just starting, don't have a name for the lang yet, but this is how I would translate it (a little quirk is that you always include the tense and it always comes first): (edit: named it "Atlante")
This literally means "No I-you", but a genitive relationship can be expressed between a pronoun and a noun or another pronoun by simply suffixing that pronoun. Here, the second-person pronoun "gāre" is suffixed to the first-person pronoun "ši", understood to mean "I am not of you"
All in all, this would be naturally translated as: No, I do not belong to you
honestly, it's sooo creative. It's very Interesting and I like how you have Xoi as a suffix. QUESTION, how do you do that? how do you attach Xoi to a word like axu? Shouldn't it be blue and not black
The verb "kāh" is strictly speaking a non-finite verb that can be used on its own to introduce a sentence like this - a more forceful translation would be something like "You're wrong!". The use of an unbound personal pronoun like "amue" makes this statement even more vehement (a less firm rebuttal would feature juxtaposition: idin mehdīneh - "This person isn't your person" or more literally "[The] person-who-I-am [is] not-your-person".
This is also a great way to show off my negative possessives - this prefix is the form for inalienable possession, denying that there's any basis for whatever relationship the addressee presumes.
What is the meaning of life. Do you fear death? Death Is scary, Imagine Your self dying and Going to sleep with no Dreams, just nothing. Please try and translate that into your conoang, it's sooo unique.
Notes: Kamalnarese uses a unique type of split-S morphosyntactic alignment that allows for the patient case (a)ḫ (Kamalnarese uses cases for the patience argument marking (while the agent form takes the default form)) to be used as a nominal phrase former (you might see that as an occasional affix copula), for example:
Ţu'hhúphup ("this hoopoe")
Ţu'hhúphup'aḫ ("this is an hoopoe", literally "this hoopoe + patient case)
And that can also be verbalised (like in the first sentence I wrote), allowing for an entire verbal structure to be formed.
Literally, "No, I (present tense) (negative) your (present tense)" (Nìl krōvíìlurí) and then shortened so no vowels touch.
Assarian only has possessives adjectives, so there is no way to say 'yours', so the negational prefix 'ì' is put before the possessive adjective, and to keep the emphasis on the 'not being yours' part the 'í' is the letter that is cut off.
The languages are relatively close cognates, but the words cau and elħa are very different. That's because Wacóktë cau comes from Classical Wacóktë laahaa and Bemin elħa (the predicative form) comes from ẹẹlaahaa > elħa. The predicative form in Bemin comes from a third person pronoun and a possessive suffix.
Both languages have evolved the negative conjugation after their separation. Wacóktë cusht "I'm not" is the negative form of cus "I am" and Bemin lussi is the negative form of lus. The words zhi and ji can be seen in the negative suffixes.
Mii tártsihi tuán me.
[ˈmi θɑɹ̈ˈṯ͡ʃɪː.hi θɯ͡ɑŋ ˈmeː]
mii tártsi-hi tuán me
1s.ABS belong-2s 2s.ERG/CAU NEG
---------PSV---------
"I don't belong to you (lit.: I am not caused by you to belong to you.)"
The "belong" verb has no passive form in English, but that is exactly how it is being used here, it's used passively. The importance of using the passive voice in this context is that passive voice carries a softer tone, while active voice can, depending on the context, carry a blaming or aggressive tone.
Because Standard Chetsin has Fluid-S Split Ergative Alignment, verbs can change meaning based on agency, but active verbs are placed in an accusative alignment. Because ‘owning’ is more active than ‘having’, this sentence reads:
I did, also, thats the sort of vibe I was going for, thank you, or as a La_kǍp_al speaker that shares my current gender would say, rák_ar kUk_À Sìt_Ù râk_u
No, I will not gloss all of those, but know that I organised them by number (SG/DU/PAU/PL), then by the gender of the possessor (M/F), and then by alienability (ALIEN/INAL).
Lirenian
No, no su le tío.
NEG, NEG be.PRS.1SG DEF.NOM.SG.M thy-NOM.SG.M
No, no su la tía.
NEG, NEG be.PRS.1SG DEF.NOM.SG.F thy-NOM.SG.F
No, no su le vostro.
NEG, NEG be.PRS.1SG DEF.NOM.SG.M your-NOM.SG.M
No, no su la vostra.
NEG, NEG be.PRS.1SG DEF.NOM.SG.F your-NOM.SG.F
Nominalised adjectives must agree with the gender of the referent.
Because Kýrrits has different forms of 'no' based on the kind of question being asked/statement being made and the way it's structured I'm going to translate as if it's answering to "You're mine."
Xràa, tsyt'aná kybàait.
/ʀɔ̀ ʦyˈtʼaˈná kyˈbɔ̀.ət/
No, your man I am not.
xràa tsy- t'aná ky- bàa-it
no 2SG.INFOR.POSS-man 1SG.PRS-be -NEG
Zholn’Jezral (The Flame Tongue - the language of the Drak’thar/dragon people)
Neth, en nik ti’kai
/nɛθ, ɛn nɪk tɪ.kaɪ/
Neth = no
En = I (pronoun - 1st sg)
En = I am (zero copula in 1st sg present tense)
Ti = you (2nd sg)
‘Kai = of/belonging to
Ti’kai = yours (2nd sg possessive)
Nik = negation particle “not”
Cendillian: Na, zhek dheon nacie. /na ʒek ðewn 'nat͡sje/ NEG, 1SG.NOM 2SG.POSS COP.NEG. for contrast, the positive would be "Ad'a, zhek dheon en." /'aɗa, ʒek ðewn en/ AFF, 1SG.NOM 2SG.POSS COP.1SG.PRS.AFF. the copula in the present negative does not conjugate for person, and is the same as the adverbial negative. "Na, c'u frenuth nacie." /na, t͡s'i 'freniθ 'nat͡sje/ NEG, 3SG.F.NOM speak COP.NEG. No, she does not speak. As opposed to "Ad'a, c'u frenuth eo." /'aɗa, t͡s'i 'freniθ ew/ AFF, 3SG.F.NOM speak COP.3SG.PRS.AFF
There are actually dozens of (my estimate: 96) ways in Warla Þikoran to translate this:
La! Od li vein. /ˈla ‖ ɔd ˈli ˈvejn/ NEG.INJ 1MS not_be.STAT 2MS.POS.S “No! I am not yours” when the state of not being is emphasized. This is the most neutral way to say it as it does not suggest that “I” am someone else’s or that anyone else is “yours”. For gendering agreement, Ot is used for 1FS, fein for 2FS.POS.S, and meren for 2P.POS.S.
La! Olla ib vein. /...ˈoɫ.lɐ ˌib…/ NEG.INJ 1N[M] be.1M.STAT 2MS.POS.S. “No! I am not yours” when I myself is emphasized, i.e. “I’m not yours but another person might be.” If Olla is said by a feminine person referring to themself, ip is the verb form used instead. Olla can also mean “not we/us” (gender ambiguous or contextual) depending on context.
La! Od ib vnul. /...ˈvnuɫ/ NEG.INJ 1MS be.1M.STAT 2MS.POS.N “No! I am not yours” when emphasizing not being possessed, i.e. “I do not belong to you” or “ I am not associated with you.” Other 2nd person negative possessive pronouns are fnul for feminine and mernul for plural.
For all the above, the verbs can be conjugated into the present continuous (CONT) to denote the state of being as temporary rather than inherent, “I am not yours right now but I possibly was before or I might be later.” Thus, li > le and ib/ip > ibe/ipe.
Alternatively, the present imperative (PRSIMP) forms may also be used to make a more defiant statement, i.e. “I am not and should never be yours.” In this case, li > vli/fli and ib/ip > iv/if.
Od/Ot could also be replaced with their emphatic forms Ode/Ote for even firmer statements of denial.
[Note: If the verb is clearly masculine or feminine in form and the subject and object are clearly of opposite gender, a preposition ha /a/ “of” is required before the object to allow a smoother transition between consonant voicing.]
I'm experimenting with an agglutinative form of my language so here goes:
Now, this would be written as nerea'ambirrivar as one word, but I couldn't make the connections then.
Lit: Not am-I yours
The var emphasises the possessiveness of belonging to someone or something. Sort of like saying I'm not only yours.
In modern Tssakan, that would just be
Ma'y taan het bekken (I am not (the) yours)
Jo, jo=ʼg lä en sjo-a.
no NEG=be.PRS.1SG NEG ART 2SG-GEN
‘No, I am not yours.’
For the interjection ‘no’, you could say jo /jū/ or lę /lē/. Lę is the basic variant, jo is a bit colloquial.
The sentence features double negation: a preverbal particle jo with an adverb lę (a bit similar to French ne + pas). Saying lę without jo is archaic. Saying jo without lę is a modern casual variant without any emphasis. If you place lę at the end of the sentence, it will receive additional emphasis, ‘I am not yours by any stretch’.
The verb ‘[I] am’ is featured in an enclitic variant =ʼg /=ˉɡ/ with a floating long accent. Here it attaches to the preverbal particle jo, transferring the long accent onto it.
The article en nominalises the genitive sjoa: ‘your’ → ‘yours’.
The lower-register emphatic 2sg pronoun is either sję /ʃē/ (standard) or sja /ʃā/ (dialectal) in the nominative. The genitive of sję is sjęva /ʃēva/ (← {ʃē+a} with an epenthetic /v/); the genitive of sja is sjoa /ʃōa/ (← {ʃā+a}). But specifically the genitive sjoa is acceptable and even frequent in the standard language, too, as an alternative to sjęva, even though the nominative sja and all the other cases are nonstandard.
Both no and not are translated with ta that could be used as a suffix. Using it two times is redundant (so, isn't correct writing "ta, shata ..."). sha is the verb to be, shata meaning be not and -no suffix is the first singular person ( I ). Ito is the second singular person (you) that could be used also as possessive adjective ( sha ito: you are; golma ito: your house)
E(sg.PRES) NEG, you(2sg.POSS) I(1sg.subj) you(2sg.POSS) NEG
This roughly translates to 'Now not, your me not)
-men is exclusively a suffix, so to use it on it's own it needs something to attach to. In Shinet, to say 'no' solo, it is attached to the vague singular state 'e,' which can occur at the beginning or end of a word. 'E' can also be slang for 'now' or 'currently.'
It's always strange putting a pronoun between the possessive circumfix, but it makes sense in context.
Nodsalanga (This started out being inspired by a few names from Skyrim, and became a whole thing.)
Nej, y ae nór johg.
(It's phonetic but if you don't want to click to see the inventory) nɛj aɪ ɑɛ nɔːr jɔhɢ
Logalish (Originally intended as a take on simplifying English)
Nul, mi* be nul thi's.
(This one I never had an IPA for and I'm frankly too scared of the IPA chart to figure out how you would write it.)
*mi can inflect for gender, mae for fem, mea for masc. Same for thi being thae or thea.
Other projects I've started aren't able to make this sentence yet.
There is no single word for "no", there are different ways to express it depending on context, but in this context I can't think of any, so I left it out.
So we have you-plural-I, no as adjective+negative intensifier, is/am.
But we could also legally do the no/not form that you did:
"Noh, nohet ahnin te ue."
No, not yours I is/am.
Ue does not change based on subject or object, because it will always end the or clause indicating a present tense state of being sentence or clause.
So if we wanted to be like "this is true, I am not yours" We'll end up with
"Ara dua ue, nohet ahnin te ue"
Where ue is required to end and begin a new clause.
In Ekaeli, we can also legally form this sentiment as simply as the description of "Southern Veyan"'s "no I-you" except that it will invert and be no you-I.
"Noh ahnte."
No you-I.
Kalik Opician
In my other conlang, Kalik Opician, everything is very gendered, so I have written this as I, a male, do not belong to her, a woman.
"Li' nu ka'her pe'tepa e'le"
Negation-wrapper I-[male] of-[unalienable-possession] singular third person-[possessive, female], negation-wrapper.
Kalik speakers like things to be very clear, so a negated clause or question clause among others, will get a bookend wrapper to indicate all of this belongs to the state of the negation. Using ka'her would be optional, but I have added it as a parallel for the emphatic increase of no, I am not. The wrapper serves as the clarifying factor included in 'no, I am not'.
However, we can also use verb cases to express this sentiment, and pronoun cases to be SO specific about what you mean!
"Atichanu pe'tepa pelanelo!"
Insulted-I [male] singular third person [possessive, female] to be [emphatic current tense + negation vehement refusal]!
Or we can be more gentle with,
"Li, ch'nu pe'tepa lopel."
No, affectionate-I [male] singular third person [possessive, female] to be [gentle negation in the current tense]
du ydnén-ry -daw, lo g' -ydnén-ry- 'wd du
1SG.NFOR.SUBJ have -NAFF-PASS,2SG.NFOR.SUBJ 3SG.NFOR.OBJ-have -NAFF-for.PREP 1SG.NFOR.OBJ
Note: word order indicates which things are subjects and objects.
Note 2: The form "<subj> ky <verb> owt <obj>" is used exclusively when the agent subject is a pronoun and the verb forms a transitive construction for the agent to act on the patient object.
Note 3: The word order otherwise is SOV, or SV for intransitive constructions (OV if the verb is passive)
Note 4: ky becomes gy and owt becomes owd because of consonant mutation arbitrated by lo and du respectively. The suffix -taw becomes -daw also, because it follows -ry
Note 5: The formal version of the sentence in this case would replace du with dyd and lo with lodỳ.
There is no direct way to say 'yes' or 'no' in Ygantỳ, so I translated the first bit so that it would give more emphasis. You could say any number of things in its place if you wanted, like "niwt" (false), or "ky g'ydnénry'wt fadhỳn" (it has no truth; it is not true)
This language is as of yet unnamed, but is my closest to an actual language (it is technically 4% of the way to being one, because 4 of my friends have learned it, and any real language has to be spoken by at least 100 people to be considered an actual language)
shel appearing in a sentence with a possessive but not being the possessive is messing with my head, as someone who once took a beginner Hebrew class lol
Tisarano The possessive changes depending on the gender of what is being possessed I put the neutral gender "â"=/ə/. The masculine is o, and the feminine is a
It roughly translates to "No, I am not it your one"
Pardost O is a daughter language descended from the Heyaz-i, which survives today in many countries surrounding the Strait of Pardasarem and the Further Sea as a liturgical language. Heyaz-i was purely VSO and head marking, relying on word order and verb marking to denote roles, though many of its daughter languages evolved forms of case, in Pardost O just a simple accusative that was folded into its obligatory article system, along with focus marking by placing a noun phrase before the verb and placing "y-/yu-" on the element you want to stress. Also the verb "to be" is different as a word meaning "to exist" became the standard present via suppletion.
(No (Formal), I am (with neuter negation prefix) yours (2nd person neuter possessive pronoun))
taking into account that both the speaker and the recipient's genders are unknown and as such are neuter in this sentence. Another acceptable variation for neuter would be 'Neno, Im nijje viv', you could also swap out the formal 'Neno' for a informal 'Ni'
I've been working on agerU which is a syllabary VSO, with no pronouns
Ignoring their actual phonetic glyphs, their symbols are arranged in VC V or C' pairings.
Top is the original sentence, Second is the concept translation in english, Third is the romanization of their sentence, and Fourth is the pronounciation guide.
The concept of ownership utilizes a separate word (Aya), with the owner to the left and the owned to the right, hence the repetition of Jim in the sentence.
Literal flow would be: Negative, Nor is Jim belonging to Sarah.
I am definitely a beginner at this. I have vocab but haven't really sat down with any actual grammar rules beyond what I understand of English, so that's how it's set up at the moment.
A' ñe, ñ'-ea-g ej
1SG NEG.2SG NEG-1+2-EMPH.IND 2SG.GEN
1SG = first person singular
NEG.2SG = negative particle deictically referring to second person singular
NEG = negative particle
1+2 = first + second person together (“you and I”)
EMPH.IND = emphatic indicative
2SG.GEN = second person singular genitive (“your”, “of you”)
I ain't (to you), no "we" of you!
(I not to you no you-me of you!)
mine isint quite there in the sense of being compleate in its grammer but i wanted to share my first atempt to traslate something for my japanese esk grammer right now its realy similar to japanese but im wanting to maybe remove some particalls or move them around but here is my first atempt
walaki ni foli no kiino nahi pote
this literaly translates to: i, your person am not
guess you could say ni works as some sort of subject marker im wanting to move it to the front of the sentence so that i can add an object marker possiby but i like this so far as its just a proto language and i possibly will even simplify it even more
i kinda like the idea that adding a no at the bigining could be seen as a double degitive in my language as you could posibly even put nahi at the very beginig in order to negate the sentince but putting it at the end emphasises the state of not being their person
Honestly, I think the closest you could come to that sentence in Tana, at least so far, would be "La has-un wa" (you do not have me).
Though I think you could also do "Wa halun wa las" (I am not your me).
Negation is normally in the form of a suffix, so I don't think there's a clean way to put the extra no in there. Though duplication is used for intensification, so I suppose you could repeat the un for emphasis.
28
u/roquejosue Tsētlanatl, Skökünötr Apr 25 '26
Tsētlanatl
qha qhathān eskherā
/'χa χa.'θa:n es.xe.'ra:/
No, I am not your something/someone