Tolkien's Black Speech- Completed?

For the discussion of language mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, trends, and other such linguistic topics, in english and other languages.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Prelates, Moderators General

Tolkien's Black Speech- Completed?

Postby Hobgoblin » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:59 am UTC

I don't know if any of you have ever found this little gem, but I was fucking around on the internet tonight when I ended up on this page. It's a whole dictionary, and grammar of Black Speech according to the only two phrases ever written in Black Speech by JRR Tolkien- so it's pretty accurate for what it had to work with.

It's a disgustingly simple language, being that 4 out of 6 conjugations in the present tense are the SAME THING, but it's interesting to say the least.

http://www.lugburz.com/black_speech.html

There used to be a forum there too, where people spoke Black Speech, but it's gone.. you can still google around for another one. :D
Life is the best toy anyone could ever give you, and I'm going to play with it until it breaks.
User avatar
Hobgoblin
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:21 am UTC
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Black Speech- Completed?

Postby Bobber » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:43 am UTC

I seriously expected this to be a topic on Ebonics.
I don't twist the truth, I just make it complex.
mrbaggins wrote:There are two tools in life, duct tape and WD40. If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
User avatar
Bobber
contains Disodium Phosphate
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Holme, Denmark.

Re: Black Speech- Completed?

Postby ZLVT » Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:52 am UTC

I once tried to decipher it, and I did, but there is such a minute corpus that if the language were ever developed into a useable one, it could no longer be attributed to Tolkien. I love Black speech, and Dwarven, but they really should focus more on expandign sindarin and quenya first.
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags
User avatar
ZLVT
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Black Speech- Completed?

Postby Kizyr » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:42 pm UTC

I did learn the gist of Orcish a while ago, but yeah, considering there are so few sources, it turns out to be rather limiting.

There are several RP groups, though (through DnD, WoW, and other RPGs) that've come up with their own Orcish lexicon and tried to model the style and grammar as much as possible on Black Speech. But as ZLVT said, at this point only minor parts can be attributed to Tolkein.

Here're a few links on that:
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Tol_Eressea/ar/t465.htm
http://www.shadowclan.com/worldofwarcraft/reference.php
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=752077
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=752378
(not a fan of the last two links at everything2, by the way) KF
~Kaiser
Image
User avatar
Kizyr
 
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia

Re: Tolkien's Black Speech- Completed?

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:39 pm UTC

Hobgoblin wrote:It's a disgustingly simple language, being that 4 out of 6 conjugations in the present tense are the SAME THING

You do realize the irony of making this statement in English, right? Where 5 out of 6 conjugations in the present tense are the same thing, and 6 out of 6 in the past are as well? And in total a regular verb has only four morphologically distinct forms?
Treatid basically wrote:widdout elephants deh be no starting points. deh be no ZFC.


(If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome)
User avatar
gmalivuk
A debonaire peeing style
 
Posts: 20987
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There

Re: Tolkien's Black Speech- Completed?

Postby Fryie » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:03 am UTC

Looking at the grammar of this language, I just stumbled upon the fact that names for people or races never take plural marking.

This doesn't appear anywhere on Earth. As the WALS says:
An apparently exceptionless generalization is that human nouns are more likely to have plural marking than non-human (espcially inanimate) nouns . Thus, three further logically possible types, in which inanimate plurals would occur more widely than human plurals, are not attested:

7. Plural only in inanimate nouns, obligatory

8. Plural only in inanimate nouns, optional

9. Plural in all nouns, optional in human nouns


So this IS really an inhuman language!
Fryie
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:55 am UTC

Re: Tolkien's Black Speech- Completed?

Postby zombie_monkey » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:38 am UTC

User avatar
zombie_monkey
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Tolkien's Black Speech- Completed?

Postby Hobgoblin » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:45 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Hobgoblin wrote:It's a disgustingly simple language, being that 4 out of 6 conjugations in the present tense are the SAME THING

You do realize the irony of making this statement in English, right? Where 5 out of 6 conjugations in the present tense are the same thing, and 6 out of 6 in the past are as well? And in total a regular verb has only four morphologically distinct forms?


But in english, you have a word before the conjugated verb that tells you exactly who is doing what.

EXAMPLE:
To kill=Azat

I kill =az
You kill =az
We Kill =az
You all kill =az
Life is the best toy anyone could ever give you, and I'm going to play with it until it breaks.
User avatar
Hobgoblin
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:21 am UTC
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Tolkien's Black Speech- Completed?

Postby Silas » Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:23 pm UTC

Read your post; didn't like it. Ever think about whether subjects are always necessary?

Besides, if you look closer (in the 'suffixes' link), there's a 1st-person suffix, -izg, which can be appended with the plural suffix -u. Azubizguluk: I'll kill them all.
Felstaff wrote:Serves you goddamned right. I hope you're happy, Cake Ruiner
Silas
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:08 pm UTC

Re: Tolkien's Black Speech- Completed?

Postby Hobgoblin » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:52 pm UTC

Silas wrote:Read your post; didn't like it. Ever think about whether subjects are always necessary?

Besides, if you look closer (in the 'suffixes' link), there's a 1st-person suffix, -izg, which can be appended with the plural suffix -u. Azubizguluk: I'll kill them all.


Wow, I didn't see that.
Life is the best toy anyone could ever give you, and I'm going to play with it until it breaks.
User avatar
Hobgoblin
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:21 am UTC
Location: Dallas, TX


Return to Language/Linguistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a3a5i9k4q and 5 guests