Českoen: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:'''anta čoga haska m’ onzo''' | :'''anta čoga haska m’ onzo''' | ||
:''There seem to be spider-webs.'' | :''There seem to be spider-webs.'' | ||
== History == | |||
== Grammar == | |||
nouns: i(n)- (sg); mi-, m- (pl)<br> | |||
adjectives: a(n)- (sg); na-, n- (pl) | |||
čibu, '''i'''čibu sg, '''mi'''čibu pl. | |||
Revision as of 06:56, 2 June 2020
 | This article is private. The author requests that you do not make changes to this project without approval. By all means, please help fix spelling, grammar and organisation problems, thank you. |
 | This article is a construction site. This project is currently undergoing significant construction and/or revamp. By all means, take a look around, thank you. |
Českoen is more of a semi-spooflang, in the sense that it was created with a whole history behind it. It was supposed to be very simple and analytic, but with a tradition that claimed it was indeed quite complex and a "school" trying to revive awareness of its complexity, I had fun parodying notions of "better languages" or "complex = good". In its backstory the Ezgizo Ezgeskoinama school fought the Azgizu school for control over the teaching of the language. The idea was a language that sounded pretty much like Jabba the Hutt's Huttese but with minimal class prefixes for noun and adjective, singular and plural.
- Sample:
- anta čoga haska m’ onzo
- There seem to be spider-webs.
History
Grammar
nouns: i(n)- (sg); mi-, m- (pl)
adjectives: a(n)- (sg); na-, n- (pl)
čibu, ičibu sg, mičibu pl.