#objective verbs

[ubese-language-databank]

Ia-tocha! Can you please tell me all you can about Ubese insults?

Ia-tocha! There are many expressions in Ubese which are considered derogatory or otherwise rude.

Yag-b_, as we've covered, refers to someone of impure breeding. Even with the cha suffix, it is considered vulgar (though there's not usually a context in which the cha suffix would be attached to this word anyway.) Bagy_ means to breed improperly, such as with an animal or with a blood relative.

Ishgy_ means to be banished, to be exiled, to be cast out. Banishment from Uba IV is a severe punishment in Ubese law. To use it without the cha suffix strongly implies you are wishing it on someone rather than merely discussing it.

Dizch_ means to make a mistake, to mess up, to do something clumsy. When referring to a small or understandable mistake, the cha suffix is applied. Otherwise, it is used as a rebuke or ridicule.

Chu-d_ is very similar, but more versatile. Its literal meaning is "to cover something in waste." It can refer to a boss ruining a good idea, a person criticizing a holofilm, a toddler destroying a room, or a person making a ruinous and avoidable mistake. Chut_ refers to a person, object or concept that is "covered in waste." Chut_ can describe rude people, malfunctioning droids, bad holofilms, or botched operations.

Ei, uto. Zibo-cha!

[bananonbinary]

a quickly growing pet peeve of mine: gerunds and participles being used as complete sentences. eg, "Feeling like he was drowning." that's not a sentence, it's a phrase. there isnt even a subject. the verb isnt even acting as a verb. i dont even really get why this is such a common issue, it's an incredibly easy fix to just add a subject and change the verb so its actually working as a verb, like "He felt like he was drowning." even "he was feeling like he was drowning," while a bit clunky, is at least grammatically correct.

idk if its actually becoming a more common problem or if i'm just very suddenly aware of it, but i just saw that shit in a wikipedia article of all places and its driving me crazy.

[triglycercule]

k1ll_sans instead of being killer's literal name in the files could be more symbolic of a command the player executes on him (kill, sans. kill them pls :3)

[dommingjeffsatur]

Chinese class can be very frustrating bc we've been over this very easy grammar topic like every other weel this semester but people keep forgetting it and so my teacher keeps complaining and i keep being bored

[camthecatchameleon]

part of me thinks yes! more Normal™ names picked by trans people! yes kathryn yes abigail yes thomas! slay!

and then another part of me (evil) says yeeesssssssss... yesss more Pretentious™ trans names....... yes bartholemous... yes philomena...

[katierosefun]

actually sometimes i wonder if going to law school has made me a worse writer bc like. why the fuck are we writing like that. what happened to normal grammar. this sentence is too goddamn long. JUST SPLIT IT INTO TWO SENTENCES? CHRIST ALIVE?

[lesbianwyllravengard]

I just love coming back to a fic and finding an unfinished sentence so that I have to try to remember what the fuck I was talking about. past me is so smart and nicesies

[doodlebeeberry]

Can you tell us about the structural quirk? Im interested!

YAY im so glad you asked! i hope your ready for several paragraphs of object show conlang silly stuff annon.

this got pretty long so i put it under a readmore. i also added a couple doodle is there for fun and to hopefully make some of it a little clearer hehe

(btw this ask is in reference to my notes on this abt a quirk with a word i used in the drawing)

So! Something of relevance to keep in mind about Roadspeak, as ive taken to calling it, is its function in the world of fwd: itself. in-universe it is kind of similar to something like Esperanto, both being kinda constructed languages that arent spoken by any one country or group as a main language (nor are they meant to be). The creation process for both, though, was different. While Esperanto was created explicitly for the purpose of being a lingua franca (or universal second language, if you prefer) Roadspeak, despite becoming one, uh, wasn't.

It developed among traders, travelers, merchants and similar groups as a means of bridging gaps in communication between both customers and peers when out on the road. This is where the name Roadspeak comes from--its the speak of the road! it is a very clever name i know.

(in particular, it formed by means of just...smashing languages together and jumbling up their sounds, words, and grammatical rules. into a big melting pot of mess. not going into detail on this for brevity's sake but it makes for some Mess lol)

As such, Roadspeak is considered first and foremost a language of travel and commerce. Though its used for many, many other things now, thats is what its purpose was and is deep deep down at its core, which gets reflected in its vocab and rules. One particular quirk is in the way some verbs are sort-of conjugated.

See, Roadspeak is a gender neutral language (as objects in fwd dont have genders) as well as an object-type neutral one. Rather, verb forms are decided by the position and/or direction of the subject carrying out the verb relative to the direct object, or the tlaow and lors as they call it. usually this is done by using one or two prefixes slapped onto the base/non-finite verb.

the tlaow (position) comes first and is also generally the less important one. you pull from a different prefix set depending on what your direct object is: if its a person/animal/inanimate thing, youd use something more like below, above, left, right, in front, so on. for a place though you use cardinal directions like north/south/east/west while concepts like numbers or thoughts are exempt from tlaow conjugation all together. some dialects of roadspeak kinda just forgo the tlaow entirely sometimes, this one is a liiiitle be optional, but still get used and taught.

the lors (direction) comes second. Unlike tlaow, this only pulls from one set of prefixes regardless of what the object is: forwards, backwards, sideways, around, upwards, and downwards. this is also seen as more of a requirement when conjugating in most applicable circumstances.

Its worth noting that not all verbs get conjugated on the basis of tlaow and lors. Generally this only applies to action verbs, and only ones that are viewed as being more physical, for lack of better term, or as occurring in a direction as a necessity. run, jump, fall, reach, grab, dance, all these kinds of words would be conjugated. think, sing, blink, dream, sell (sometimes), be, words like this dont really need to be conjugated. you still can, but its not ungrammatical or anything.

as an example, look at the sentence "Sweet sits with Mp3."

plopping this into Roadspeak's structure, you'd need to figure out what sweet's position is relative to mp3, and what direction she moved when she sat. if she sat down alongside them, (and also noting that, in roadspeak, the position of the subject and object are flipped in a sentence) then the sentence would literally translate to "Mp3 beside-downwards-sits Sweet". Meanwhile, if she sits up in front of them, it would be "Mp3 front-upwards-sits Sweet". If all you know is that she sat down, though, then youd just say "Mp3 downwards-sits Sweetie".

does that make sense? I hope it does! heres another example, this time using actual Roadspeak:

(yes this is just the daily that spurned this ask lol)

the letters there read "jodit mi pavirrthol me!" with the verb in this case being "pavirrthol," or forward-give. "thol" means give, which is considered an tlaow/lors verb. When you present someone with something, you are giving it to them in a forward-facing, direct sense, so you would use "pavirr-" for the directional/lors. However, while the use of 'you' would imply the use of a tlaow prefix, theres no way for them to actually know what their position is relative to you when speaking here. Are they below you? in front? its impossible for them to know! so instead, the tlaow prefix is skipped entirely due to that lack of info. this leaves us with the word "pavirrthol" !

and thats the long and short of it! tldr: the quirk is that the word "pavirrthol" is conjugated on the basis of direction and position, but doesnt technically follow the formal rules required for doing so.

id rattle off more details, like the rest of the prefix list or contexts in which youd tlaow/lors conjugate non-directional verbs (like think) but i think this post has perhaps gone on long enough hehe.

[max1461]

Similarities between Japanese and Persian:

SOV word order

closed class of true verbs + heavy use of light verbs

-o as an accusative marker

lots of phonetic [ʃt] or [ɕt]

[chaoticbooklesbian]

I'm sick of being the subject of want. Why can't I be the object of it instead?

[ubese-language-databank]

Ubese Word of the Day— YEB

Example Usages

Yebat-cha. Connect those two wires, please. (to connect [3rd p. pl. inanimate]) lit., Connect those, please.

Os, yebeit-ga. I'm separating you until you can learn to get along. (you [pl. topical obj.] to connect [1st p. sg. neg.]) lit., I'm restricting your ability to connect.

Eis, yebush. Let us marry. (us [topical obj.] to bind [3rd p. sg. animate optative]) lit., Let us be joined together.

Yebaza. This is a power coupling. (to join together [3rd p. sg. inanimate descriptive])

[yoggybloggy]

i feel like ive been writing such boring sentences latelyyyyy how do i make my sentences more interesting

[verbjectives]

i'm so close to being done with cleaning my bedroom i might actually finish it tomorrow evening and i can get started on the spare room/craft room over the weekend yippee!

[slender-collector]

Collect nationalities, and start with the best😘

-@irishslenderman

oo with pride, sir! how should i go about collecting them?

[necromycologist]

also my condolences for latin class. i am similarly suffering. fuck purpose and result clauses. i do not know the difference and i cannot seem to learn

YEAH.. like on one hand i am learning so much about grammar which is cool. but on the otherhand. mannnn fuck these words

[coquelicoq]

the thing about the prescriptive grammar rules of written french from my perspective as a non-fluent reader is that they are very helpful to me in figuring out what a sentence means (e.g., if a participle does or does not end in -e or -s, it gives me an important and sometimes essential clue as to which noun the participle is related to). but the other, equally relevant thing about the prescriptive grammar rules of written french from my perspective as a non-fluent reader is that there are a lot of them and i do not always know what they are. lol.