Over at Benung, Carsten wrote a post about a recent article on conlangs, including a comment he left and a translation thereof into Ayeri.
And because he’s right and this is indeed a text with some interesting structures and vocabulary, here’s the thing in Baranxe’i:
Śaphēvira maŋujakanen śīr otahēvira? Ŋē, viśun serem ēþ ġa tait maŋvaranu. Ēþaumē mēsau hiso aimat lākluja kamat otahēvīra, tśā viśu ha sinðu atmaun maŋul aŋśinra. Otahēvīra lunāno ā śvādāno ā eivāśāno valkus bileśarsi kautlīśsi aŋana asaġtvumē hēfkokś – mēzu þinu ha’inun ētēn āmuŋī õn aumḗ almu bajika taipú a’i ajires mē – mēzu juŋanuhēŋ eivaśul htvu þintvu ha’inuŋ aśvarna ā ha’inuś hēvīŋarhām sepna ajireña, autśā āmuŋú arusar ētīrtu. Āmur ŋalfaþ eikśmuf, ēlāþo iś śaphēvīra haþa aimat lākluja kamat otahēvīra, ŋalesar hēvīr ratanux aś ētkanuja, atmaun maŋussinen īŋokś? Taiþem ēþ a’i ēlāst mē. Ha ðeir ajuŋal asvarnanuf ā hõŋ þinun ha’inus kavata ŋasanú sereino õn uśño varnanuf. Þinus ētkuŋ ētes.
It’s not a pretty gloss, but here it is:
building-speak-NMLZ-PL good-N-PL=COMP than nature-speak-NMLZ-PL?
Built languages better than nature languages?
INTJ, MED-N-ACC think-C-1SG that be.3SG.N.SJV opinion good-see-PTCP-N.
Well, I think that to be an idealist opinion.
that-and-NEG NEG-TEMP.ADV be.3SG.N.FUT as net-ADJ-N-PL as nature-speak-NMLZ-PL, if MED-N be.3SG.N quality=2SG.GEN in_order_to good-N-QUAL.NMLZ measure-INF.
It may be that they will never be as net-like as nature languages, if that is the characteristic by which to measure good-ness.
nature-speak-NMLZ-PL grow-PST-N and become-PST-N and many-VBLZ-PST-N know-PASS.NMLZ-N-INSTR hundred⟨INSTR.PL⟩=between billions-C-INSTR.PL=between thousand-PL year=GEN.PL-N=TEMP speak-PASS-N-3.N.ABS
Nature languages grew and changed and multiplied through the fact they were spoken by between hundreds and billions over thousands of years.
– event PROX-N REL-N-ACC create-C-A single-C or and-NEG group-N copy-INF whole-ADV NEG can-C-ABS NEG
– an occurance which a single creator or even a group cannot copy
– event give-PTCP-N=1PL.OBL many-N-QUAL.NMLZ body=GEN.PL-N PROX=GEN.PL-N REL-N-ACC.PL behind-see-INF and REL-N-INSTR.PL speak-NMLZ⟨ACC.PL⟩=1PL.GEN build-INF can-C-1.PL, and-if single-ADV love⟨INSTR⟩ build-NMLZ=GEN.
– an occurance giving us many forms which we can explore and with which we can build our languages, and if only because of the love of building.
away side⟨ADPOS⟩ other-N-ADPOS, have_to-C Q building-speak-NMLZ-PL be-INF as net-ADJ-N-PL as nature-speak-NMLZ-PL, will⟨INSTR⟩ speak-NMLZ⟨ADPOS.PL⟩ stand-PTCP-N-ADPOS.PL after build-PASS-PTCP-N-PL, in_order_to good-N-INSTR=like experience-PASS-N-N-3.N.ABS?
From the other side, do built languages have to be as net-like as nature languages, by will built after existing languages, in order that they may be experiences as good?
think-C-1SG that NEG duty⟨INSTR⟩ NEG.
I think not by duty.
be.3SG.N about possible-QUAL.NMLZ⟨ADPOS.PL⟩ behind-see-PTCP-N-ADPOS and manner⟨ACC⟩ PROX-N-ACC REL-N-INSTR thing-PL each_other-ADV walk-C or play-C see-PTCP-N-ADPOS.
It is about exploring possiblities, and seeing the manner in which things work or play together.
PROX-N-INSTR create-PASS.NMLZ-N-ACC.PL create-C-ABS.
Because of this we create models.
Admittedly, it adheres relatively closely to Carsten’s original comment, and had I written something similar on my own in Baranxe’i as the original language, the outcome would like be very different. But I got the words complex, billion (and to go with that, million), group, even [not], complete and possible/possibility out of it, so that’s lovely, anyways.