Jump to content

JRRT

Premier Retired Staff
  • Posts

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by JRRT

  1. I've posted a few examples of texts in the Matoran language on this blog so far, and if you lurk elsewhere on the internet, you may have seen quite a few more. Most of these translations make use of a particular model of Matoran grammar, one that has undergone many alterations over the years. At this point, I thought it might be useful/interesting to share that grammar in its current state. So here's a basic overview—a cheatsheet, if you will. Have fun with it. ============================== Matoran Grammar: A Primer ============================== 1. Syntax I: Before getting into the nitty-gritty details of nouns, verbs, inflections/affixes, etc., here are some general principles governing how words are organized syntactically in Matoran. Keep these rules in mind as you encounter examples of clauses and other syntactic units in the following sections! - Rules for clauses #1: The verb goes last. That's basically the only rigid rule. #2: The subject goes first. #3: Object(s) go after the subject (but before the verb). The combination of these three rules yields the following overall syntactic pattern for clauses in Matoran: Subject – Object – Verb (SOV). - Other rules #4: A modifier (an adjective/adverb) that is placed before the unit it modifies will yield a concrete/physical meaning: nui – jaga "big scorpion" kofo – jaga "small scorpion" nui – rama "big flying-insect" #5: A modifier (an adjective/adverb) placed after the thing it modifies will yield an abstract/evaluative meaning: mata – nui "great spirit" rahi – nui "great Rahi" mana – ko "silent/still monster" ============================== 2. Verbs: Verbs are generally distinguished by the presence of a derivative suffix -ya or -kha attached to the stem. All other inflections are added after this suffix. Verbs are inflected for tense and negation, as well as aspect/mood (not discussed here). This section will also provide information on the formation of interrogative clauses (questions). - Tense Tense is marked on verbs by a series of suffixes added to the verbal complex, as follows: Past: -nu Present: -pa/-po (optional) Future: -ko Examples (check Section 6 for a glossary with full definitions—all words used in examples are marked with * in the wordlist): (1) Matoran voya-nu. "The Matoran went/travelled." (2) Toa zya(-pa). "The Toa attacks." (3) Turaga akuya-ko. "The Turaga will see (it)." **Note: You can also form imperative constructions (i.e. commands) by using the basic, uninflected form of the stem: Manas zya! "Attack the monster!" - Negation Negation (English "not") is marked on verbs by adding the suffix -rhu (can be reduced to -ru) to the verbal complex after all other suffixes have been added. Examples: (4) Matoran voya-nu-rhu. "The Matoran did not go/travel." (5) Toa zya-rhu. "The Toa does not attack" (6) Turaga akuya-ko-rhu. "The Turaga will not see (it)." - Questions Three types of questions are distinguished in Matoran. Two of them correspond to "information questions" (or "wh-questions" in English); they are used to question the subject (Who did that?) and object (She did what?) of a verb, respectively. The remaining question-type is the standard yes/no-question ("Did you do that?"). Info-Q Subject: ke- Info-Q Object: -ki, -kai Yes/No-Q: i-...-ka Examples: (7) Rahi ke-zyanu? "Who/what attacked the Rahi?" (8) Toa zyanu-ki? "Who/what did the Toa attack? / The Toa attacked who/what?" (9) Toa i-zyanu-ka? "Did the Toa attack?" - "To be" (the copula verb) There is no Matoran equivalent of the English verb "to be"! Instead, English constructions such as "X is Y" or "Y is X" (basic equative or copula constructions) are simply expressed as "X Y" or "Y X" in Matoran. Such constructions can involve a noun and an adjective (N+A), two adjectives (A+A), or two nouns (N+N). But if there's no overt verb corresponding to "to be", you might ask, how is tense (or negation, or a question) marked in such constructions? Simply put, the necessary affixes (tense, negation, etc.) are attached to whichever element (N or A) is placed in final position (where the verb would normally go). Examples: (10) Matoran kofo. "The Matoran [is] small." (N+A) (11) Nui kofo. "Big [is] small." (A+A) (12) Rahi jaga. "The Rahi [is] a scorpion." (N+N) (13) Toa matoran-nu. "The Toa was a Matoran." (14) Manas rahi-pa. "The Manas is a Rahi." (15) Matoran toa-ko-rhu. "The Matoran will not be a Toa." (16) Ke-matoran-nu? "Who was the Matoran?" (17) Toa-pa-ki? "Who is the Toa? / The Toa is who?" (18) Toa i-matoran-nu-ka? "Was the Toa a Matoran?" ============================== 3. Pronouns: Pronouns stand in for full nouns. They come in three different flavors: first person, second person, and third person. Number (i.e. singular vs. plural) is not marked. Pronouns are inflected according to their function in the clause, subject or object: - Subject form 1st o, oa "I, we" 2nd ou "you, you all" 3rd ai, oi "she/he/it, they" Examples: (1) o voya. "I/we go/travel." (2) ou zya. "You/you all attack." (3) ai akuya. "She/he/it/they sees." - Object form 1st ako, akoa "me, us" 2nd akou "you, you all" 3rd akai "her/him/it, them" Examples: (4) Matoran ako zyanu. "The Matoran attacked me/us." (5) Toa akou zyanu. "The Toa attacked you/you all." (6) Turaga akai zyanu. "The Turaga attacked her/him/it/them." - Possessive form Pronouns are also used to denote possession relationships, in which case they are suffixed to the noun that is possessed. **The third person affix -ai/-oi can also be used to indicate possession when a full noun possesses another full noun. In such a case, it is suffixed to the noun which is possessed, and the possessor noun is usually placed directly before the possessed noun (see examples 10 and 11). 1st -o, -oa "my, our" 2nd -ou "your" 3rd -ai, -oi "her/his/its, their" Examples: (7) ni-o "my/our star" (8) koro-ou "your village" (9) madu-ai "her/his/its/their tree" (10) Toa rahi-ai "the Toa's Rahi; lit. 'The Toa, her/his/their-Rahi" (11) Matoran koro-ai "the Matoran's village; lit. 'The Matoran, her/his/their-village" ============================== 4. Nouns: Nouns come in many different forms! They can be modified by adjectives (see Section 1) as well as by an array of different affixes. Affixes can be suffixes (attached to the end of the noun-stem), prefixes (attached to the beginning of the noun-stem), or circumfixes (attached "around" the noun-stem, basically a combination of a prefix and a suffix). I include four different categories of affixes, containing twelve affixes total. **All of the affixes discussed in this section can also be added to pronouns! - Basic location/direction #1 - of, from; after: i-, ai- #2 - in, on, at; during: i-...-a #3 - to, toward; before: -i, -ai Examples: (1) i-ni "of/from a star" (2) i-koro-a "in/at a village" (3) madu-i "toward a tree" - Upward orientation #4 - up away from (motion): mi-, mai- #5 - up at (location): i-...-ma #6 - up toward (motion): -ma, -mai Examples: (4) mi-ni "upward, away from a star" (5) i-koro-ma "up at a village" (6) madu-ma "upward, toward a tree" - Downward orientation #7 - down away from (motion): u-, au- #8 - down, under, below (location): u-...-a #9 - down toward (motion): -a, -au Examples: (7) u-ni "downward, away from a star" (8) u-koro-a "under/below a village" (9) madu-a "downward, toward a tree" - Transitional/instrumental #10 - through away from (motion): mo-, mua- #11 - through, via (location): a-...-mu #12 - through toward (motion): -mua Examples: (10) mo-ni "through, away from a star" (11) a-koro-mu "through/via a village" (12) madu-mua "through, toward a tree" ============================== 5. Syntax II: Now that you've got a sense of the possibilities for nouns and verbs, we can get a bit more detailed on how to put them together. While SOV is the standard word order for clauses in Matoran, the order of subject and object (Rules 2 and 3 from Section 1 above) can be subverted. For example, if you want to put the object first, you can add one of the affixes from section 4 to explicitly mark it as the object. This makes for a lot of potential variation. We'll start with the following standard sentence: (1) Toa rahi zyanu. "The Toa attacked the Rahi." Now, if we wanted to switch this sentence up by placing the object first, we might add an affix like #3, -i "to, toward", to the object: (2) Rahi-i toa zyanu. "The Toa struck at/toward the Rahi." From the paraphrase you can see how this alteration might subtly change the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Let's try some other affixes, such as #4, -mi "upward (movement)", #8, u-...-a "down, down on (location)", or #9, -a "downward (movement)". (3) Rahi-mi toa zyanu. "The Toa struck upward at the Rahi." (4) Rahi-a toa zyanu. "The Toa struck downward toward the Rahi." (5) U-rahi-a toa zyanu. "The Toa bore down on the Rahi." **Final note: All of these variations with nominal affixes could also be expressed using the standard SOV order! An object-first ordering could, however, be used to emphasize the object. ============================== 6. Glossary: This glossary should provide you with a basic vocabulary to start with. Check out the volumes of the Matoran Dictionary for a (slightly) wider selection. **All of the words used in the examples above are marked with *! - Verbs akuya* "to see, sense; know" aruya "to take" boya "to grow, live; remain" haya "to protect, maintain systems-normality" kokha "to cool (smthg.), calm (smthg.) down; clarify" kya "to do, act, take initiative" mya "to control, use" orukha "to build, construct" oruya "to work, labor" pakuya "to read; lit. 'to see carvings'" peya "to carve" rokha "to speak (to)" roya "to determine, single out; name" s(a)uya "to consume, convert" seya "to think" takha "to make, craft; forge" v(a)ukha "to conduct, transmit" vokha "to empower, energize" voya* "to go, journey, travel" zya* "to attack, strike; plan, scheme" - Nouns aki "valor, courage, initiative" bohi "plant; form of vegetation" dau "direction, extension; route" dehi "mouth; lit. 'sound-thing'" fani "sky; lit. 'star-field'" gadu "pool (of water/liquid)" gura "disintegration, disruption" hahi "shield; guardian" hau "shielding, protection" hiki "measurement; deception, trickery" jaga* "(Rahi) scorpion" ka "power, energy" kanohi "mask; lit. 'object-of-power/energy'" kau "breath, spirit; lit. 'life-process'" kini "temple" koro* "village" kua "(Rahi) bird; freedom" kura "anger, rage" ledu "wind, breeze" lera "poison, toxicity" madu* "tree" mana(s)* "monster" mata* "spirit; lit. 'master-spirit'" matoran* "Matoran-unit; lit. 'builder/worker-of-Mata'" mehi "head, skull" metru "city" ni* "star" nohi "object (of protodermis)" paka "strength, sturdiness" panura "fragmentation" peki "shard, fragment, pebble" rahi* "wildlife, beast" rama* "(Rahi) flying-insect" ro "unit, individual; name; (honorific) sister/brother/comrade" rua "wisdom" tahi "flame (substance); spirit" taka "light, illumination" taki "spark, ember; lit. 'part-of-fire'" toa* "hero, protector" tura "fear, cowardice" turaga* "elder" vahi "time" vora "hunger, energy-draining" wahi "region, place" - Adjectives baui "measured, balanced" gaui "blue, watery; calm, peaceful" kofo* "small, little; lesser" koui "white, icy; silent, clear" laui "good, positive, happy" leui "green, airy; light, cheerful" noui "black, earthy; deep, secret, hidden" nui* "large; great" nuva "new, original" paui "brown, stony; strong, firm" taui "red, fiery; spirited, lively, living"
  2. [should've posted a reference-list like this a long time ago. Better late than never!] A Matoran Dictionary 2nd Edition LIST OF VOLUMES =||= Volume I :: A-D Volume II :: E-J Volume III :: K Volume IV :: L-M Volume V :: N-P Volume VI :: R-S Volume VII :: T-U Volume VIII :: V-Z =||=
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0mhtDAJjqs (starts at ~0:47) "Battle Chant of the Toa (Prayer to Mata Nui)" O’I HIKI HOIHA OU IHIKI HAHKO ... HAHKO! O’I HIKI HAUIHA OU IHIKI HAHI ====================== Literal Translation: 1. Protect us from deception; 2. You will save us from deception. 3. Make us safe from deception; 4. You are a protector against deception. ====================== Note: I've been a bit fast-and-loose with constructing vocabulary here--you won't find most of these words in the Dictionary. Wordlist: o |pron.| I, we (first person) ou |pron.| you, you-all (2nd person) hiki |n.| deception hahi |n.| protector -i |aff.| to, toward i- |aff.| from, against hoi-ha |v.| to protect, defend against [hoiha < ha-yi-ha, from ha "protection", yi "together, unified", and the verbal affix -ha] ha-ha |v.| to protect, save, cleanse [ha-ha, from ha "protection" and the verbal affix -ha] haui-ha |v.| to defend, make safe [haui-ha, from haui "safe, protected" and the verbal affix -ha] ====================== Line-by-line explanation: 1. The verb hoi-ha appears in this line in the imperative (command) form, taking the objects o-i "to-us" and hiki "deception", with an implied subject "you" (Mata Nui). Literal gloss: "to-us deception protect". 2. The verb ha-ha is inflected for future tense with the suffix -ko, thus: haha-ko > hahko "will protect/save/cleanse". The subject is ou "you". The noun hiki also appears here with the affix i- "from, against" (i-hiki "against deception"). Literal gloss: "you against-deception protect-will". 3. The verb haui-ha also appears in the imperative here, with objects o-i and hiki, identical to line 1. Literal gloss: "to-us deception make-safe" 4. This line contains the elements ou "you", i-hiki "against deception" (same as line 3), and hahi "protector". There is no overt verb, but it is understood to be "be", thus the literal gloss: "you [are] against-deception protector".
  4. I'm afraid Gollum would've throttled and eaten you by now.
  5. i'akuha, akuhi umakha, akuyakurhu, i'akua-rhui. i'o ki? With eyes, I cover eyes, but cannot see, without sight. What am I?
  6. TOAVAKAMAJAI - THE PROPHECY I'akua, taka-kui rayaku. Amaja lhikai-na rokha: Toa Mata Nui haya. Ivaha, nga roraga-rhui. Still, all hope was not lost. Legends tell of six mighty heroes, the Toa, Who would arrive to save Mata Nui. Time would reveal that these were not simply myths... -- Toa imahra voya, kouya, Ceura, aku-rhui. Mata Nui'ai Matoroi Ikraaka hau takaya. For the Toa would appear on the shores of the island, it was said. They would arrive with no memory, no knowledge of one another – But they would pledge to defend Mata Nui And its people against the darkness. -- Tahuwaha, Onuwaha, Galuwaha, Lewaha, Puahatau, Kuahapaka, Wahata ika'a-nui, inaka voya. Tahu, Toa of Fire. Onua, Toa of Earth. Gali, Toa of Water. Lewa, Toa of Air. Pohatu, Toa of Stone. And Kopaka, Toa of Ice. Great warriors with great power, drawn from the very elements themselves. -- Ikaita'a, maita-na Ivaita-nga: Makuta zya, Mata Nui haya. Nga ro amaja. Together, they were six heroes with one destiny: To defeat Makuta, And save Mata Nui. This is their story. -- Na suvaha Bionicle. This is the way Of the Bionicle.
  7. MATANUYAMAJAI - THE LEGEND Ivaha vahai, Mata Nui ini-wahi uvoya; Nohi-artakhai akoa, Matoran roya, karaya. In the time before time, The Great Spirit descended from the heavens, Carrying us, the ones called the Matoran, To this island paradise... - Oa kaitura, maitura; Mata Nui i-Haua-Ngavongu, Kaita, Maita, Vaita, Oai takaya. We were separate and without purpose, So the Great Spirit illuminated us With the Three Virtues: Unity, Duty, and Destiny... -- Oa i-Hau kouya; Ihahla, oa Mata Nui Inohi-reahi rokha; Nga i’Amana rohi. We embraced these gifts, And in gratitude, We named our island home Mata Nui, After the Great Spirit himself... -- Oa-hahli rhourakha: Mata Nui-ro, nga Makuta, Suva vorakha, akai guurakha. Makuta ikouka Mata Nui zya. But our happiness was not to last. Mata Nui's brother, the Makuta, Was jealous of these honors and betrayed him. Makuta cast a spell over Mata Nui, who fell into a deep slumber... -- Makutaka nohi maya, Itaua bo-wahi jutlamoya, Avotaka kokha, Hau-raga ceuraya. Makuta's power dominated the land, As fields withered away, Sunlight grew cold, And ancient values were forgotten... -- This was originally posted via tumblr over the space of a few weeks, and now that it's complete, I thought I'd share it here. It's a rough translation of the Legend of Mata Nui, and if you've been following along with the last three posts, you may recognize a few things. I'm considering posting a full gloss once I find the time. Currently, a continuation is in progress: The Prophecy (of the Toa), the first few passages of which have already found their way online. Enjoy.
  8. This post, I'm gonna to talk about some ideas related to other potential affixes, one in particular that I think can be quite straightforwardly derived using some comparative evidence centered around the following word: inika "energies of a star" Note that the translation we are given for this word is unique in that it is apparently a compound of two semantic units: "energy" and "star". That's different from the single-word definitions we usually get, and it also provides us with an example of what may be a noun+noun compound. Normally, we only get noun+adjective or adjective+noun sequences (e.g. mata+nui, kofo+jaga). In contrast, the word inika is apparently an example of two nominal units combined into a single lexical unit. Fascinating. I think we can take advantage of this. Alright, let's try to break down inika into its constituent parts (assuming we can). As stated in the previous post, I define ka as "power, energy, ability". This provides us with some immediate insight into the composition of inika: the unit ini must encode the meaning "of (a) star". Now, as it stands, we don't really have a way to separate whatever encodes "star" from whatever encodes "of", if they are even separable at all. We'll have to do some guesswork in order to move forward here. The first issue to be addressed is whether or not we should even assume that a meaning like "of" is even encoded here. We might easily assume that ini is "star", ka is "energy", and the combination is to be translated straightforwardly as "star-energy". We could do that, of course, and that would be the end of it. Blog post over! However, my purpose here is explicitly to consider places where we might be able to postulate affixes and, by implication, units with functional/grammatical meanings exactly like "of". The word inika provides us with the opportunity to derive just that: a morpheme encoding "of". Because of this, I will choose not to set it aside. Now that we've got that out of the way, let's try to break ini down further. First off, are there any other words that might provide clues on how to analyze ini? A quick search of the available Matoran lexicon gives a few exact matches – akil-ini, iru-ini, kav-ini-ka, k-ini – although none of these have canon translations except for kini "temple", which certainly doesn't reference stars overtly. Furthermore, if we relax the search parameters a bit, there are also numerous words containing elements like in and ni. As a side note, we may also observe that the phonetic structure of ini is a little odd in comparison to the overall patterns of Matoran syllable-structure. Most syllables in Matoran are of the form consonant+vowel, CV, but the first syllable of ini (i-ni) violates this pattern. That's interesting, and it's also interesting that this initial i- pattern shows up in a few other places as well: i-carax, i-den, i-dris, i-gnika, and i-hu. Alright, taking everything into account, does this help us at all? I think it does, actually. Here’s how: Among the various words containing variants of ini, I'd like to draw your attention to one in particular: nixie. Nixie is the name of a Ga-Matoran astrologer – a Matoran who studies the stars and their prophecies. Wouldn’t it make sense for an astrologer's name to reference the stars? I think it would. This leads me to the following proposal: Based on the fact that nixie clearly shows ni, I propose to analyze ini as a complex i-ni: ni "star" with a prefix i- "of, from". Are there any further advantages to this analysis? Well, let's consider the status of this newly-postulated affix i- and compare it with the other affix that's been defined thus far, that being the verbal marker -ya. One immediate contrast presents itself: -ya is a derivative affix, meaning that it is used to derive one type of word from another. In this case, -ya would derive verbs from non-verbs (stems, nouns, whatever). On the other hand, i- is not derivative—it is what might be called a functional or grammatical affix, meaning that it adds on to the meaning of the word to which it is applied, rather than creating a completely new word, as -ya would. In this case, i- is being applied to ni "star", which is presumably a noun, and the affix contributes the meaning "of" to the original meaning of the noun, hence "of (a) star". So that's one difference right off the bat. Do these affixes have anything in common though? Here are a couple of ideas: Recall from the last post that I've proposed that -ya can technically be dissolved into two units, i-a, and this becomes clear when -ya is split into its circumfixal form a-...-i. So we can say that -ya is to be reconstructed as *-ia. No problem. On a different but related note: elsewhere in Matoran etymology, I've made use of a particular phonological shift whereby a sequence <ai> changes to <i>, <e>, or <a> (presumably with an intermediate <ii> stage). The advantage of this postulated sound-change is that it allows us to tie together elements of words like miru, midak, damek, and madu, as well as even metru and matau. Alright, back to *-ia: If *-ia is the original verbal marker, we could postulate that there are other affixes constructed from the same building blocks, but simply applied in a different way (e.g. affixes that are applied to nouns as grammatical/functional affixes instead of derivative affixes). Combining this with the phonological rule described above, we may have a plausible origin for the affix i-. Here's the proposal: The prefix i- "of, from" derives from an older form *ai-, which can also be dissolved into two units a-i. Okay, I think we've stretched the available data about as far as we can, so here’s a disclaimer: At this point I’m entering the realm of pure speculation and invention. Follow along if you dare! Ultimately, I would like us to have a few more grammatical/functional affixes at our disposal in order to be able to translate texts into the Matoran Language. I will propose two such affixes based on the known prefix i-, hopefully with as little invention-work as possible. First off, we already have an affix meaning "of", which, in this case, we could also paraphrase as "from" (as in "originating from") or even "after", if we want to think in temporal terms (originating from a point in time, i.e. after a point in time?). What's the opposite of "of, from"? How about "to, toward"? Alright, what kind of affix could we use to represent this? Since this affix will express a meaning that is opposite to i-, it might make sense for that opposition to be reflected in the form of the affix itself, as follows: Proposal 1: There is a suffix -i which derives from older *-ai and expresses a meaning "to, toward" or "(temporally) before". So that's one more grammatical/functional affix to work with, and we've managed to derive it simply as a reversal of i-. Excellent! What else can we do? At this point I'd like to turn your attention to a Matoran narrative device that should be familiar: "In the time before time..." This phrase seems to be used to introduce Matoran legends/mythohistory. Note that it makes use of grammatical/functional units like "in" and "before". There's a reason I have proposed that -i expresses a meaning like "to, toward; before". We now have a means of translating part of this phrase. But what about the remaining "in"? My second proposal will provide us with a means of expressing this concept, as follows: The concept of "in the time" can be more accurately paraphrased as "during the time". This concept of "in, during" seems to fall somewhere between "from" and "to". Based on that observation, we might postulate that a corresponding grammatical/functional affix would reflect this in-between status in the same way that -i "to, toward" reflected its opposition to i- "of, from": Proposal 2: There is a circumfix i-...-a which is derived as a split variant of the older affixes *-ai and *ai- and expresses a meaning "in" or "(temporally) during". This leaves us with three grammatical/functional affixes to use on nouns in Matoran, as follows: 1. i-, ai- "of, from; after" 2. i-...-a "in; during" 3. -i, -ai "to, toward; before" To conclude, I'll make use of the second and third affixes in translating the classic phrase "In the time before time...", using vahi as a stand-in for both instances of "time" (even though technically they represent different concepts: period of time vs. time as an abstract concept): i-vahi-a "in/during (the) time" vahi-ai "before time" Ivaha vahai... "In the time before time..." Notes: - I've reduced i-vahi-a to ivaha as a general rule. Technically we could represent it in a different way: ivahia, ivahi'a, etc. - For vahai, I've used the older -ai form of the third affix when it's applied to a word already ending in -i and reduced vahi-ai to vahai. This is simply to make it clear which affix is present. Again, this could be represented differently: vahii, vahiai, etc. end
  9. [tumblr it up] If you've ever browsed through the entries of the Matoran Dictionary or been brave enough to delve into those old Learning Matoran lessons, you may have run into a concept that goes under the (pretty obtuse) name of "splitting+displacement" or (even worse) "variable placement". It's usually applied to things called "particles" or "affixes", and usually very little explanation is provided for what it is and where it comes from. Sorry. In this post, I’ll attempt to add some flesh to the bones of this concept, which applies to grammatical affixes in the etymologies of Matoran words and involves breaking these units apart and moving them around for various purposes. The idea itself is of my own fabrication, and therefore has no real basis in the canon, so I won't really spend much time making a case that it "exists". However, I will make a case that the concept, even if non-canon, is really, really useful if applied systematically, so why not use it? First, some terminology: I will for the most part dispense with the "splitting+displacement" label. The right word is actually circumfix. What is a circumfix? It's basically just another kind of affix, alongside prefixes (affixes attached at the beginning of a word), suffixes (affixes attached at the end of a word), and even infixes (affixes attached inside of a word). Circumfixes are attached "around" a word, so they are technically like a prefix that is added along with a suffix. We clear? Great. Jumping right in, here's my proposal for affixes in Matoran: I have found that it is useful to assume that some of the prefixes and suffixes postulated in Matoran etymology can be converted into a circumfix-form for various reasons--mostly deriving new words from old ones. This would look something like the following, using a postulated verb kya (Recall from the last post that -ya is assumed to be an affix in this case, so that's what will be undergoing modification): Step 1: kya = kia (ya consists of two units, -i- and -a) Step 2: k-i-a > a-k-i (the -a unit is displaced as a prefix before the stem k-, leaving -i behind as a suffix) Step 3: aki Pretty simple, no? The same process can easily be applied to other affixes/particles: as long as we can split the original affix/particle into two discrete units (in this case, -ya > i-, -a), we can displace the second unit as a prefix on the stem. And there are a couple of further variations that might be possible as well. We'll stick to the basics for now though. Anyways, what could this kind of circumfixal variant be used for? Well, think about it: The splitting and displacement of the original affix technically obliterates the affix as a discrete unit. We could easily associate this kind of change with, say, a change in meaning—perhaps a change in word category? I have done just this: When the verbal affix -ya is split into a circumfixal variant, this corresponds to a change in the category of the stem from verb to (deverbal) noun. At this point, you may be able to glimpse some possible applications of this system. Consider this: We just derived a word aki, presumably a noun, from a postulated verb kya. Aki happens to be the name of the Kanohi Mask of Valor. Technically, this is backwards: When I first came up with this system, I started with aki and reverse-engineered it to kya. Either way, it works. Let's see how else we can apply this. Sticking with aki for the moment, there's another word that is closely associated with it: Akamai, the name of the Toa Kaita (the "Spirit of Valor") who is the wearer of the Kanohi Aki. In-universe, there is clearly a relationship between Akamai and Aki, and the nature of this relationship is further strengthened if we look at another example of a Toa Kaita: Wairuha, the "Spirit of Wisdom" who wears the Kanohi Rua. Even more parallels? So the names of the Toa Kaita are related in some way to the names of their Kanohi masks. Focusing on aki/akamai, let's do some more reverse-engineering: Note that akamai exhibits the same a-...-i pattern that results from the splitting+displacement of -ya, as already exemplified by a-k-i. If we assume that akamai is derived via the same verb > noun process as aki, we can easily trace back through the steps: Step 3: akamai Step 2: a-kama-i > kama-i-a Step 1: kamaia = kamaya Presto! We have derived akamai from an original verb kamaya. What could this verb mean? In order to find out, let's return to aki for a moment. According to canon, aki means "valor". Thus far, I have postulated that aki is derived from a verb kya, which I would further derive from an older form *ka-ya. For numerous reasons, I define ka as "power, energy, ability", hence, I translate kya (roughly) as "to do, act, take initiative", and based on these assumptions, aki could easily be translated as "(taking) action, initiative", later construed as "courage, valor". That takes care of aki. Now on to akamai: If kya originates from ka, according to the same pattern, kamaya would clearly originate from kama. I define ma as "mastery, control". Keeping with the definition of ka above, ka-ma would mean roughly "mastery of power/energy/ability", while the verbal form kamaya would end up as "to master doing/acting/taking initiative". According to the same process of construal applied to aki above, this means that akamai could eventually be translated "master of courage/valor". In all, I think that fits pretty darn well. So the upshot of this post is that I've (hopefully) illustrated some of the potential applications of the "circumfix-variant" idea in the form of providing some (I think) very appropriate, interrelated etymologies for the words Aki and Akamai. All in a day's work.
  10. [and tumblr too] This post, we're taking a brief detour from other projects to talk about something slightly more mundane: Is there something in the Matoran Language that marks verbs as verbs and distinguishes them from non-verbs? I would like to propose that there is at least one verb-marker expressed as a suffix (or "derivative particle") -ya. What's the evidence? Admittedly, there is only one canon piece of evidence, since we have only one confirmed verb in Matoran: zya "to attack". This verb occurs in the phrase Manas zya! "Attack the monster!" The verb is technically in the imperative (command) form, and so one might argue that it is a special form and shouldn’t be representative of what verbs in Matoran look like overall. However, making use of some insights from human language, this argument may be countered: Imperative verb-forms frequently represent the basic, unmodified state of verbal-morphology (witness English "Go!" same as present tense "They go" and infinitival "to go"). It stands to reason that the Matoran Language could follow the same pattern for purely functional reasons (e.g. commands must be transmitted quickly and efficiently). For this reason, I will assume that zya does in fact reflect the basic form of the Matoran verb. Back to the proposal: How can we apply the postulated verb-marker -ya elsewhere? Does it provide us with any insights? Enter voya: voya "journey" (cf. Voya Nui "Great Journey") This word is presented as a noun; however, it isn't unreasonable to allow the possibility that voya could be a deverbal noun derived from an older verb vo-ya. This is indeed what I propose, as exemplified by the following entries from the Matoran Dictionary: vo-ya |v.| to conduct energy, flow (along); to journey [From vo “elemental lightning” and the verb-marker -ya] voya-nui |n.| great journey [From voya “journey, current” (nominalized from the verbal complex vo-ya) and nui “great, significant”] So, the application of -ya in this case has provided us with some interesting insights into the history of voya (notice the fortuitous incorporation of the elemental stem vo "elemental lightning/electricity"). Where else can we go with this? For the purposes of this post, I will simply list several sets of words that might provide further support for the -ya proposal, with comments: amaya (a Ga-Matoran) maglya (a Ta-Matoran) zemya (an Onu-Matoran) Based on the proposal, all of these words could also be analyzed as verbs (or deverbal nouns derived from older verbs). Check out their respective dictionary entries for some possible etymologies. The words in the next set do not directly exhibit -ya, but could potentially contain a spelling variant -ia (once again, see corresponding dictionary entries for proposals): pelagia (a Ga-Matoran) zaria (a Toa of Iron) xia (a placename for the island inhabited by the Vortixx species) daxia (a placename for the island where the Order of Mata Nui has its primary base) The words in this final set all contain ia word-internally (either in stressed or unstressed position), but because of other factors the possibility that this is an example of -ya is even more remote. Hopefully they are helpful as reference: radiak (a Shadow Matoran, formerly Av-Matoran) spiriah (a Makuta) varian (a Toa of Psionics) chiara (a Toa of Lightning) niazesk (an swarming insect-Rahi) piatra (a Po-Matoran)
  11. Don't know if this really counts, since it's more a contributor to the Bionicle fandom who impacted me back in the day...but I want to give a shout-out to Hurdy on the Library side of things, as well as Takuta-Nui. Fantastic writers both. Furthermore, Schizo Kaita, Toa of Art, and Natha all deserve major, major kudos for their ancient exploits. JRRT
  12. Needless to say, there'll be plenty of artistic liberty going on here. The goal is fun, not 100% geographic accuracy. However, if you take a look at this image from BS01, the southern coast does seem to be elevated. I don't know what the original source of that image is tho, or if it's even technically accurate. Ah well. JRRT
  13. If you’re someone who remembers BZPower back before the archive deletion and downtimes (I confess, I’m getting murky) and roughly prior to '08-'09, you might know me as a different person. I mostly lurked 'round this little forum called Artwork II, which was the place where all the shops and "sprite kits" were safely hidden from the world. Back then, most of my contribution to BZP came in the form of pixel art. Yeah, it was a different time. Well, I haven’t done any pixel art for quite a while—nothing worth posting, at least. Even so, I get the hankering every now and then. And in fact, for a long time I’ve been wanting to start something long-term: a project to fiddle with in my spare time. Pixel art is quite cathartic, I find, and it’s actually a great stress-reliever. Go figure. Unfortunately I haven’t really had that much spare time lately. That is, until last week. It was spring break...for students, at least. =P Even so, in between the grading, I did find a few moments to get creative: The project is a roughly to-scale isometric map of the island of Mata Nui; 1 pixel = ~.25 kio (these images are at about x3 magnification). I find landscapes to be very enjoyable to do, and isometric pixeling suits that pretty well. The images above should be kinda familiar: the Mangai Volcano and the southern tip of the island coast. This is only a few hours’ work, so it’s absurdly rough, but you should get the general idea. So yeah, the plan is to keep messing around with it, and maybe post some updates as things progress. I confess, even now I’m still pretty much an amateur at this, but I hope I can do it justice. =P JRRT
  14. [ tumblr ya] Treatise: Translating the Avohkii : Part 4 : Whoa, hold on! It’s dangerous to go alone! First, read this, then this, then this. All done? Good – let’s get moving. Here’s the full transcription of the Avohkii-text once again: The bolded part of the transcription has already been translated in the previous posts. To recap: Mapaku ke-whenu-ka kitu ak-ila ... “Reader, seek out an individual originating from within a secret underground (place)” This portion of the passage seems reasonably self-sufficient, and I have chosen to analyze it as an independent clause: it contains a verb, its arguments, and their modifiers. If we start from that assumption, it stands to reason that the rest of the passage will form its own unit/clause, separate from the first clause but presumably still related in meaning. We can start by identifying already-familiar terms in this portion of the inscription. We actually have an easier time of it than before. Makuta is pretty self-evident, as is taka. The relevant entries are as follows: makuta |n.cmpd.| 1. master of knowledge; 2. higher knowledge [mult. potential etymologies; one proposed etymology is makuta < ma-akuta, from ma(t) “mastery, control” and akuta “knowledge”; another proposed etymology is makuta < mai-akuta, from mai “up, upward, above” (variant of mi, see entry) and akuta “knowledge”] taka |n.| firelight, torchlight, illumination; heat [taka < ta-ka, from ta “elemental fire” and ka “power, force, ability”, yielding a sense of “light cast by fire/torch; light that leads the way”] Alright, now that we’ve identified some familiar terms, let’s continue with the same line of reasoning we used for the first clause: if this section of the passage is a clause in itself, we’d expect there to be a verb and some individual(s) involved in the action of the verb (subject, object, etc.). How do we go about identifying the verb? Well, one aspect of Matoran syntax that hasn’t come up much yet in this discussion (but probably should) is the fact that, according to the only example of a clausal-unit that we have, it appears that verbs in Matoran stand as the final element in a sentence. The example that we have is the phrase Manas zya, translating to "Attack the monster!" The verb is zya "(to) attack", while the object is manas "monster". This is an imperative (command) clause, so technically we can only determine that verbs appear in final position in simple imperative constructions – other clause-types might be different for all we know. Then again, for all we know, the verb-final pattern might be a strict rule for independent clauses in Matoran. For what it’s worth, verb-final patterns show up in ~40% of human languages, so Matoran wouldn’t be all that strange as a non-human language. Well...let’s see where the verb-final logic leads us: Based on its clause-final position, we might assume that taka is the verb. Does this make sense? Hm...taka doesn’t necessarily look like the only example of an actual verb that we have – zya "attack" – but of course morphophonological similarity isn’t a requirement, even if that’s pretty much the only thing we have to go on. It really depends on the categorial status of taka. Do we know anything about that? Possibly, yes. Taka shows up in Takanuva. Nuva means "new". It’s clearly an adjective in its other uses (Tahu Nuva, Gali Nuva, etc.). If we assume that nuva is generally an adjective, that would imply that taka is not verbal, but nounal. Then again, an argument could be made that nuva can modify nouns or verbs, or that Takanuva is an exception based on the fact that nuva appears to be morphologically incorporated into taka, rather than a syntactic modifier as in the other cases. All of these arguments are equally legitimate. This is kind of a sticky situation. On one hand, we’d rather not violate the only potential syntactic rule we know of by looking elsewhere for the verb. On the other hand, it’s iffy to just define taka as a verb. How to decide? Ultimately, the decision should be made based on its overall consequences. If we decide to redefine taka as a verb, that will entail making a variety of alterations to our understanding of Matoran etymology (how modifiers work, the categorial status of nouns and verbs, etc.). These are things that, to some extent, are already "established". In contrast, if we assume that Matoran is not strictly verb-final, we aren’t actually violating any established rule, since we’re simply postulating that there’s more syntactic variation than the single piece of evidence we have suggests. The second option is far more appealing to me, so I’ll run with it. Taka is not the verb – something else is. Where do we go from here? Let’s look at the other candidates for verbhood: We can probably cross out makuta, since that has a pretty well-established nounal status. That leaves ahano, nano, and atuana. Previously, I’ve already hinted that I think atuana contains a variant of toa, so I’ll cross that off as well. That leaves nano and ahano. Hm...time for some more educated guesswork. If Matoran is not verb-final, are there any syntactic patterns that we can observe at all? I’d rather not jump to the conclusion that Matoran word-order is completely free, since that would leave us without any direction whatsoever. Instead, we might come to the more conservative position that Matoran is verb-final in independent imperative clauses. Think about it: Manas zya is an independent imperative clause and the verb is in final position. Furthermore, I’ve also translated the first part of the Avohkii passage as an independent imperative clause, and the verb happens to be in final position there. That’s a convenient match, go figure! So if we say that the verb-final syntactic pattern is restricted (at the very least) to these types of clauses, we are free to postulate a different pattern for other clause-types. Specifically, I will propose that the clause under discussion (the second half of the passage) is not independent, but is instead dependent upon (or "subordinate to") the first clause. This is because of the status of the first clause as a command or instruction: do X. If the first clause is defined in this way, what is its relationship to the second clause? It makes sense that the second clause would describe something about how/why the command of the first clause must be performed. For example, we might interpret the relation as cause-effect: do X so that Y. Alright, so the second clause is subordinate. How do we apply this to the translation? Well, if Matoran is verb-final in independent imperative clauses, a simple pattern that could be used to mark dependency is to reverse the standard order, i.e. to place the verb at the beginning of the clause: verb-initial. This is actually pretty milquetoast when it comes to human languages – different syntactic patterns are used to mark dependency-status all the time, so I don’t have many qualms about postulating it for Matoran. However, this does lead us to a specific conclusion with respect to choosing between candidates for the verb: ahano is the first word in the clause. If we adopt the assumption about syntactic patterns above, ahano would be the verb. This is progress! Very small progress, but progress nonetheless. Even so, this post has been really wordy, and it’s getting a bit too long at this point, so for now, I’ll leave you with a recap of the translation. It’s a slow crawl, but hopefully worth it by the end: Mapaku, ke-whenu-ka kitu ak-ila ... “Reader, seek out an individual originating from within a secret underground (place)” ... ahano nano atuana makuta taka. "(so that) VERB ... [smthg. related to Toa] Makuta light/illumination." Still on the to-do list is determining a translation for ahano, as well as nano and atuana, and we also have to flesh out the relations between these elements and makuta and taka. It’s a daunting task, but I think we’ll make it. Next time.
  15. Well this is a unique idea for a topic. =P Myers-Briggs can be pretty insightful. I've taken it a few different times over the years, and I'm a consistent INTJ. Go figure. JRRT
  16. Hm...alright, even taking initial "sapience" into account, I still think that, based on what we known about the GBs' intentions for the Matoran, and based on the fact that the Matoran Language was specifically constructed to serve a purpose in the MU, we shouldn’t make the assumption that the GBs would've encoded moral or emotional value-judgments into the initial state of the language—neither would they have mixed in arbitrary semantic distinctions from Agori without a functional reason (unless they were just goofing around). Let’s think about it: The GBs clearly didn’t intend for the Matoran to have emotion/morality in the "human" sense. Angonce’s reaction to the emergent behavior of the Matoran demonstrates that. But if, based on other elements of the story (e.g. the Toa Mata flashback), we are led to believe that the Matoran started with "simple" emotion (which I think is what you’re claiming?)...okay, what form would that take? Because of the fact that these elements of cognition presumably would’ve fulfilled a purpose in the original design, I think we could define "simple" emotion in a very specific, almost deterministic way, based on its potential function. For example, "fear" might consist of a value-judgment based on a pre-coded category [safe] or [not-safe]. A Matoran who assigned an object or circumstance to the category [not-safe] would technically "fear" said object/circumstance. I could see that as a potential way to characterize "simple" emotion, since it would make sense as a functional element of GB-design: Matoran would need access to that kind of metric in order to work in a non-uniform environment. So the question becomes: What kinds of value-judgements would the GBs have encoded (if any) in the initial state of the Matoran language? In the case of *kar(a), it seems pretty solid to assume that there was no initial value-judgment ("neutral", as you mentioned). As for kra, it's a little less clear. Shadow could easily be associated with [not-safe] (later "fear") due to practical/functional concerns, e.g. "can’t see to function". But is that a part of the original GB-encoded meaning or is it a value-judgment made by the Matoran later on? Either way, I think we all agree that the conflation of kra with a complex moral concept like "evil" would’ve had to happen later, once such concepts fully emerged. Interestingly, this also ties in to language change. If the Matoran Language was originally designed as a system of pure functional-efficiency (e.g. as a means of conveying precise information/instructions between units without interference), we wouldn’t expect it to change at all, since that would negate its long-term usefulness. In spite of this, we know that the Matoran Language has been subject to changes that appear similar to human language ("archaic" words, dialectal variation, arbitrary assignment of reference, etc.), and that’s really interesting, since it’d be a departure from pure functional-efficiency (as initially programmed by the GBs). In fact, it’d be easy to postulate that the appearance of diachronic variation is a direct result of the eventual cognitive shift to full-blown creative self-awareness (or full-sapience, or free will, or whatever your favorite term is). Fun stuff. JRRT
  17. Run River North, eh? That's a pleasant surprise/weird coincidence. "Growing Up" happens to be one of my favorites off the new album. Kudos.
  18. bionicle |n.cmpd.| biological chronicle; lit. "chronicle of biology ('the all-living') [bionicle < boyanikul < boya-nai-akul, from boya "biology" (nominalized from bo-ya "to grow, live", see also bo "elemental plant-life; living, growing"), nai "all", and akul "chronicle; lit. "(that which is) seen/known" (< aku-li, from aku "sight, vision" and the adjectival particle -li)] This has gone too far. ._. JRRT
  19. @Aanchir: No prob--basic difference of opinion, I suppose. Thanks for the kind words tho. =P I promise to leave off the search for the etymology of aanchir… @bones: Cool beans, thanks. And since you mention it, here’s my take on the (possible) negative connotations of *kar(a) and kra. I agree that a loose connection is plausible—in fact, likely. However, the idea can be significantly sharpened based on what we know about Bionicle chronology. Before that though: Your point about the intent of the GBs is important. I don’t actually think we should assume that either *kar(a) OR kra started off with negative connotations. This is because of the fact that the GBs didn’t create the Matoran/etc. with sentience. Sentience was a "glitch" (sigh) in the system. Thus, we shouldn’t (I think) expect concepts like "negative emotion" or "moral judgment" to even play a role in the pre-history of the Matoran language. Anything related to moral/emotional evaluation in semantic domains would have to be acquired after the advent of Matoran culture, i.e. as a result of emerging Matoran perspectives on the world, not necessarily on GB perspectives. With that background in mind: We do know that both *kar(a) "repulsion, etc." and kra "shadow" eventually acquired some negative connotations. When did this happen and why? 1. *kar(a): As noted in the main post, I think the name kar-zahni is a pretty good candidate for *kar(a). Furthermore, I think it’s pretty clear that Karzahni’s actions are, in essence, the first definitive MU-wide example of something "going wrong". Karzahni didn’t start out bad – he clearly began with a GB-commissioned purpose in the MU – but he went off track, and the Matoran made a "moral" evaluation of that. So I’d make the claim that, as a consequence of his actions, Karzahni’s name (and its subcomponents, namely kar- < *kar(a)) was associated with his "rejection" of his original purpose. That’s actually the reason why I’ve proposed additional meanings for *kar(a), e.g. "application of power". If this represents the "original" meaning of the term, then Karzahni’s name would have initially involved something like "application of power [toward some goal?]". 2. kra It’s not unlikely that kra acquired negative connotations as a natural consequence of its meaning once Matoran sentience developed. Matoran obviously have very human reactions to shadow/darkness: They feel fear, etc., and, in Matoran culture, darkness is pretty clearly associated with things like fear/unknown, and potentially "evil". If there is a connection between kra and *kar(a), however, I would expect it to be based on the semantic shift discussed above. The term *kar(a) first acquires negative connotations, and later on, based on the surface similarity, kra begins to acquire similar connotations. Pretty simple. ------ The last point I’ll make is about the individual etymologies of *kar(a) and kra. Due to the aforementioned surface-similarity, and the loose connection in meaning, it might be attractive to say that these two words come from basically the same source. However, I’m more inclined to keep both the meanings and etymologies of these terms separate. Here’s why: If *kar(a) and kra have a common source, and if the claim about the semantic shift of *kar(a) due to Karzahni’s actions holds, we would have to characterize the path of development in one of two ways: (1) start with one and derive the other, e.g. "application of power" > "shadow", or vice versa, or (2) have both meanings exist in the same semantic domain from the beginning, "application of power; shadow". Addressing (1): kra is a word for one of the elements of the MU, and as such, it’s pretty important. It seems likely that the GBs would’ve given Shadow a distinct designation alongside the other elements (ta, ga, ko, etc.). In fact, if true, this would completely rule out "application of power" > "shadow", since "shadow" would necessarily have to exist alongside "application of power" at the start. The opposite development ("shadow" > "application of power") also doesn’t appear plausible in the context of Karzahni’s name—would it make more sense for kar-zahni to incorporate "shadow" or "application of power" originally? I think the latter. Addressing (2): Incorporating "shadow" with "application of power" seems problematic due to apparent incompatibility of meaning—it’s tough to draw a connection, even metaphorical, between these two meanings, especially considering that "shadow" would’ve had to be very distinct as an elemental designation from the get-go. Furthermore, the only semantic reason we have to assume these terms derive from the same source is the common negative connotations of their modern forms (e.g. crast "repulsion"). But, as I’ve argued above, it’s more likely that these connotations were acquired, independently or not, at later stages in history – hence, the original semantic connection between kra and *kar(a) doesn’t even fit anymore. This leaves the surface similarity between the two words as the only real argument for a common source. I’ll stop there. =P Thanks for the replies, ppl. JRRT
  20. Personally, I don't have any doubts. We know that the story-team didn't put this much effort into it. =P But I'd like to. It's fun to (attempt to) bring order to what was original disordered. Me too, man. Me too. Well, let's see what we have to work with: the Kraahkan is the Mask of Shadows, and we also have kra- as a confirmed elemental-prefix for "shadow". Now, on a surface glance, it seems like a bit of a stretch (to me) to connect "shadow" with "repulsion" or "concussive force" or whatever. Although considering what we know about the effects of elemental shadow, it's not completely impossible. But in the end, my intuition is that we might not have to make that direct of a linkage. My suggestion is that the kra- of crast derives (via one phonological process or another) from an older form *kar(a), which then shows up in at least the words keras, carapar, and kardas. The kra- of kraahkan needn't derive from exactly the same source, especially given that we already have kra- "elemental shadow" as an independent word-form with an independent meaning. Even so, there could easily be indirect influences between the two. Interesting suggestion! JRRT
  21. 1. Introduction Over the years, I’ve messed around with a few ideas about the languages of Bionicle, the Matoran Language especially. While messing around, I’ve happened to stumble across certain patterns in the pool of Matoran words that we have access to – patterns that consistently stand out as meaningful. This topic is about one of those patterns, and a pretty minor one at that. Here, let me throw some words atcha: crast, keras, carapar, kardas What a mish-mash! The Kanohi Crast, Mask of Repulsion; Keras, a species of Rahi crab; Carapar, a Barraki warlord; and the Kardas Dragon, a...well...it’s a dragon. What's all this? Seems kind of random, right? On the surface, maybe so, but my hope is that by the time you reach the end of this post, you’ll see that things might not be as random as they look. Put simply, these words look/sound alike in some ways, and I think that, if we do some informed guesswork, we can also postulate a common thread of meaning, thereby tying together these seemingly disconnected points of data into a coherent whole. That’s the purpose of this topic: to put forward a proposal to derive elements of (at least) these four Matoran words from a common etymological source. And hey, if we can do that, who knows what further insights we might gain into Matoran etymology? Gotta start somewhere. Let’s begin. 2. Analysis: Initial Proposal First, some preliminaries: Do you want to take Matoran etymology seriously? Hey, me too! Isn’t it great? But what does "taking it seriously" mean? It pretty much just means that whatever theory we propose must be acceptable within already-established Bionicle canon, and we must make the fewest unfounded assumptions possible, or try to, at least. Those’re the rules. Alright, so where do we start? Let’s start with the facts. We actually have a lot of facts to work with: First, there are the words themselves, from which we can identify patterns and (surface) similarities. In this case, I’ve started by saying crast looks/sounds kinda like keras, which looks/sounds kinda like carapar, kardas, and so on. Deep thinking here.Second, we have official translations for some of the words. In this case, we know the meaning of precisely one of the words under analysis: crast "repulsion". One down!Third, we can draw upon general knowledge about the in-universe context of these words, including the ones for which there is no official translation. In spite of the absence of a translation, we can usually make some pretty well-educated guesses based on the entities to which these words are assigned in the Bionicle world.So those are the guiding principles. Pretty straightforward, no? I’ve already noted the surface similarities between the different words and the fact that we have a translation for one of them, so the third point bears some further explanation. What is the in-universe context of the words that we don’t have translations for, these being keras, carapar, and kardas? Here are my ideas as to what’s relevant: Starting with Keras: It’s a species of Rahi crab, plain and simple. What defines crabs? Shells? Claws? Eye-stalks? Gangly legs? Keeping in mind the analogy with crast, let’s go with the first choice, shells. Is it plausible that the Matoran name of a species of crab might reference the fact that these crabs have shells? Crabs are creatures with shells, and shells could be said to repulse or resist outside threats. Interesting. Next up, Carapar: A Barraki warlord, pretty rough character...eventually mutated into a crab-like form, complete with shell and claws. Irony? Destiny? In addition, if we break the fourth wall for a moment here, the name is pretty obviously taken from "carapace". Even so, would it be that much of a stretch considering Carapar’s background and personality (to the extent that he had one) to theorize that his name might’ve had a metaphorical connection to something like "repulsion"? Think "resistance" or "obstinancy". There are lots of options, but these seem reasonable to me. Moving on, the last item on the list is Kardas: A Rahi dragon, a pretty powerful beast, whose defining ability is the power to emit blasts of "concussive force". I don’t think that much needs to be said there, actually. The connection between "concussive force" and "repulsion" shouldn’t be too hard to make. Let’s run with it. Time to try formulating a proposal: Initial Proposal: Based on their surface similarity to each other and the word crast, as well as some minimal assumptions about the in-universe entities that these words refer to, I propose that the words keras, carapar, and kardas all incorporate a meaning within a semantic domain that includes "repulsion". That seems like a lot of words for not much of a proposal, and it is. Gotta make sure this thing is iron-clad, if possible. Baby steps! 3. Analysis: Revised Proposal The logical progression from the proposal above would be to see if we can identify precisely what part of crast, keras, carapar, and kardas encodes the meaning of "repulsion", and, even more theoretically, if we can use comparative reconstruction to come up with a "basic stem" from which these words descend historically. The first step isn’t all that hard. What are the common elements amongst these words? crast < cra-st keras < ker-as or kera-s carapar < car-apar or cara-par kardas < kar-das The results are in: cra, ker(a), car(a), and kar all appear to be potential candidates for "repulsion" (or some broader, related meaning) within their respective words. Alright, next, we actually have some spelling variation going on with <c> vs. <k>. Let’s normalize that, shall we? That gives us kra, ker(a), and kar(a), and we’ve easily reduced the options by one, merging car(a) and kar. Putting forward another conjecture, it is possible that the ker(a)/kar(a) contrast could just be a matter of phonological variation (or even another spelling difference). Of course, the distinction could actually be significant, but for now let’s take the leap and merge those two as well. That leaves us with two options: kra and kar(a). Can we go any further? Well, for human language, these forms kra and kar(a) could easily be descended from a common root. For example, if we take *kar as the original form (the * indicates a reconstructed stem), it could undergo a process of "metathesis", which is a fancy word for "the sounds get switched", and end up as kra. On the other hand, we might postulate *kara as the original, with simple reduction of the first syllable: kara > kra. Either way works, and at this point we could safely leave it as is. We could...but you know what? Let’s not. Let’s go one tiny step further and pin down *kar(a) as our final reconstructed form, for no other reason than that it covers both possible reconstructions. Minor point. Whew! Alright, after all that, here’s the official revised proposal, incorporating an expanded version of the first proposal: Revised Proposal: (a) The four variants, namely cra (< cra-st), car(a) (< cara-par), ker(a) (< kera-s), and kar (< kar-das), all derive from one common stem, which I propose to reconstruct as *kar(a). (b) Based on their surface similarity to each other and the already-translated word crast, as well as some minimal assumptions about the in-universe references of these words, I further propose that the stem *kar(a) covers a semantic domain containing abstract concepts such as "repulsion" or "resistance", as well as potentially more concrete meanings such as "shell, barrier" or even "concussive force; (destructive?) application of power". 4. Final Remarks And that’s the gist of it, folks. Before I conclude though, here are some suggestions for future research. The following is a short list of words whose analyses, I believe, become immediately accessible to us if the etymology proposed above holds true. In no particular order: karda "heart" < kar-da (repulsion...concussive force/energy...engine?) karzahni < kar-zahni (a being who rejected his original purpose?) krekka < kre-kka? (brute force, anyone?) pakari "strength" < pa-kar-i (leaning more towards "application of power", perhaps?) cordak "desolation" < cor-dak (bit of a stretch, perhaps) icarax < i-cara-x, i-car-ax? krana < kra-na parakrekks < para-kre-kks? (cf. krekk-a) I’ll leave it at that. Comments are welcome. Have fun with it. JRRT P.S. If you're interested in a more uninhibited (but also somewhat outdated) interpretation of the proposal sketched here, check it out, yo.
  22. wow feels like my first topic in S&T hi everyone JRRT
  23. I just got back from seeing The Lego Movie and...Oh childhood, I've missed you. sniff
×
×
  • Create New...