Vreleks Forum Index Vreleks
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Aalmoken
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleks Forum Index -> Conlangs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to ask if, out of all the suffixes and inflections, you think there is any overly ambiguous possibilities.

I've been a tad worried about certain endings that would be the same in certain circumstances, such as a couple prepositioned adjective forms and the Accusative Neuter ending.

Also, I'm thinking about turning all the inflections' initial vowels into optional vowels, though I'm failry unsure about it.

I'm working on a dictionary with translations as accurate and all-inclusive as I can make them.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LingoDingo wrote:
I'd like to ask if, out of all the suffixes and inflections, you think there is any overly ambiguous possibilities.
I've been a tad worried about certain endings that would be the same in certain circumstances, such as a couple prepositioned adjective forms and the Accusative Neuter ending.

No, not if you're afraid they'd be unnaturalistically or unrealistically ambiguous.

Look for instance at German's definite articles. You don't know which case they are unless you know which gender and number they are; you don't know which gender they are unless you know which case and number they are; and I'm not sure this is right but there's a possibility you don't know what number they are unless you know which case and gender they are.

Also look at Bantu languages' (e.g. Swahili's) noun-class (gender) system. For lots of pairs of noun-classes that are distinct in the singular, their plurals sound the same.

OTOH: If you're just worried about the usability, comprehensibility, and learnability of the language, I'd say it depends on circumstances.

Verbs and nouns have big paradgims (verbs conjugate and nouns decline). Modifiers such as adjectives and adverbs mostly have simpler paradigms, unless the adjectives have to agree with their head-nouns somehow, in which case they decline too.

(Adverbs rarely have to agree with anything; but in languages which distinguish ad-verbal adverbs from ad-adjectival adverbs from ad-adverbal adverbs, the ad-verbal adverbs may have to agree with their verb, and the ad-adjectival adverbs may have to agree with their adjective.
(And sometimes part of the way the ad-verbal adverb agrees with its verb includes inheriting some of whatever agreement the verb has with its participant(s); and part of the way the ad-adjectival adverb agrees with its adjective is to inherit some of whatever agreement the adjective has with its noun.
(But it's pretty rare.)

Here's a pair of rules that lots of conlangers say makes sense;
  • Don't fill in a cell in a given word's paradigm just because it's a cell in a paradigm. Instead, try to think of a sentence in which you'd need that particular form of that word.
  • Don't make two different cells in a given word's paradigm sound different just because they are two different cells. Instead, try to think of a pair of sentences that differ only in that one of them uses one of those wordforms and the other sentence uses the other wordform, and the sentences have different meanings.


Some conlangers don't think those rules produce enough of the kind of ambiguity natlangs have. But most agree that those rules save you from wasting brain-time trying to make things unambiguous that don't need to be made unambiguous.
Any unambiguity that isn't required by those two rules should be just a happy accident.


LingoDingo wrote:
Also, I'm thinking about turning all the inflections' initial vowels into optional vowels, though I'm failry fairly unsure about it.
(You're not failing at anything! You've been more successful so far than I've been. Have confidence in yourself -- you've earned it.)
IMO that's reasonable for vowel-initial suffixes. You might want to make the final vowel in vowel-final prefixes optional, instead of their initial vowel.

There are languages in which some suffixes, for instance case endings, vary depending on whether or not the wordbase ends in a vowel, and if it does, in which vowel it ends. In other natlangs the suffixes vary depending on whther or not the wordbase ends in a consonant, and if it does, in which consonant it ends.

What happens if your wordbase ends in a base vowel and your suffix begins in a base vowel?
What happens if your wordbase ends in a base vowel and your suffix begins in a loose vowel?
What happens if your wordbase ends in a loose vowel and your suffix begins in a base vowel?
What happens if your wordbase ends in a loose vowel and your suffix begins in a loose vowel?
Are all of those possible?

IMO it would make sense to drop a vowel-initial suffix's initial vowel if the wordbase ends in a vowel, (especially if the suffix's initial vowel is loose and the wordbase's final vowel is a base vowel), but keep the suffix's initial vowel if the wordbase ends in a consonant.


LingoDingo wrote:
I'm working on a dictionary with translations as accurate and all-inclusive as I can make them.

I, for one, look forward to it! Smile
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eldin raigmore wrote:
IMO it would make sense to drop a vowel-initial suffix's initial vowel if the wordbase ends in a vowel, (especially if the suffix's initial vowel is loose and the wordbase's final vowel is a base vowel), but keep the suffix's initial vowel if the wordbase ends in a consonant.


Actually, It's based around the final consonant of a stem, as all stems do and will end in a consonant, even if it doesn't sound like it (e.g. "neiy(love)" pronounced /nei/.)

The initial vowel would be dropped if the final stem consonant and the initial ending consonant could be easily pronounced together. The rule would not be particularly strict, since some may have trouble with different consonant clusters than others.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.


Last edited by LingoDingo on Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LingoDingo wrote:
Actually, It's based around the final consonant of a stem, as all stems do and will end in a consonant, even if it doesn't sound like it (e.g. "neiy(love)" pronounced /nej/.)

The initial vowel would be dropped if the final stem consonant and the initial ending consonant could be easily pronounced together. The rule would not be particularly strict, since some may have trouble with different consonant clusters than others.

Do all suffixes begin in a vowel?
Do all suffixes begin in a consonant?
If a suffix begins with a monophthong (a single vowel) followed by a consonant, would you (optionally?) drop that monophthong if the stem's final consonant and the suffix's first consonant (the one after the vowel that starts the suffix) make a "legal" cluster?
What if the stem ends with a consonant-cluster? Or is that disallowed?

If a suffix begins with a single consonant which is followed by a short monophthong (a single vowel), would you (optionally?) drop that monophthong if the stem's final consonant and the suffix's first consonant (the one before its first vowel) make a "legal" cluster?
What if the suffix has a second consonant after its first vowel?
Do you drop the suffix's first consonant if the stem's final consonant and the suffix's first two consonants make a "legal" three-consonant cluster?
Or are there no legal three-consonant clusters?
What if the stem ends in a cluster? Would you drop the suffix's first vowel if the stem's final consonant-cluster, plus the cluster consisting of the suffix's consonants before its first vowel (or just its first consonant if only one consonant comes before its first vowel), plus the cluster (or single consonant if there's only one) between the suffix's first vowel and its second vowel (or its end if it doesn't have a second vowel), all make a legal consonant-cluster?
Note that such a cluster might be as long as four consonants.

What's the "C-V skeleton" for a root morpheme?
What's the "C-V skeleton" for a suffix?
Are there any prefixes? If so, what's the "C-V skeleton" for them?
Is there a limit on how many suffixes can come after a root in a single word? And a limit on how many prefixes can come before a root in a single word?
If so, is there a "C-V skeleton" for non-compound words?

Suppose your syllable skeleton was something like
(C(C))V(C)
and your root skeleton was
(C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C)))
and your suffix skeleton was
(C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C))
and you allowed at most two suffixes per word.
Then your word skeleton would be, at maximum,
(C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C)))((C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C))((C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C))))

OTOH suppose you had the same root-skeleton as above, but your suffix-skeleton was
(V)C(V(C))
If you still allow at most two suffixes per word, your word-skeleton might be
(C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C)((C(C))V(C)))((V)C(V(C))((V)C(V(C))))
.

But, suppose your root-skeleton is, instead,
(((C(C))VC)(C(C))VC)(C(C))VC
and your suffix-skeleton is as above and you still allow at most two suffixes.
Your word skeleton would then be
(((C(C))VC)(C(C))VC)(C(C))VC((V)C(V(C))((V)C(V(C))))
.

(Some morpho-phonology happening there.)

I look forward to seeing what you figure out!

Yours is currently the cheeriest conlang I'm following.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All Suffixes at this point begin with vowels which cannot be dropped.

An opening syllable could reasonably start with 0-3 consonants which could then be followed by 1-3 vowels (unless split up over different vowel carries to produce, say, aeaea) and then end in 0-4 consonants. The word must then eventually end in 1-4 consonants. Suffixes can be placed as many as would make sense at a time.

The size of roots won't be restricted as, though I have no words more than 5 syllables in my personal list, I feel words should be allowed to grow as they do in German (I have a system for word combining similar to German).

With the exception of words ending in y, w, h, ˀ, or the same consonant as the ending's initial; one can drop the initial vowel of any Accusative (except for neuter), Dative, Locative, or Directional noun declension ending if they feel it is within their ability to effectively pronounce the resulting consonant cluster. Adjective declension endings cannot have their initial vowels dropped.

A transliteration note, if vowels are transferred onto another vowel carrier to separate there pronunciation somewhat, the vowel carrier would be written as an apostrophe (e.g. ae'ae'a for Aeaea)(this rule does not apply to words beginning with a vowel carrier). This separation in pronunciation is not as sharp as with ˀ and vocalization would therefore be continuous thru that apostrophe.

A couple older posts have been modified

I have simplified the word for language to mok and, therefore, it is now Aalmok instead of Aalmoken. Mok also now only refers to the words of a language. To refer to both a language's words and its orthography one uses the word sen.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LingoDingo wrote:
All Suffixes at this point begin with vowels which cannot be dropped.

An opening syllable could reasonably start with 0-3 consonants which could then be followed by 1-3 vowels (unless split up over different vowel carries to produce, say, aeaea) and then end in 0-4 consonants. The word must then eventually end in 1-4 consonants. Suffixes can be placed as many as would make sense at a time.

The size of roots won't be restricted as, though I have no words more than 5 syllables in my personal list, I feel words should be allowed to grow as they do in German (I have a system for word combining similar to German).

With the exception of words ending in y, w, h, ˀ, or the same consonant as the ending's initial; one can drop the initial vowel of any Accusative (except for neuter), Dative, Locative, or Directional noun declension ending if they feel it is within their ability to effectively pronounce the resulting consonant cluster. Adjective declension endings cannot have their initial vowels dropped.

A transliteration note, if vowels are transferred onto another vowel carrier to separate there pronunciation somewhat, the vowel carrier would be written as an apostrophe (e.g. ae'ae'a for Aeaea)(this rule does not apply to words beginning with a vowel carrier). This separation in pronunciation is not as sharp as with ˀ and vocalization would therefore be continuous thru that apostrophe.

A couple older posts have been modified

I have simplified the word for language to mok and, therefore, it is now Aalmok instead of Aalmoken. Mok also now only refers to the words of a language. To refer to both a language's words and its orthography one uses the word sen.


Thanks! Smile And for the most part that looks quite cool Cool .


I have some questions.

LingoDingo wrote:
All Suffixes at this point begin with vowels which cannot be dropped.
....
With the exception of words ending in y, w, h, ˀ, or the same consonant as the ending's initial; one can drop the initial vowel of any Accusative (except for neuter), Dative, Locative, or Directional noun declension ending if they feel it is within their ability to effectively pronounce the resulting consonant cluster. Adjective declension endings cannot have their initial vowels dropped.

I don't know how to reconcile those.
When you say "the ending's initial", do you just mean "the first consonant in the case-ending"?
Because, aren't case-endings suffixes?
If they are, aren't all suffixes vowel-initial?

I distinguish "initial consonant" from "first consonant".
If a morpheme's initial phoneme is a vowel, that morpheme can't have an initial consonant; what's initial in that morpheme is a vowel.
If it has a consonant, one of its consonants must be its first consonant; but it might have one or more vowels before that first consonant, and if so one of those vowels would be its initial phoneme.

Do all case-endings (possibly excepting Adjective declension* and neuter Accusative declension*) have a consonant in them, so that it always makes sense to talk about their first consonant?

*Also, I think you may be mistakenly using the word "declension" when you mean "case".

*A "declension" is a noun-paradigm or pronoun-paradigm or adjective-paradigm.
One thing a "declension" must do (IMO), if its word-base has cases, is take its word-base through all of its cases.
So IMO, it might make sense to talk about a "first-person declension" or a "plural declension" or a "neuter declension"; but, IMO (and I could be wrong), it doesn't really make sense to talk about a "nominative declension" or an "accusative declension".

When you say "adjective declension", do you mean "the paradigm of an adjective", or do you mean you now have a case you are calling the "adjective" case?

If the latter, when did that happen, and where can I look it up to see what it means exactly?


LingoDingo wrote:
An opening syllable could reasonably start with 0-3 consonants which could then be followed by 1-3 vowels (unless split up over different vowel carries to produce, say, aeaea) and then end in 0-4 consonants. The word must then eventually end in 1-4 consonants. Suffixes can be placed as many as would make sense at a time.

So, words have to be consonant-final (the last phoneme in any word must be a consonant).
Does that apply only to words with cases -- nouns and adjectives and pronouns?
Or only to words with inflection, not to particles?
Or really, really every word?


LingoDingo wrote:
The size of roots won't be restricted as, though I have no words more than 5 syllables in my personal list, I feel words should be allowed to grow as they do in German (I have a system for word combining similar to German).

Compounding doesn't really lengthen "roots" properly(?) so-called. (At least, I think I'm talking about "proper" terminology.)

When you compound two or more roots together to make a new word-base, each root is still there as a root.

The compound, composed of some component roots, is not regarded as a root, though it can undergo inflection "as if it were" a root.

At least that's how I understand it; possibly I'm wrong.

Anyway; you don't want to have the ability to compound roots be restricted by a limit on word-base length.

But, perhaps the simple, indecomposable, non-compound, primitive roots, are limited?

I don't remember who or where I got this from, nor when nor how I got it, but:
Root, stem, theme, base, word: layered composition of word-construction wrote:
  • root
  • stem = root + affix
  • theme = stem + classifier (+ thematic affix(es))
  • base = theme + derivational affix(es)
  • word = base + inflectional affix(es)

I'd think it would make sense to insert a line between "root" and "stem" that would show something like:
  • compound-root = root + root OR root + compound-root
  • stem = root + affix OR compound-root + affix

Also, I don't know that your 'lang would require classifiers or thematic affixes; nor, maybe, would it even require any derivational affixes.
And, of course, the additions could occur in either order, I'd think. In particular, affixes could include either prefixes or suffixes or both, or, even, infixes, circumfixes, or suprafixes.


LingoDingo wrote:
A transliteration note, if vowels are transferred onto another vowel carrier to separate there pronunciation somewhat, the vowel carrier would be written as an apostrophe (e.g. ae'ae'a for Aeaea)(this rule does not apply to words beginning with a vowel carrier). This separation in pronunciation is not as sharp as with ˀ and vocalization would therefore be continuous thru that apostrophe.

Tell me/us more about "vowel carriers".
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eldin raigmore wrote:
Also, I think you may be mistakenly using the word "declension" when you mean "case".


You're right. I was thinking about it the wrong way. You can blame my old Russian textbooks for that.

eldin raigmore wrote:
When you say "adjective declension", do you mean "the paradigm of an adjective", or do you mean you now have a case you are calling the "adjective" case?


No, there's no adjective case as can be determined per my response above.

eldin raigmore wrote:
I don't know how to reconcile those.
When you say "the ending's initial", do you just mean "the first consonant in the case-ending"?
Because, aren't case-endings suffixes?
If they are, aren't all suffixes vowel-initial?

I distinguish "initial consonant" from "first consonant".
If a morpheme's initial phoneme is a vowel, that morpheme can't have an initial consonant; what's initial in that morpheme is a vowel.
If it has a consonant, one of its consonants must be its first consonant; but it might have one or more vowels before that first consonant, and if so one of those vowels would be its initial phoneme.


It probably would have made more sense if I had just said, the ending's consonant. This only refers to the noun paradigm. The adjective endings cannot have their vowels dropped. For instance, .kuuno ci iiťci. meaning, I am here. can be used in place of, .kuuno ci iiťeci. meaning the same thing. However, .kuuno ku kyudťeci toˀc. cannot be said and must instead be, .kuuno ku kyudťeci toˀeic.


eldin raigmore wrote:
So, words have to be consonant-final (the last phoneme in any word must be a consonant).
Does that apply only to words with cases -- nouns and adjectives and pronouns?
Or only to words with inflection, not to particles?
Or really, really every word?


Every non-pronoun word that can be declined must have a consonant at the end of the root. Essentially, anything that is not a number, preposition, conjunction, pronoun, interjection, or emphasis marker must have a consonant at the end of it's root or Nominative neuter form.

eldin raigmore wrote:
Tell me/us more about "vowel carriers".


Well now... In Aalsen, vowel carrier simply refers to the symbol resembling the Latin o. It is not considered to be a consonant as it has no pronunciation. It's sole purpose is to provide a base for separately pronounced vowels or vowels beginning a word. The use of this could be for emphasis in writing (like typing Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh) or for names where a set of vowels are pronounced fairly distinctly or for words/names with more than three unique vowel sounds in a row. Since a word beginning with a vowel in Aalsen is required to have a vowel carrier supporting that vowel, it is unnecessary to mark it, but with out of the ordinary words like the name Aeaea that I mentioned above there would be no way to know to pronounce it differently in the romanization without marking it somehow, thus the reason for the use of the apostrophe.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.


Last edited by LingoDingo on Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LingoDingo wrote:
...
You're right. I was thinking about it the wrong way. You can blame my old Russian textbooks for that.
...
No, there's no adjective case as can be determined per my response above.
...
It probably would have made more sense if I had just said, the ending's consonant. This only refers to the noun paradigm. The adjective endings cannot have their vowels dropped. For instance, .kuuno ci iiťci. meaning, I am here. can be used in place of, .kuuno ci iiťeci. meaning the same thing. However, .kuuno ku kyudťeci toˀc. cannot be said and must instead be, .kuuno ku kyudťeci toˀeic.

Thanks! That's all clear now.


LingoDingo wrote:
Every non-pronoun word that can be declined must have a consonant at the end of the root. Essentially, anything that is not a number, preposition, conjunction, pronoun, interjection, or emphasis marker must have a consonant at the end of its root or Nominative neuter form.

OK, I've got it now. So that doesn't apply to verbs, since they don't have a "nominative neuter" form.
BTW, wouldn't you just have said "root or nominative form"?*
Because "neuter" is a gender (a concordial noun-class), and every noun is in one and only one gender.
All neuter nouns' nominative form will be "nominative neuter";
all other nouns' nominative form will be some other gender (masculine or feminine or common/mixed/unspecified/unknown/epicene or etc).

*Oh, wait; Adjectives would have to agree in case and gender and number with the noun they modify, right? So an adjective could have a Nominative Neuter form distinct from a Nominative Masculine or Nominative Feminine from, as well as from an Accusative Neuter or Dative Neuter or Genitive Neuter form. But now we need to ask whether you mean Neuter Singular Nominative or Neuter Plural Nominative.

Also btw: Verbs do have roots. (They also have paradigms; a verb-paradigm is called a "conjugation", rather than a "declension". Verbs "conjugate"; nouns "decline".)

Are some roots more verb-roots than noun-roots or adjective-roots or other-part-of-speech-roots?
Are some roots more noun-roots than verb-roots or adjective-roots or other-part-of-speech-roots?
Can you derive verbal and deverbal nouns or adjectives or other-parts-of-speech from verb-roots?
Can you derive nominal and denominal verbs or adjectives or other-parts-of-speech from noun-roots?

If any verb-root is just as much a noun-root or adjective-root as it is a verb-root, then this might apply to verb-roots too.

Also, if you derive a verbal noun such as an infinitive or a gerund from a verb, it would have a gender and could inflect for case and number.

Action-nominalizations, agent-nominalizations, and patient-nominalizations, might be deverbal nouns or verbal nouns, and they would have genders and could be inflected for case and number too.

And if you derive a verbal adjective such as a participle from a verb, it would inflect for gender and number and case.


LingoDingo wrote:
Well now... In Aalsen, vowel carrier simply refers to the symbol resembling the Latin o. It is not considered to be a consonant as it has no pronunciation. It's sole purpose is to provide a base for separately pronounced vowels or vowels beginning a word. The use of this could be for emphasis in writing (like typing Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh) or for names where a set of vowels are pronounced fairly distinctly or for words/names with more than three unique vowel sounds in a row. Since a word beginning with a vowel in Aalsen is required to have a vowel carrier supporting that vowel, it is unnecessary to mark it, but with out of the ordinary words like the name Aeaea that I mentioned above there would be know way to know to pronounce it differently in the romanization without marking it somehow, thus the reason for the use of the apostrophe.

Ah, so, it's like the vowel-carrier in many abugidas or alphasyllabaries.

Most of the symbols represent CV syllables with a particular C and an inherent, default V.
If you want to use a different V you use a diacritical mark, that depends on which V you want to use.
If you want to use just the C with no V you use a particular diacritical mark (like a virama) that means "no V".
If you just want to use the V with no C you write the "vowel-carrier" instead of the C; so it comes off as oV where <o> represents the vowel-carrier. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbu_alphabet#Accounts_with_Sirijonga)

Is that about right? Do I get it?

I assume you write V syllables with the vowel-carrier.

Do you have V: syllables?
Do you have VV syllables?
How do you write them, if so?

Do you have VC syllables?
How do you write them, if so?

What about CV: syllables?
What about CVV syllables?
What about V:C syllables?
What about VVC syllables?

How about CCV syllables?
How about CVC syllables?
How about VCC syllables?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eldin raigmore wrote:
OK, I've got it now. So that doesn't apply to verbs, since they don't have a "nominative neuter" form.


Well verbs in Aalmok are modifications of a root (the infinitive being made by adding _on to the end of the Nomminative neuter form of a root (even if that root may very rarely, or even never, used))

eldin raigmore wrote:
BTW, wouldn't you just have said "root or nominative form"?*
Because "neuter" is a gender (a concordial noun-class), and every noun is in one and only one gender.
All neuter nouns' nominative form will be "nominative neuter";
all other nouns' nominative form will be some other gender (masculine or feminine or common/mixed/unspecified/unknown/epicene or etc).

*Oh, wait; Adjectives would have to agree in case and gender and number with the noun they modify, right? So an adjective could have a Nominative Neuter form distinct from a Nominative Masculine or Nominative Feminine from, as well as from an Accusative Neuter or Dative Neuter or Genitive Neuter form. But now we need to ask whether you mean Neuter Singular Nominative or Neuter Plural Nominative.


I said Nominative neuter form because that is the form of a word that is the basis for the related verb, adverb, and adjective. The only true exceptions I can think of to that at the moment are ns and dws: meaning only and also respectively. In Aalmok, if you see a word ending in _on, you know it's a verb; if it ends in _s, you know it's an adverb; if it ends in _al, you know it's an adjective. The presence of prepositions allow that determination to continue throughout the declining of adjectives and nouns. Verbs cannot be formed around the Nominative masculine, feminine, or plural forms, though adjectives and adverbs can.

Is there someway I can refer to only this Nominative neuter form in one word?

eldin raigmore wrote:
Ah, so, it's like the vowel-carrier in many abugidas or alphasyllabaries.

Most of the symbols represent CV syllables with a particular C and an inherent, default V.
If you want to use a different V you use a diacritical mark, that depends on which V you want to use.
If you want to use just the C with no V you use a particular diacritical mark (like a virama) that means "no V".
If you just want to use the V with no C you write the "vowel-carrier" instead of the C; so it comes off as oV where <o> represents the vowel-carrier. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbu_alphabet#Accounts_with_Sirijonga)

Is that about right? Do I get it?


You just about have. The only difference is that, in Aalik, consonants don't have inherent vowels and, thus, no need for the virama.

eldin raigmore wrote:
Do you have V: syllables?
Do you have VV syllables?
How do you write them, if so?


Assuming V: means a long vowel: it's written with the vowel carrier with the vowel diacritic for the long vowel written directly above it.
VV is written with the vowel carrier and the first vowel written directly above it with the second above the first.

eldin raigmore wrote:
Do you have VC syllables?
How do you write them, if so?


Vowel carrier with vowel above followed by the consonant symbol to the right of the vowel carrier.

eldin raigmore wrote:
What about CV: syllables?
What about CVV syllables?
What about V:C syllables?
What about VVC syllables?


CV: - consonant symbol + long vowel symbol directly above
CVV - consonant symbol + 1st vowel symbol above + 2nd above first
V:C - vowel carrier + long vowel symbol above + consonant symbol right of vowel carrier
VVC - vowel carrier + 1st vowel symbol above + 2nd above first + consonant right of vowel carrier

eldin raigmore wrote:
How about CCV syllables?
How about CVC syllables?
How about VCC syllables?


CVC - 1st consonant symbol + vowel symbol above + 2nd consonant symbol right of 1st
CCV and VCC are dependant on the types of consonant symbols involved. These types are grouped into the short, long, nasal, and approximant consonant symbols. Each one interacts differently with each other in consonant clusters.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LingoDingo wrote:
Well verbs in Aalmok are modifications of a root (the infinitive being made by adding _on to the end of the Nominative neuter form of a root (even if that root may very rarely, or even never, used))
....
I said Nominative neuter form because that is the form of a word that is the basis for the related verb, adverb, and adjective. The only true exceptions I can think of to that at the moment are ns and dws: meaning only and also respectively. In Aalmok, if you see a word ending in _on, you know it's a verb; if it ends in _s, you know it's an adverb; if it ends in _al, you know it's an adjective. The presence of prepositions allow that determination to continue throughout the declining of adjectives and nouns. Verbs cannot be formed around the Nominative masculine, feminine, or plural forms, though adjectives and adverbs can.

Is there someway I can refer to only this Nominative neuter form in one word?


I don't understand how a noun can have a "neuter form".
If a noun is neuter, all of its forms are neuter, and there's no need to say "neuter form".
If a noun is neuter, all of its forms are neuter, and there's no need to say "neuter form".
If a noun is masculine, all of its forms are masculine; none are neuter.
If a noun is feminine, all of its forms are feminine; none are neuter.

Nouns can, however, have singular forms and plural forms (and/or, maybe, dual, and/or paucal, forms -- maybe); and of course it can have nominative and accusative and dative and genitive forms, or, at least, most nouns can occur in most cases.

Are you saying you can't derive a nominal or denominal verb from any noun that isn't neuter?
And that if you do so, you're deriving it from the nominative singular form of the noun, because that's the root form of every neuter noun?

If one of your conspeakers would like to derive a verb from a non-neuter noun, what do they do instead?

_____________________________________________________________

Do your adjectives agree in case and gender and number with the noun they modify? If so, of course, your adjectives could indeed have "nominative neuter singular" forms, where none of those three words was redundant.

Verbs don't usually have gender or case; and "verbal number" (aka "pluractionality") isn't quite the same as grammatical number of nouns.

However, verbs often agree with at least one participant, usually the Subject; and so, if verbs agree with their subjects' number they could be said to have Singular forms, and if verbs agree with their subjects' gender they could be said to have Neuter forms.

Also, you can derive verbal nouns or deverbal nouns from verbs. If you do that, are you saying those are always neuter and nominative and singular?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Every word in Aalmok is neuter unless it has the masculine or feminine ending added to it. Gender distinction doesn't really continue in plural, though if the need for specificity is there, one can add the masculine/feminine ending followed by the plural ending. Verbs only agree in person and number. Adjectives agree in number, gender, and case. Adverbs have no agreement: they are positioned directly after the thing they modify.

A new verb being made would have to end in _on and so could be turned into a noun simply by removing that ending.

eldin raigmore wrote:
If one of your conspeakers would like to derive a verb from a non-neuter noun, what do they do instead?


Could you give an example of when someone might want to do that?


eldin raigmore wrote:
Also, you can derive verbal nouns or deverbal nouns from verbs. If you do that, are you saying those are always neuter and nominative and singular?


What exactly is the difference between those noun types?
Yes.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LingoDingo wrote:
Every word in Aalmok is neuter unless it has the masculine or feminine ending added to it.

OK. An L2-student reading your grammar would need to know that, I think.


LingoDingo wrote:
Gender distinction doesn't really continue in plural, though if the need for specificity is there, one can add the masculine/feminine ending followed by the plural ending.

So I had gathered.


LingoDingo wrote:
Verbs only agree in person and number.
Adjectives agree in number, gender, and case.
Adverbs have no agreement: they are positioned directly after the thing they modify.

Good to know, and relevant to the discussion up 'til now, I think.


LingoDingo wrote:
A new verb being made would have to end in _on and so could be turned into a noun simply by removing that ending.

Hmm.
Are you sure?
Can you give some examples?
What would that noun then mean?
An instance of verbing (action nominalization)?
Someone or something who verbs (agent nominalization)?
Someone or something that gets verbed (patient nominalization)?
A tool used for verbing with (instrument nominalization)?
Or what?


LingoDingo wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
If one of your conspeakers would like to derive a verb from a non-neuter noun, what do they do instead?
Could you give an example of when someone might want to do that?

If "man" is masculine, what would "to make a man out of" something or someone be?
What would "masculinize" be?
What would "act like a man" be?
What would "do to s/o or s/t what a man would do" be?
What would "treat s/o or s/t as if it/they were a man" be?

Similarly, if "woman" were feminine, what would "make a woman of", "feminize", "act like a woman", etc. be?

If "dog" isn't neuter, what would "treat like a dog", "act like a dog", etc. be?

LingoDingo wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
Also, you can derive verbal nouns or deverbal nouns from verbs.
What exactly is the difference between those noun types?

As you probably know, they're kinds of nouns derived from verbs.
The difference is:
A verbal noun (e.g. infinitives and gerunds) still retains some characteristics of a verb; for instance, maybe it can take an object.
A deverbal noun OTOH retains no characteristics of a verb, but acts entirely like a noun and has all the characteristics of a noun.

This kind of terminology goes for any part-of-speech derived from any other part-of-speech.
There are verbal adjectives (participles) and deverbal adjectives.
I imagine there probably are verbal adverbs and deverbal adverbs.
There are nominal verbs and denominal verbs; nominal adjectives and denominal adjectives; and there are denominal adverbs, and FAIK there are nominal adverbs too.
There are adjectival verbs and deadjectival verbs; deadjectival adverbs and probably adjectival adverbs; adjectival nouns and deadjectival nouns.

You should look them up to find examples; I doubt there's an example of each in English, and FAIK no single language contains an example of each.

See the following searches, for instance, and follow the hits that look good:
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deadjectival
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=denominal
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deverbal

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deadjectival+adjectives
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=denominal+adjectives
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deverbal+adjectives
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=nominal+adjectives
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=verbal+adjectives

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=verbal+adpositions

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deadjectival+adverbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=denominal+adverbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deverbal+adverbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=nominal+adverbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=verbal+adverbs

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deadjectival+nouns
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deverbal+nouns
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=adjectival+nouns
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=verbal+nouns

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deadjectival+verbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=denominal+verbs

[EDIT]:
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=adjectival+verbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=adverbial+verbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=prepositional+verbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=verbal+verbs

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=deprepositional
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=prepositional+adjectives
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=prepositional+adverbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=prepositional+verbs
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?q=verbal+prepositions

http://hnk.ffzg.hr/bibl/lrec2004/pdf/633.pdf
[/EDIT]

and so on.


LingoDingo wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
If you do that, are you saying those are always neuter and nominative and singular?
Yes.

Good! Thanks.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission


Last edited by eldin raigmore on Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eldin raigmore wrote:
An instance of verbing (action nominalization)?
Someone or something who verbs (agent nominalization)?
Someone or something that gets verbed (patient nominalization)?
A tool used for verbing with (instrument nominalization)?


bokon - to hit/run into

bok - hit, impact, collision

bokis - hitting, running into
bokď - hitter, one who hits, impacter (humans only)
bokauw - one who is hit, hit person (humans only)
bokek - thing used for hitting (non-humans only)

eldin raigmore wrote:
If "man" is masculine, what would "to make a man out of" something or someone be?
What would "masculinize" be?
What would "act like a man" be?
What would "do to s/o or s/t what a man would do" be?
What would "treat s/o or s/t as if it/they were a man" be?

Similarly, if "woman" were feminine, what would "make a woman of", "feminize", "act like a woman", etc. be?

If "dog" isn't neuter, what would "treat like a dog", "act like a dog", etc. be?


pacon aanon nataď aďda - to make a man out of (lit. to cause to be so.[acc] man[dat])
pabunon - to masculinize (lit. to make-male)
deenon mi aďda - to act like a man (lit. to do/act like man[dat])
I don't have a way to express the subjunctive mood yet
inaakon nataď mi aďda - (lit. to treat so.[acc] like man[dat])

pacon aanon nataď aďde
panimon
deenon mi aďde
inaakon nataď mi aďde

Dog is neuter.
inaakon nataď mi wfze
deenon mi wfze

eldin raigmore wrote:
As you probably know, they're kinds of nouns derived from verbs.
The difference is:
A verbal noun (e.g. infinitives and gerunds) still retains some characteristics of a verb; for instance, maybe it can take an object.
A deverbal noun OTOH retains no characteristics of a verb, but acts entirely like a noun and has all the characteristics of a noun...


Thanks for the info =]
I'll have a look at those as I can.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTW I left out "to become a man", "to become a woman", "to become a dog".
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eldin raigmore wrote:
BTW I left out "to become a man", "to become a woman", "to become a dog".


iňgon aďgu/aďki/wf.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LingoDingo wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
BTW I left out "to become a man", "to become a woman", "to become a dog".


iňgon aďgu/aďki/wf.


I really like wf for dog.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That was actually the accusative for it, though I'm thinking that I'd rather use the Nominative with iňgon, which would make it: iňgon aďun/aďim/wf.

I picked wf because I've been trying to name animals somewhat by their sound.
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got a verb conjugation that I like for the subjunctive mood now.

It's quite simple: just as _iy_ to the stem and conjugate normal for each tense. I feel like this conjugation should be more widely used than in the languages I'm familiar with. Anytime the action is hypothetical it should be conjugated in the subjunctive mood.

For the phrase I couldn't do before:
deenon ci nataďze/naspkze( u/i/a aďun/aďim/wf deeniyai)
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You might use it for all subordinate clauses.

"Subjunctive mood" is a proper label to choose for a mood when (one of) its (main) uses/meanings is for (most) subordinate clauses.

If (one of) a mood's (main) uses/meanings is that the clause its verb is in is hypothetical, then "Hypothetical mood" is a proper label to choose for that mood.

If (one of) a mood's (main) uses/meanings is that the clause its verb is in is doubtful (or doubted by the speaker, or the speaker intends to communicate that it is open to doubt), then "Dubitative mood" is a proper label to choose for that mood.

If either the protasis or the apodosis of a conditional sentence ("if protasis clause then apodosis clause") is usually marked by a particular mood, and that is (one of) that mood's (main) uses/meanings, then "Conditional mood" is a proper label to choose for that mood.

A language could have more than one conditional mood. Perhaps it has one for the protasis and a different one for the apodosis. Perhaps it has a realis conditional mood and an irrealis conditional mood. Or perhaps it has one mood for the apodosis when the protasis is realis, and a different mood for the apodosis when the protasis is irrealis.

Likewise a language could have more than one subjunctive mood. There are various ways and reasons that a clause could be subordinate to another clause, and various functions and meanings such a subordinate clause could have. Perhaps there are more than one mood, one for some such functions and meanings and ways and reasons, one for some others, and (maybe) so on.
For instance, you might have one for adjunct clauses (clause "used as if they were adverbs") and another for relative clauses (clauses "used as if they were adjectives").
Also, a purpose-clause is a different kind of adjunt clause than an adjunct clause that further specifies the tense-or-aspect-or-mood of the main clause (misnamed a TAM-"relative" clause, such as "while ..." or "as often as ..." or "as surely as ..."). They might have different kinds of subjunctive moods.

It has often been said that the major division in moods is between the realis ones and the irrealis ones. You might want to decide which of your moods are realis and which are irrealis; and for each mood you might want to decide if there should be a "mirror-image mood with the other kind of reality" (i.e., for each realis mood would it be good to have a matching irrealis mood? and vice-versa, for each irrealis mood would it be good to have a matching realis mood?)

You should also consider modalities, modes, and moods, based on the speech-act; declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory.

And remember there's a difference between:
alethic modalities/modes/moods (how true it is -- necessarily true, possibly true, or just happens to be true);
deontic modalities/modes/moods (how obligatory or optional it is -- one must do it, one is allowed to do it, or one just happens to do it);
and epistemic modalities/modes/moods (how sure the speaker is -- quite certain, merely open to the possibility or willing to entertain as a working hypothesis, or just happens to believe it but wouldn't be too taken aback to learn otherwise).

Note that my above "descriptions" or "definitions" are not necessarily exact or strict or sharp or commonly accepted by very many professional linguists or conlangers.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LingoDingo
Admin


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 100
Location: Eastern US

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All I can say assuredly is that this mood represents the concept behind would+verb in English. Perhaps I'll put in more infixes to represent the other concepts but for now the other irrealis moods will have to be expressed like in English.

On another note. The unabridged dictionary is a slow-going process to make. I could post my approximations list but some of the translations might need explanation (I tried to make the definitions as clear as I could). Some others can have other relatively easily inferred translations. It also does not include all of the definitions for the suffixes, but there are a couple examples to illustrate the concept of many of them.
I'd actually like to do it fairly soon and see if you guys would like to test Aalmok and see if there's any improvements I can glean a need for, or if there's any other concepts I have for it that need to be explained.

Is that something we might be interested in?
_________________
Fluent or nearly fluent in: English, German, Japanese
Mildly capable in: Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese

Constructed Languages: Aalsen, Aalmok Repurpose, Samamisu

.aď sodai peťs soks na asn;usts buntai mok aaťal. - One never truly knows a culture until they learn its language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleks Forum Index -> Conlangs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Theme ACID 2003 par HEDONISM Web Hosting Directory


Start Your Own Video Sharing Site

Free Web Hosting | Free Forum Hosting | FlashWebHost.com | Image Hosting | Photo Gallery | FreeMarriage.com

Powered by PhpBBweb.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com