean:

(10)Zuckuss is loved

It's a sentence without the agent (English's "by" argument). This is the closest thing to English's passive voice, but it has no set way to add the agent, unless we just switch the subject and object which is not really passive voice since agent and patient stay being subject and object respectively.

Any feedback is always welcome.


Pronoun system

During all these days, I have been thinking about the whole subject of personal pronouns. I think I made up my mind. There are a couple of things worth mentioning.

• The way writers have written Gand characters have been more or less careless.
• Unless I'm missing something, every single Gand character I have read about have been Basic speakers, so they have been skilled on speaking Basic maybe on different levels of proficiency.

I've come to the conclusion that whatever is written about Gands leaves much space for interpretation, thus I chose an approach that I think will adapt to all those interpretations while still looking alien. First of all, I chose to also include person in the semantics of the argument head markers. All of the head markers I have used until now are third person, and first and second person ones are only animate. The pronouns denote both person and number, so pronoun and marker's persons must match.

O'j'k'ajor'a.
(I) love (you).

j' = prefix; animate, ergative, first person argument head marker
o' = prefix; animate, accusative, second person argument head marker
k' = prefix; polite, personal-experience, imperfect verb head marker
ajor'a (v) = to love (feeling)

With pronouns, it would be:

O jan o'j'k'ajor'a.
I love you.

jan = I, first person singular pronoun
o = you, second person singular pronoun

The full list of personal pronouns is:

jan = I, first person singular pronoun
akotja = we(not you), first person pronoun
vakotu = we(including you), first person pronoun
o = you, second person singular pronoun
auw = you, second person dual pronoun, both present)
aam = you, second person dual pronoun, one absent
shue = you, second person paucal pronoun, all present, up to six
ffi = you, second person plural pronoun, all present
ffy = you, second person plural pronoun, you and others

deprecated personal pronouns:
wa = singular third person pronoun
rhab = plural third person pronoun
tivfalot = mass third person pronoun

I deprecate the third person pronouns. I don't consider right for Gands to use honorifics other than names. My understanding about pronoun usage is that it is an earned right. I still thing that Gand language would go better without third person pronouns, but I'm including them for those Gands who have earned the right to use them, or maybe for anyone who just wants them.

Instead of third person pronouns, I favor the use of the word "Gand" with an affix.

'firg = demonstrative suffix meaning "this". E.g. gand'firg = "this gand"
'faass = demonstrative suffix meaning "that" (close to you). E.g. gand'faass = "that gand" (you)
'fuskk = demonstrative suffix meaning "that". E.g. gand'fuskk = "that gand" (not you or me)

So my replacements for pronouns among the lowest Gands is the "gand" word with a suffix. So then:

gand'firg
this gand (I)

gand'faass
that gand (you)

gand'fuskk
that gand (he/they, not you or me)

All of them mimic first and second person while still being third person. I think this way, Gands may speak with a little more accuracy while still speaking in third person as appropriate.

Before concluding, I want to mention that I was originally encouraged to open this thread after another thread created by LelalMekha. She described herself as a language nerd, so I hope she could show up and comment.

So this is all for now. As always, any feedback/comment is welcome.

 

Well, I sure feel glad and honored to have encouraged you! (But contrary to what my Leia picture may imply, I'm actually a "he" rather than a "she." Not that it matters much, but still. )

 

Ohh, sorry. Now that you mention it, I think I read about it somewhere within that thread, but I had forgotten.

EDIT: Any question, comment or criticism about my Gand conlang? You may have noticed that I have placed my attention to syntax rather than lexicon. That's because I understand a language is for communication and we cannot communicate anything without knowing the way the words are combined to deliver ideas. There are too many "conlangs" out there that are merely a list of words, I wanted to do something better than an English cipher. Well, maybe the main reason for that is I consider syntax the fun part of a language. A mere list of words is just boring.

 

I couldn't agree more! Syntax really should be the top priority. After all, the lexicon is something you can always expand as you go.

 

I've been trying my hand at translating some Gand dialog. Not much choice here, but using @Findswoman's Book of Gand. So here we go.

“Cuss'kit'damii wyk golwal'ka,” she said. “Alok't zun'kit'fyzraavar'ii?”

cuss' = prefix; animate, agentive, second person argument head marker
kit' = prefix; casual, personal-experience, imperfect verb head marker
damii (v) = to come
wyk = endearing vocative, precedes the invoked name or noun phrase
golwalak (n) = sons or daughters (plural count noun), singular: golwal'ka
alok't = interrogative particle
zun' = prefix; animate, patientive, second person argument head marker
fyzraavar (n) = readiness
'ii = "of type", suffixes a word to be used as adjective, adverb, or modifier to the preceding word.

"There you are, dear son." Maybe a way to address a son, and very human sounding. It's one of those redundant things we frequently say. The way I translated it literally means "you came" (or "you come", tense is not present in the Gand translation.) Something I have to mention here is that I have been avoiding to include copula verbs in my Gand conlang, so there is no "to be" verb.

The "dear son" part is translated as a vocative built with an endearing vocative particle. It closely resembles the way it is written in English, so this is a part that I may eventually change.

The "Are you ready" part is tricky. I mentioned in another post that adjectives do not exist as dictionary words. They are specially inflected nouns or verbs with the 'ii suffix. "Fyzraavar" means readiness, so "ready" would be "fyzraavar'ii". However, if you headmark an adjective like "fyzraavar'ii" with a verb head marker, you make it a verb meaning "to be ready". To make a question, just precede the sentence with the interrogative particle "alok't".

“Gand whr'k'fyzraavar'ii tog Voml'ka, aag . . . z'roz and'uen'aak tokh'duela'ii Ossluk, alok't uw'xx'gu'zil?”

whr' = prefix; animate, agentive, third person argument head marker
k' = prefix; polite, personal-experience, imperfect verb head marker
fyzraavar (n) = readiness
'ii = "of type", suffixes a word to be used as adjective, adverb, or modifier to the preceding word.
tog = vocative, precedes the invoked name or noun phrase
vomlak (n) = parent/father/mother (plural count noun), singular: voml'ka, dual: vomlk
aag = and, but
z'roz = topic marker, establishes the topic of a sentence/sentences.
and' = prefix; animate, dative, third person argument head marker
uenkaa (n) = units. Singular: uen'aak
tokh'duela (n) = holocube (mass noun)
uw' = prefix; animate, ergative, second person argument head marker
xx' = prefix; inanimate, accusative, argument head marker
gu' = prefix; polite, personal-experience, perfect verb head marker
zil (v) = to find

The way I'm translating "yes" is "Gand whr'k'fyzraavar'ii" which means "Gand is ready". I'm still not sure whether or not to add an affirmative particle like "yes". A full sentence affirmation does the same thing.

The "what about" part sounds very English-like. The approach I used to translate the full question is to introduce a topic with a topic marker. So "what about Ossluk’s holocube?" becomes "about Ossluk’s holocube".

"Ossluk’s holocube" translation is "and'uen'aak tokh'duela'ii Ossluk" meaning "Ossluk’s holocube unit". "Tokh'duela" is the Gand word for "holocube", and it's a mass noun. The head of the whole noun phrase is "uen'aak" meaning "unit"; so I head marked it with the "and'" dative head marker. On a noun phrase, the head always precedes the rest of the phrase, so "and'" matches the word following the head, "Ossluk" in this case. The dative can denote belonging. So then, what about "tokh'duela'ii"? It's between uen'aak and Ossluk, but it's inflected with the "'ii" suffix, making it a modifier to the preceding word, so it cannot be matched with the head marker.

Any feedback is welcome.

 

Findswoman I went forward to use your fanfic to do my experimental translations without asking permission. Sorry about that. I hope it's okay.

EDIT: Something to add to my previous post.

A shorter way to translate this may be:

“Gand ja't tog Voml'ka, aag . . . ”
“Gand does, Mother, but. . . ”

ja't = pro-verb, stands for the verb or a predicate.

Presumably, "ja't" repeats the full predicate implicit within the question which would include the "cuss'" second person headmarker, so a stricter way to write this would be:

“Gand whr'ja't tog Voml'ka, aag . . . ”
“Gand does, Mother, but. . . ”

whr' = prefix; animate, agentive, third person argument head marker

Since the mother's question was in second person, the son's answer would be in second person too, thus the "need" to add the "whr'" headmarker to replace the one within the question. However, this is basically a brief way to speak, so any headmarker change is usually kept implicit. An even shorter way to translate it could even be:

“Ja't tog Voml'ka, aag . . . ”
“Yes, Mother, but. . . ”

Okay, we have seen that "ja't" is not an affirmative particle meaning "yes", rather it means "does", but given the context, it can be translated as a simple "yes." Any comment?

 

Continuing the Book of Gand translation (only the dialog),

This is a whole paragraph which features much dialog from Otila Khassvani, so I'll translate this bit by bit.

“Zigguu, Khassvani ur xx'jok'gu'zil che.”

zigguu = negative pro-verb, negates the predicate it represents.
ur che = negative construction, similar to French "ne pas".
xx' = prefix; inanimate, accusative, third person argument headmarker
jok' = prefix; deprecative, ergative, third person argument headmarker
gu' = prefix; polite, personal-experience, perfect verb headmarker
zil (v) = to find

The same things that can be said about "ja't" can also be said about "zigguu" with the added detail that "zigguu" negates the predicate it represents. "Zigguu" means "doesn't", but many times, it can be translated as "no".

Gands use to demote themselves when they feel ashamed or distressed. However, my conlang also uses a deprecative argument form in addition to that. Here, the translation features the "jok'" headmarker that marks an ergative, deprecative, third person argument. Here is used for self-deprecation (matching Khassvani) which is the most common usage and the only one considered acceptable. All deprecative headmarkers are animate third person prefixes.

“No, Khassvani has not.” I understand this is the standard way to answer a yes-no question in English, first say yes or no, then add a short affirmation (or negation) featuring a pro-verb like "do" or "have". I'm thinking that Gand language may do things differently, maybe the way to write it in Gand is just “Zigguu.”

“Tale kaerr'yy xx'rr'gu'zil,

tale = 0, number zero
kaerr (n) = individuals (plural). Singular: ka'rre, a single person.
'yy = "of", suffix binding the suffixed word to the previous one.
xx' = prefix; inanimate, accusative, third person argument headmarker
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument headmarker
gu' = prefix; polite, personal-experience, perfect verb headmarker
zil (v) = to find

"Tale kaerr'yy" literally means "zero of individuals". The "'yy" suffix could be called a relic that has been replaced by headmarking on many of its historical usages. Now it's used almost exclusively for numbers and quantifiers. "Tale" is a noun that heads the subject which is matched with the "rr'" headmarker.

tr'rak laarg ff'eruet'yy kag'r'n'av xx'rr'aul'dyr ffalib'ia kor'ia.”

tr'rak = though
laarg (n) = the whole thing
ff' = prefix; animate, ablative, third person argument headmarker
eruet (n) = (mass noun) worker
'yy = "of", suffix binding the suffixed word to the previous one. Usually used on quantification.
kag'r'nva (n) = (plural noun) archives, places where public records or other historical documents are kept. Singular: kag'r'n'av
xx' = prefix; inanimate, accusative, third person argument headmarker
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument headmarker
aul' = prefix; polite, personal-experience, progressive verb headmarker
dyr (v) = to search
ffalib (n) = persistence
kor (n) = the present time
'ia = Suffix, marks a noun or verb as modifying the sentence's verb.

Here "the entire staff of the archive" is translated as "laarg ff'eruet'yy kag'r'n'av". "Eruet" could mean "a mass of workers" or "staff". If we write "laarg eruet'yy", we mean "the whole staff". If we write "ff'eruet kag'r'n'av", we mean "the staff from the archive". Basically, "eruet" gets both "ff'" and "'yy" affixes when we combine both noun phrases to make one.

“Tale silaak'qraer'yy.

tale silaak'qraer'yy = idiomatic expression meaning "it's not important"
tale = 0, number zero
silaak'qraer (n) = Gand shockprod staff (plural count noun)

I understand "But no matter" to be an idiom meaning "It's not important", so I made up an idiom to mean that: "tale silaak'qraer'yy" literally meaning "zero shockprod staffs".

And'tirlygl wa ta'ra v'ekl'aatar'gi cronixx'ii shyr'ii gakn'da o t'rr'ar'garsyi'is war'akii'ia Otila ar'rr'kend'tirlygl,

and' = prefix; animate, dative, third person argument head marker
tirlygl (n,v) = mass of thoughts, to think
wa = singular third person pronoun
ta'ra = indefinite, equivalent to English "a" or "an". E.g. "ta'ra gand"[/b] = "a gand"
v' = prefix; animate, allative, third person argument head marker
ekl' = prefix; animate, comitative (with), second person argument head marker
aatarig (n) = happenings, singular: aatar'gi
cronixx (n) = mock hunt (mass noun)
shyr (n,v) = something pleasing, agreeable or delightful (mass noun); to please
'ii = "of type", suffixes a word to be used as adjective, adverb, or modifier to the preceding word.
gaknad (n) = cities (plural count noun), singular: gakn'da
o = you, second person singular pronoun
t' = prefix; animate, accusative, third person argument head marker
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument head marker
ar' = prefix; casual, personal-belief, imperfect verb head marker
garsyi (v) = to calm
'is = Suffix, subjunctive mood, attached to the verb is a mood that signals irrealis meanings, such as potentiality(personal-belief), uncertainty(hearsay/assumption), or prediction(insight/deduction).
war'akii (v) = to help
kend' = prefix; casual, assumption, imperfect verb head marker

That's quite a mouthful, and I had to make many things up to build it. This is the first time that I use a subordinate clause within a Gand sentence. The clause "a nice mock Hunt in the city with you would help ease her mind", could be thought as being the direct object of the sentence. So the Gand translation places the subordinate clause before the main clause (remember the canonical sentence order, OSV). The Gand main clause is "Otila ar'rr'kend'tirlygl." If you check this clause with the glossary, you see that both "ar'" and "kend'" are verb headmarkers. One of them is the main verb headmarker, the other one matches the verb of the subordinate clause. Which headmarker corresponds to which verb is solved by order; the order of the headmarkers determines the order of the sentence. So "ar'" matches the subordinate clause's verb and "kend'" matches the main verb. The verb headmarker of the subordinate clause's verb must be the same from the main verb, so "ar'" should also be the verb headmarker of the subordinate clause's verb.

"And'tirlygl wa ta'ra v'ekl'aatar'gi cronixx'ii shyr'ii gakn'da o t'rr'ar'garsyi'is war'akii'ia" is the subordinate clause. "And'tirlygl wa" is its object meaning "her mind" (lit. "the mass of thoughts of she").

"Ta'ra v'ekl'aatar'gi cronixx'ii shyr'ii gakn'da o" is the subordinate clause's subject meaning "a nice mock Hunt in the city with you." "Ta'ra" is an indefinite article. "V'ekl'aatar'gi" is the head of the noun phrase and "v'" and "ekl'" are its headmarkers. "Aatar'gi" means "happening". The headmarkers match "gakn'da" and "o" ("city" and "you" respectively); unlike the head of a clause or sentence, the head of a noun phrase doesn't have a matching headmarker within itself. "Cronixx'ii" modifies the head and means "mock hunt". Together they mean "a happening of mock hunt". There is also "shyr'ii" which means "pleasing". It may modify either "aatar'gi" or "cronixx", but context makes it more plausible to modify "aatar'gi" (pleasing happening).

"T'rr'ar'garsyi'is war'akii'ia" is the verbal phrase literally meaning "would calm helply." The "'is" suffix denotes subjunctive mood. Combined with the "ar'" headmarker denoting personal belief evidentiality, the verb's mood expresses potentiality.

ariinuuss and'o'raa and'vomlko o t'kit'rr'anyrtak wa rh'ba t'rr'ar'syikh'is chin'firg'ia rh'ba wa ar'and'rr'kit'kalakh.

ariinuuss = as a consequence
wa = singular third person pronoun
rhab = plural third person pronoun, singular: rh'ba
oraa (n) = tasks, singular: o'raa
t' = prefix; animate, accusative, third person argument head marker
kit' = prefix; casual, personal-experience, imperfect verb head marker
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument head marker
anyrtak (v) = take the task or role of another individual
ar' = prefix; casual, personal-belief, imperfect verb head marker
syikh (v) = let, give permission
'is = Suffix, subjunctive mood, attached to the verb is a mood that signals irrealis meanings, such as potentiality(personal-belief), uncertainty(hearsay/assumption), or prediction(insight/deduction).
chin'firg'ia = today
and' = prefix; animate, dative, third person argument head marker
vomlko (n) = The other parent/father/mother (singular count noun). Mostly used to distinguish between both parents. When speaking to/about one of them, "vomlko" is used to refer to the other one.
o = you, second person singular pronoun
kalakh (v) = to request

This was even harder to translate. It has a subordinate clause and a relative clause. Or at least that's how I interpreted them. I'm by no means an English scholar, and English is a second language.

The first thing I want to mention is a change I introduced to one of the third person pronouns. Now "rhab", which is the plural pronoun, has a singular form "rh'ba"; so there are now two singular third person pronouns, "wa" and "rh'ba". "Wa" is the preferred pronoun, usually used to refer to what we are talking about while "rh'ba" usually refers to a secondary thing. If the speaker is using a third person pronoun to refer to himself, he usually uses "wa" for that and "rh'ba" to refer to someone else.

(Note: In my personal fanon, the use of third person pronouns come as a right implicit within the right of using the family name. At this point within Findswoman's Book of Gand, Zuckuss would always refer to himself as either "Gand" or "this gand" while his mother has already earned the right to use third person pronouns to refer to herself. I understand this is not the case in Findswoman's fanon.)

I also want to mention that I switched the first time "rh'ba" (he) appears and the "and'vomlko o" (your father) noun phrase. Since Gand Language's canonical word order is not SVO like English, rather it's OSV, the first time Gand's father is mentioned is within the subordinate clause and not within the main clause as in the English sentence (the subordinate clause is being regarded as a direct object in my Gand translation.)

The main clause consists of an object, a beneficiary, a subject, and a verb. A subordinate clause is what's been matched as the object, which is a description of what's been requested. The beneficiary (who gets the request; the father) is matched with the dative headmarker. The subject (she, e.g. Otila Khassvani) is matched with the ergative headmarker. So the main clause is assembled as object-beneficiary-subject-verb with the headmarkers ar', and', rr' and kit' respectively. Instead of an accusative argument headmarker for the object, a verb headmarker (ar') is used which matches the verb within the subordinate clause. That clause's verb must have that same headmarker for the match to be correctly done. Otherwise there would be a mismatch and thus the whole sentence would be ungrammatical.

The subordinate clause is basically "he would let her take his place." So what was requested? "He would let her". To do what? "She takes his place." This is interesting since "her" and "she" refer to the same person, and since it's written as "her" in the English, I can interpret it as a shared argument within two clauses, an object in one and a subject in the other. So following the OSV canonical order, I ordered it as "she"(object), "he"(subject), and "would let"(verb) matching them with the t', rr' and ar' headmarkers. I ordered the other clause necessarily as OVS so that its subject and the other clause's object could be the same (OVS+OSV), so the order is "his place"(object), "take"(verb), and "she"(subject), matching them with the t', kit' and rr' headmarkers respectively. The translation, "and'o'raa rh'ba t'kit'rr'anyrtak [wa] rh'ba t'rr'ar'syikh'is", features a shared argument (wa), which I surrounded in square brackets in this quote.

Lixx'r'ia rh'ba t'rr'jant'pnilakh.”

lixx'r (n) = the inherent character of a person (mass noun)
'ia = Suffix, marks a noun or verb as modifying the sentence's verb.
t' = prefix; animate, accusative, third person argument head marker
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument head marker
jant' = prefix; casual, personal-experience, perfect verb head marker
pnilakh (v) = to grant as a right or privilege; yield to a request

Only one comment about this one. The "'ia" suffix makes an adverb that modifies the verb regardless of where it is. So "lixx'r'ia" doesn't need to follow the verb as has happened with any "'ia" suffixed adverb in all my previous examples/translations.

So then, the paragraph's translation from above looks like:

“Zigguu, Khassvani ur xx'jok'gu'zil che.” His mother exhaled with a hiss; her demoted self-reference by birth-family name bespoke anxiety and shame. “Tale kaerr'yy xx'rr'gu'zil, tr'rak laarg ff'eruet'yy kag'r'n'av xx'rr'aul'dyr ffalib'ia kor'ia.” She paused; her son gave a quiet clack of sympathy. “Tale silaak'qraer'yy. And'tirlygl wa ta'ra v'ekl'aatar'gi cronixx'ii shyr'ii gakn'da o t'rr'ar'garsyi'is war'akii'ia Otila ar'rr'kend'tirlygl, ariinuuss and'o'raa and'vomlko o t'kit'rr'anyrtak wa rh'ba t'rr'ar'syikh'is chin'firg'ia rh'ba wa ar'and'rr'kit'kalakh. Lixx'r'ia rh'ba t'rr'jant'pnilakh.”

“Kor'ia tt'k vakotu t'rr'kit'zostil,” she said.

kor (n) = the present time
tt'k = imperative
t' = prefix; animate, accusative, third person argument head marker
rr' = prefix; animate, ergative, third person argument head marker
kit' = prefix; casual, personal-experience, imperfect verb head marker
zostil (v) = to go
vakotu = we(including you), first person pronoun

Basically, this is all the same that we have seen already, except that the "tt'k" particle is added somewhere before the verb to make the sentence a command. In Gand, a request is delivered by using the precative mood which uses another particle. An imperative sentence is truly a command in Gand language. There is some etiquette that's worth mentioning here. If the son would have addressed his mother with this kind of statement, he would have used the precative mood, never the imperative.

Any comment or feedback is welcome.

 

A few remarks about the etiquette/protocol. As I mention, imperatives are among equals or from a superior to a subordinate. Also someone with a higher rank may also use imperatives properly. Otherwise, the precative is used. If the person receiving the request denies it, the requestor may change to an even stronger mood called supplicative. If the request is given to someone with a much higher rank, the supplicative may also be used.

I translated the above with another layer of etiquette. Usually, Otila addresses her son in casual deference while the son speaks in polite deference. The only exception is when the mother gets self-deprecating. In those times, she changes deference to polite. She switches back to casual with her "but no matter" remark. At that point she quits her self-deprecation.

 

Thank you!

Thank you. That eases my mind quite a bit.

Yes, go ahead.

However, I already caught an error in one of my translations, and what seems to be an oddity in the original dialog:

I'm matching the rr' headmarker with the "vakotu" pronoun; third person to first person, which is an ungrammatical mismatch. So, either we use a first person headmarker, or a third person pronoun. I used first person because of the "us" featured on the original dialog which strikes me as odd. Otila is not janwuine, so she would use third person instead. I'm not sure how you would solve it, whether "let us" is some kind of idiom or something, but I'd go with a third person plural pronoun. So my solution would be:

“Kor'ia tt'k rhab t'rr'kit'zostil,” she said.

rhab = plural third person pronoun

Comments?

EDIT: We could also elide the pronoun to have it thus:

“Kor'ia tt'k t'rr'kit'zostil,” she said.

The person is stated in the headmarker, so eliding it is not a big deal.

 

Yet another way to fix the problem:

“Kor'ia tt'k Otila o t'e'uw'kit'zostil,” she said.
Literally, Now go with Otila.

kor (n) = the present time
tt'k = imperative
t' = prefix; animate, accusative, third person argument head marker
uw' = prefix; animate, ergative, second person argument head marker
kit' = prefix; casual, personal-experience, imperfect verb head marker
zostil (v) = to go
o = you, second person singular pronoun
e' = prefix; animate, comitative (with), third person argument head marker