Originality Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #23259
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
  
    
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-02 19:45
|
 |
| Politics: Communist |
Country: Titan |
|
| Newspeak language major affixes |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
**Before I fell asleep, I hurriedly wrote on my writing pad "I have ___ antenow." Now that I have the time to think about it, I propose a Newspeak system of tenses.
All words listed in Newspeak will, by default, be present tense. If "had" will take the place of "have", then "had" will MEAN "have". To say "I once had money," you must say, "I had money antenow." Since ante- means "before", it's an effective way to show past tense. To create a future tense, simply use "postnow". I think it's very Newspeakish.**
Edited: After taking a closer look at the Newspeak Appendix, I've made a compilation of various affixes which were explicitly mentioned:
-ed is used to form a preterite (past tense)
-ful is used to form an adjective
-wise is used to form an adverb
-s/-es is used to form a plural word
-er/-est is used to form a comparison of adjectives, denoting importance
Other affixes such as "ante" or "post" were not included in the aforementioned list because they don't involve forming adjective, adverbial, or plural modifications.
The one major thing I'm missing is how to form a "future tense" in Newspeak. I've considered using "-ing", or choosing a common English affix to take the place of a future tense. Since Orwell did not discuss future tenses in Newspeak, I'm at a loss. Does anyone have any ideas?
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker.
Last edited by Mephistopheles on Wed 2006-05-03 03:01; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23260
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
    
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-02 19:49
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Unless my memory has failed me, I think I got the impression from the novel that Orwell simply intended to make all verbs regular verbs, thus simplifying the language, but not getting rid of tenses. So the past tense of "have" would be "haved".
I seriously don't know whether I read this or invented it, but I think it fits newspeak very well.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #23267
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-02 21:49
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
Unless my memory has failed me, I think I got the impression from the novel that Orwell simply intended to make all verbs regular verbs, thus simplifying the language, but not getting rid of tenses. So the past tense of "have" would be "haved".
I seriously don't know whether I read this or invented it, but I think it fits newspeak very well. |
I certainly seem to remember that the appendix specifically mensions that Newspeak was a startling regular language in terms of its verb tenses.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23312
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-05-03 08:33
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
To get together a list of the tenses, we would probably have to decide first how to conjugate "be". This is difficult to use as a regular verb. How would you do it?
I guess it would be neccessary to decide on one form covering all person.... so would it be "I am" (oldspeak), "I are", "I is" or even "I be"? Only then could you take it from there to past tense and so on. (I ared/I were?, I beed?  gah, it all sounds so terrible....) I don't particularly like raping the English language, but do you understand what I mean? Exceptions just can't be made.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #23315
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #23343
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-05-03 17:58
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
To get together a list of the tenses, we would probably have to decide first how to conjugate "be". This is difficult to use as a regular verb. How would you do it?
I guess it would be neccessary to decide on one form covering all person.... so would it be "I am" (oldspeak), "I are", "I is" or even "I be"? Only then could you take it from there to past tense and so on. (I ared/I were?, I beed? gah, it all sounds so terrible....) I don't particularly like raping the English language, but do you understand what I mean? Exceptions just can't be made. |
"I be" seems to be fairly easy to say.
The past tense would be "I been", the perfect tense would be "to be", the future tense "I will be" and the present tense "I being".
For verbs, the standard form (except for deviations- see the Appendix for a guide on this) could be:
(The example is the verb "to drink")
I drinking (present tense)
I drinked (past tense)
To drink (perfect tense)
I will drink (future tense)
It's actually pretty simple. Most English verbs are fairly regular, and it's more a matter of making individual verb tenses regular as opposed to inventing anything new.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23345
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-05-03 18:06
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| OOTF wrote: |
| The past tense would be "I been", the perfect tense would be "to be", the future tense "I will be" and the present tense "I being". |
I been? That would be irregular too, though, if every other verb's past tense ends on "-ed".....
| Quote: |
| To drink (perfect tense) |
As far as I know, that's the infinitive. Present perfect would be "I have drinked", past perfect "I haved drinked".....nice. Very newspeakish  .
I also wonder whether both simple and progressive forms should be kept. By the way, shouldn't
| Quote: |
I drinking (present tense) |
be "I be drinking"? Or did you intend to change the grammatical structures?
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #23347
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-05-03 18:15
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
| OOTF wrote: |
| The past tense would be "I been", the perfect tense would be "to be", the future tense "I will be" and the present tense "I being". |
I been? That would be irregular too, though, if every other verb's past tense ends on "-ed"..... |
Good point. 
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To drink (perfect tense) |
As far as I know, that's the infinitive. Present perfect would be "I have drinked", past perfect "I haved drinked".....nice. Very newspeakish . |
Again, I completely messed up here. That is indeed the infinitive.
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
| I also wonder whether both simple and progressive forms should be kept. |
I'm not too sure either. I can't think immediately of any stipulation by Orwell for either.
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
By the way, shouldn't
| Quote: |
| I drinking (present tense) |
be "I be drinking"? Or did you intend to change the grammatical structures? |
Well, the grammatical structure could be simplified. I think I was just wondering of ways to make things require as little thought as possible. The "be" there wouldn't seem necessary to a Newspeaker, I think.
Fortunately, Orwell wasn't German, and I don't have to be thinking about three different gender forms. Two is bad enough; one of ideal, in my opinion. 
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23560
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-05-04 20:33
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Conjugation of "to be":
simple present: I be
present progressive: I being
simple past: I been/beed(?)
past progressive: I been being
present perfect: I have been
present perfect progressive: I have (been) being
past perfect: I haved been
past perfect progressive: I haved (been) being
I am not sure whether we should go with "been" or "beed" for past tense. "Beed" would be sticking to the verb's newly founded regularity, but been definitely sounds nicer and is easier to say. Thus we could just choose it as a given form; after all, Orwell also suggested taking words that are easy to say (crimethink instead of thinkcrime). Although this would also mean that "had" would stay...because it is much easier to say.....oh shit.
Anyway:
Conjugation of "to have"
simple present: I have
present progressive: I having
simple past: I haved
past progressive: I been having
present perfect: I have haved
present perfect progressive: I have (been) having
past perfect: I haved haved
past perfect progressive: I haved (been) having
I need help on whether to keep the "been" in the progressive forms of present perfect and past perfect, or if any progressive forms should indeed be destroyed.
Hope you like it so far.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #23593
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-05-04 21:44
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
I need help on whether to keep the "been" in the progressive forms of present perfect and past perfect, or if any progressive forms should indeed be destroyed.
Hope you like it so far. |
I think that "been" should really stay. It isn't a threat, and isn't worth the time to eliminate it. Plus, as you noted, it is much easier to say.
It looks like it's coming along very nicely. It's strange to see one's own language deconstructed, especially after doing the same thing to so many other languages.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23605
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-05-04 22:06
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I noticed that I have forgotten the future tenses.
future tense:
I will be
I will have
the other future tense (forgotten the term for it):
I will have been
I will have haved
Is the second one still necessary? The Party could definitely use it....this and this will have happened...shows the inevitability of it all...
I would like to abolish the "going to"-future. We were always taught that the will-future is a more certain way of expressing an intention, and that's all Ingsoc needs. Vagueness in ungoodthinkful.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23626
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-05-04 22:40
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| Adjectives and Adverbs |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Oldspeak - Newspeak
adjective: good - good
better - gooder
best - goodest
adverb: well - goodful goodwise
goodfuller (?)
goodfullest (?) (nonexistent)
same:
bad - ungood, ungooder, ungoodest, ungoodful, ungoodfuller, ungoodfullest.
And of course, for more emphasis: plus-, or doubleplus-
Strictly, it would have to be "goodwise" "goodful", but then again, -wise probably only affects adjectives nonexistent in oldspeak, for example when made out of a noun - let's say...."warwise" for 'in the fashion of a war' or 'hostile' or whatever. This would be a new term, but could, for example, be a substitute for a word like "hostile" (this is just an example, don't get upset about the definition). As I remember, one of Orwell's goals with Newspeak was to have a noun, verb and an adjective/adverb for every root word.
Edit: -wise is the ending for adverbs. I'm sorry but I got mixed up. Strictly, good would have to be "goodful". I think this is acceptable. This post is messed up. I'll have to do over.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle.
Last edited by 2+2=5 on Fri 2006-05-05 20:06; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23659
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-05-05 00:21
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
By changing "be", we would naturally change the passive as well.
simple present - I be vaporized
present progressive - I being vaporized
simple past - I been vaporized
past progressive - I been being vaporized
present perfect - I have been vaporized
present perfect progressive - I have been being vaporized
(not sure about that one :/)
past perfect - I haved been vaporized
past perfect progressive - I haved been being vaporized
future tense - I will be vaporized
second future - I will have been vaporized
As you can see, it gets a little complicated with the progressive forms - one of the reasons why it could be of use to get rid of them, or at least abandon the use of progressive forms in every tense but the present (who needs "I haved been being vaporized" anyway?).
In time, it could also be considered putting the passive itself out of use. After all, Newspeak is about simplifying languague and everything that can be said in a passive sentence can also be said in an active sentence.
Then again, the passive allows you to leave out the person "committing" the action, which could be useful to the Party. "The man was vaporized" would sound better than "Ingsoc vaporized the man"....but then no one would ever say that.......oh just tell me what you think.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle.
Last edited by 2+2=5 on Fri 2006-05-05 19:57; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23670
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-05-05 00:39
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I'd be glad to help anytime. I've already been trying to think of what's left besides all the tenses, passive, adjectives and adverbs......I guess there's things like conditional and if-clauses, other subclauses and the like. If you think of anything specific, please tell me.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #23672
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23676
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-05-05 00:54
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Will do. Tomorrow. I'm going to bed to rest my sunburn now.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23760
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-05-05 19:56
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| Correction |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
By consulting my English grammar book, I have learnt that there are no passive forms of present and past perfect progressive. I thought it didn't sound right and now I know why. I will change the post containing these false forms.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23761
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-05-05 20:13
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| Adjectives and Adverbs - Second Attempt |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Oldspeak: "good"
adjective:
good* (plusgood, doubleplusgood)
goodfuller
goodfullest
adverb: goodwise
"bad"
adjective:
ungood* (plusungood, doubleplusungood)
ungoodfuller
ungoodfullest
adverb: ungoodwise
*an experienced newspeaker should also be allowed to use "goodful" (I would have put it like that, but I found "good" and "ungood" in the novel...)
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23765
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-05-05 20:46
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| Mixed bag of grammar |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
(1) If-clauses would change in accordance with the modifications of verbs I have suggested.
Examples:
Type I: If Oceania wins the war, Ingsoc will control the world.
Type II: If Ingsoc been a friendly Party, Winston would not die. (improbable)
Type III: If the Brotherhood haved existed, the Book would have been authentic. (impossible)
It sounds wrong, you would have to get used to it.
And yet again, there's the question: Does Ingsoc even need if-clauses? If-clause type II is often used to express wishes, hopes or indirect complaints. Is this a manner of speech that Ingsoc would like its followers to use?
If-clauses type III are even more unneccessary. It seems there are only very few cases in which a Party member would use this kind of sentence. If the action has already taken place, what use is there in thinking about how it could have been if it had been different? Moreover, the Party controls the truth, Minitrue tells you what has happened and what not. There is no point in talking about it. Makes sense?
(2) Modal auxiliaries
can (could), may (might), shall (should) and must would be very difficult to transform into regular verbs. I'm open for suggestions as to how I should solve the problem. One could, of course, simply abolish could, might and should, because Ingsoc does not like to deal with eventualities and politeness, but with facts. Hmm....
(3) I was thinking of taking the 's' off the verb forms for he, she and it....but I think I won't go there.
(4) Prepositions are often confusing. We should consider getting rid of rare prepositions and keep only the most important. ( not sure about this, though, because I can't think of examples right now)
| Loki wrote: |
| Then I hereby assign you to be the Leader of the Newspeak Tenses Sub-Committee of the Newspeak Dictionary Committee. Mr. Green |
I hope I'm not the only member of the committee.  I need a little help.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #23769
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-05-05 21:04
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: Titan |
|
| Re: Mixed bag of grammar |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
(1) If-clauses would change in accordance with the modifications of verbs I have suggested.
Examples:
Type I: If Oceania wins the war, Ingsoc will control the world.
Type II: If Ingsoc been a friendly Party, Winston would not die. (improbable)
Type III: If the Brotherhood haved existed, the Book would have been authentic. (impossible)
It sounds wrong, you would have to get used to it.
And yet again, there's the question: Does Ingsoc even need if-clauses? If-clause type II is often used to express wishes, hopes or indirect complaints. Is this a manner of speech that Ingsoc would like its followers to use?
If-clauses type III are even more unneccessary. It seems there are only very few cases in which a Party member would use this kind of sentence. If the action has already taken place, what use is there in thinking about how it could have been if it had been different? Moreover, the Party controls the truth, Minitrue tells you what has happened and what not. There is no point in talking about it. Makes sense?
(2) Modal auxiliaries
can (could), may (might), shall (should) and must would be very difficult to transform into regular verbs. I'm open for suggestions as to how I should solve the problem. One could, of course, simply abolish could, might and should, because Ingsoc does not like to deal with eventualities and politeness, but with facts. Hmm....
(3) I was thinking of taking the 's' off the verb forms for he, she and it....but I think I won't go there.
(4) Prepositions are often confusing. We should consider getting rid of rare prepositions and keep only the most important. ( not sure about this, though, because I can't think of examples right now)
| Loki wrote: |
| Then I hereby assign you to be the Leader of the Newspeak Tenses Sub-Committee of the Newspeak Dictionary Committee. Mr. Green |
I hope I'm not the only member of the committee. I need a little help. |
I think "if" would still ne necessary. Since "if" could be used unorthodoxly (If BB dies..) it has to be strictly defined, something I intend to work on. But, "if" is still necessary in sentences like this:
I. Oceania will conquer Africa if the Eurasians are destroyed.
Basically in the exact same context as your first example up there.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23774
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-05-05 21:13
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Loki wrote: |
I think "if" would still ne necessary. Since "if" could be used unorthodoxly (If BB dies..) it has to be strictly defined, something I intend to work on. But, "if" is still necessary in sentences like this:
I. Oceania will conquer Africa if the Eurasians are destroyed.
Basically in the exact same context as your first example up there. |
That's exactly what I was saying. Your example is a type I if-clause. I was only proposing to get rid of improbable and impossible if-clauses (type II and III).
By the way: ".....if the Eurasians be destroyed." Read my posts.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #23777
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #23873
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-05-06 23:15
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| I wrote: |
(2) Modal auxiliaries
can (could), may (might), shall (should) and must would be very difficult to transform into regular verbs. I'm open for suggestions as to how I should solve the problem. One could, of course, simply abolish could, might and should, because Ingsoc does not like to deal with eventualities and politeness, but with facts. Hmm.... |
Nobody seems to have an opinion on this. In fact, nobody except Loki seems to have an opinion on any of my suggestions.
Anyway: I have just decided to get rid of could, might and should. They're words for sissies. A Party member does not need them. I realize I may be rushing into this, because I haven't really thought about what disadvantages it could have. But my first impression is that Newspeak doesn't need those eventuality-maybe-polite-whatever forms. There. 
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #23928
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-05-07 07:12
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: Titan |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
| I wrote: |
(2) Modal auxiliaries
can (could), may (might), shall (should) and must would be very difficult to transform into regular verbs. I'm open for suggestions as to how I should solve the problem. One could, of course, simply abolish could, might and should, because Ingsoc does not like to deal with eventualities and politeness, but with facts. Hmm.... |
Nobody seems to have an opinion on this. In fact, nobody except Loki seems to have an opinion on any of my suggestions.
Anyway: I have just decided to get rid of could, might and should. They're words for sissies. A Party member does not need them. I realize I may be rushing into this, because I haven't really thought about what disadvantages it could have. But my first impression is that Newspeak doesn't need those eventuality-maybe-polite-whatever forms. There. |
To be honest, I seem to be the only one, including you, who is even interested enough to contribute towards a formation of Newspeak. Oh well, more glory to us then. And glory does taste good.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #24004
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-05-07 19:39
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Sweden |
|
| Re: Mixed bag of grammar |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Loki wrote: |
| Oceania will conquer Africa if the Eurasians are destroyed. |
I'm tempted to agree with 2+2=5; it's an interesting idea to remove doubt in a language. The example you provide could be rewritten in this manner: Oceania will conquer Africa when the Eurasians be destroyed.
I'm sorry that I haven't contributed to this thread, because I haven't had anything to contribute with really. Basically, I agree with every principle you have presented and I follow the progress with interest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #24237
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-09 02:01
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: Titan |
|
| Re: Mixed bag of grammar |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Loki wrote: |
| Oceania will conquer Africa if the Eurasians are destroyed. |
I'm tempted to agree with 2+2=5; it's an interesting idea to remove doubt in a language. The example you provide could be rewritten in this manner: Oceania will conquer Africa when the Eurasians be destroyed.
I'm sorry that I haven't contributed to this thread, because I haven't had anything to contribute with really. Basically, I agree with every principle you have presented and I follow the progress with interest. |
You make a good point; "when" can cover the context of "if", and other words can also cover "if", removing a word which, in essence, is "doubt". I'm naming OOTF as a Co-Leader of the Grammar Subcommittee of the Newspeak Dictionary Committee, along with 2+2=5. Since they're more active than you, IO, I'd like you to be an Editor of this Subcommittee. If you wish to perform a more active role, feel free. Titles must reflect the merit of each Comrade!
Should anyone else wish to be named to the Committee, speak with me, or your contributions will go unheard.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #24257
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-09 15:20
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
This is a very interesting, and indeed, important part of the novel for Newspeak:
| George Orwell wrote: |
He unrolled the message that he had set aside earlier. It ran:
times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
In Oldspeak (or standard English) this might be rendered:
The reporting of Big Brother's Order for the Day in the Times of December 3rd 1983 is extremely unsatisfactory and makes references to nenexistent persons. Rewrite it in full and submit your draft to higher authority before filing. |
I had this in mind when I was thinking about my prepositions problem. I wrongly assumed that "refs unpersons" meant as much as "refers to unpersons", when indeed it says "makes references to". But really, it's not that big of a difference, is it? I wanted to take this example to support my suggestion of getting rid of unneccessary prepositions. If we take "refers to unpersons", in Newspeak it would simply be "refers unpersons". I also thought about taking the abbreviation as a whole word, meaning "refer" would be shortened to "ref". i don't know how Orwell intended this, because the orders Winston receives are obviously full of abbreviations, and yet it is quite probable that Newspeak would require a lot of words to be shortened in this manner.
Please assist.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #24267
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-09 20:39
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Sweden |
|
| Re: Mixed bag of grammar |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Loki wrote: |
| I'm naming OOTF as a Co-Leader of the Grammar Subcommittee of the Newspeak Dictionary Committee, along with 2+2=5. Since they're more active than you, IO, I'd like you to be an Editor of this Subcommittee. If you wish to perform a more active role, feel free. |
Acknowledged. I think I only will apply for the title MiniTrue Observer, though. I'll limit my involvement to suggestions and comments whenever your work doesn't correspond with the Party ideology. After all, I'm already the Leader of the Code of Conduct Committee (i.e the Beginner's FAQ) and the Party Nomenklatura Committee (i.e. the Current Party Hierarchy), and last, but certainly not least, officer in Thinkpol together with carldiesturmer, under the watching eye of BB (i.e. the moderator squad). I have to focus on a limited number of offices, or I won't be able to serve the Party blindly and effectively.
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Tue 2006-05-09 20:54; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #24270
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-09 20:51
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: Titan |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
This is a very interesting, and indeed, important part of the novel for Newspeak:
| George Orwell wrote: |
He unrolled the message that he had set aside earlier. It ran:
times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
In Oldspeak (or standard English) this might be rendered:
The reporting of Big Brother's Order for the Day in the Times of December 3rd 1983 is extremely unsatisfactory and makes references to nenexistent persons. Rewrite it in full and submit your draft to higher authority before filing. |
I had this in mind when I was thinking about my prepositions problem. I wrongly assumed that "refs unpersons" meant as much as "refers to unpersons", when indeed it says "makes references to". But really, it's not that big of a difference, is it? I wanted to take this example to support my suggestion of getting rid of unneccessary prepositions. If we take "refers to unpersons", in Newspeak it would simply be "refers unpersons". I also thought about taking the abbreviation as a whole word, meaning "refer" would be shortened to "ref". i don't know how Orwell intended this, because the orders Winston receives are obviously full of abbreviations, and yet it is quite probable that Newspeak would require a lot of words to be shortened in this manner.
Please assist. |
"Makes references to" and "refers to unpersons" is the same exact thing, 2+2. When I catalog the entire English language, I'll begin to work on abbreviating words. Rectify will become "rect", "department becomes "dep", and so on and so on. I'm waiting to abbreviate so I don't come into conflict with words which might look the same, and cause confusion.
Newspeak does seem to imply that sentences are as short as possible, and that "refs unpersons" is correct Newspeak. Putting in "refs to unpersons" is simply a waste of words.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #24584
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-05-15 18:47
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| The Genitive |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
This one is for Ingsoc Officer. After having reminded myself of his question about the genitive in IO's English Corner, I have decided to let only one genitive form make it through to Newspeak. I suggest this to be the 's genitive, as it is easier and shorter, thus destroying the of genitive. Would that work or are there cases where you still need of?
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
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
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
