If nothing else, we know that the dash hanging down at the beginning of the Name line is probably part of the slash since a variation begins the segment we believe to represent creature.
That's exactly what I'm saying. I think that symbol means "noun". I'll try to put up some images to show what I'm talking about.
I strongly doubt this symbol *only* does this. This symbol is in many different places. I think it's only a letter that coincidentally seems to work this way here. Notice that it's in a different place in "creature" than in "Elesh".
Edit: I misunderstood you, ignore.
Ok, the highlighted parts were what I was talking about. The bit at the beginning of Elesh I could be wrong about, but I'm pretty certain on the bits at the beginning of "Creature/Creatures".
Also, the parts highlighted in red. The one on the typeline would be "Legendary", and the one on the first line of text would be "Vigilance". What do these two words have in common? That's right, they're adjectives. I believe every word has a symbol at the beginning that signifies what part of the language it is (noun, verb, adverb, adjective, etc.)
EDIT: I think the first word on the second ability would then be "Control", or a version of it (past tense, present tense, participle, something like that). If I'm right about the symbol at the beginning signifying "adjective", then it fits. I don't know how I thought that was an adjective. Control is obviously a verb. I'll keep thinking.
EDIT AGAIN: Actually, control can be an adjective. "Controlled creatures". Not saying that's exactly what it says, but at least in the English translation, that form of "control" would be an adjective. My theory holds water!
EDIT: I just noticed something. Look at the typeline. "Legendary" and "Creature" aren't seperated by a "|". I think that adjectives are added onto whatever they're modifying.
I wish the resolution on the card was better. My eyes say that the dingies in the +2/+2 sentences are different from the ones in "legendary" and "vigilance", but I have no way of knowing if that's true or not.
I also wonder if those characters would be pronounced or not in this case. It'd be kind of awkward to start all adjectives with the same sound.
EDIT AGAIN: Actually, control can be an adjective. "Controlled creatures". Not saying that's exactly what it says, but at least in the English translation, that form of "control" would be an adjective. My theory holds water!
Actually, that form of "control" is still a verb; though it looks like an adjective, it's really passive voice. This is something that any linguist, including the linguist responsible for this conlang, should know intuitively.
Moreover, "vigilance" is a noun in English.
Though it's possible the symbol(s) in question has something to do with modifiers, it's also possible that it just represents a common phoneme. I question the utility of graphemes/phonemes representing parts of speech - POS-assignment is a fairly primitive role of syntax, so anyone fluent in the language would be able to figure it out without the aid of a particular symbol or phone to tell them about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
I wish the resolution on the card was better. My eyes say that the dingies in the +2/+2 sentences are different from the ones in "legendary" and "vigilance", but I have no way of knowing if that's true or not.
I also wonder if those characters would be pronounced or not in this case. It'd be kind of awkward to start all adjectives with the same sound.
It wouldn't be that awkward. Consider Spanish verbs. Depending on the conjugation, a large variety of verbs end in the same sound: trabajar (to work) and molestar (to bother) in the "I" form are "trabajo" and "molesto". It's kind of a stretch, but it's not that strange.
As a side note, does anyone have any idea of how this language is written? Obviously, it consists of a single vertical line with symbols, but how would you physically write that? Do you write the symbols and finish with the line? Or, do you have to estimate the length of your sentence and write your line accordingly? Either way seems like quite a bother.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
It would be nice to figure out the alphabet. Here's my try to find all seen characters (letters?), excluding obvious punctuation.
The right part of image is most certainly incomplete because of the low-res pictures.
It would be nice to figure out the alphabet. Here's my try to find all seen characters (letters?), excluding obvious punctuation.
The right part of image is most certainly incomplete because of the low-res pictures.
It's likely not an "alphabet" like the English alphabet. It's probably more like Japanese, or possibly Hebrew. Considering the various modifiers to similar symbols, I'm guessing it's closer to Hebrew actually.
As a side note, does anyone have any idea of how this language is written? Obviously, it consists of a single vertical line with symbols, but how would you physically write that? Do you write the symbols and finish with the line? Or, do you have to estimate the length of your sentence and write your line accordingly? Either way seems like quite a bother.
My guess would be you'd start off a sentence with that "|", and then just continue writing until you reach the end of your sentence, then right a line through it and hook it at the end. It's basically punctuation. There is a possibility that they put the line in each symbol as they write though.
My guess would be you'd start off a sentence with that "|", and then just continue writing until you reach the end of your sentence, then right a line through it and hook it at the end. It's basically punctuation. There is a possibility that they put the line in each symbol as they write though.
True, though the second method would probably look very awkward, with the line being clearly broken.
Another side note: is the language clearly phonetic/not-phonetic? It seems like certain symbols (Phyrexian symbol for example) have specific meanings, but some people have said it seems phonetic.
Honestly, I'd rather it be more symbolic, as I'd rather it be easier to read/write than easier to speak.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Actually, that form of "control" is still a verb; though it looks like an adjective, it's really passive voice. This is something that any linguist, including the linguist responsible for this conlang, should know intuitively.
Moreover, "vigilance" is a noun in English.
Though it's possible the symbol(s) in question has something to do with modifiers, it's also possible that it just represents a common phoneme. I question the utility of graphemes/phonemes representing parts of speech - POS-assignment is a fairly primitive role of syntax, so anyone fluent in the language would be able to figure it out without the aid of a particular symbol or phone to tell them about it.
Actually, passive voice requires an auxiliary verb. "Controlled" is in this case simply an adjectival participle, making its function an adjective in the phrase.
We have no way of knowing whether the Phyrexian card is using "Vigilance" or "Vigilant". Noun or adjective.
I actually completely agree with you on the last part, but I'm not going to discount Trancebam's theory completely until there's clear evidence against it.
True, though the second method would probably look very awkward, with the line being clearly broken.
Another side note: is the language clearly phonetic/not-phonetic? It seems like certain symbols (Phyrexian symbol for example) have specific meanings, but some people have said it seems phonetic.
Honestly, I'd rather it be more symbolic, as I'd rather it be easier to read/write than easier to speak.
It's most likely a phonetic language, like Hebrew. Each symbol likely has it's own sound to go with it, rather than each symbol meaning a different word. I've discovered something interesting, gonna post an image of it soon.
EDIT: okay, so based on this picture
each of those words is a form of "Phyrexia". I think the farthest left one is "Phyrexia's", as in the possessive. My reasoning?
That's just of the flavor text. Based on the English translation, we know the word highlighted on the left is the possessive "Phyrexia's". I don't know what the word highlighted on the right is, but you'll notice that they both end in the same three symbols. Changing up the wording of the first sentence a bit, one could translate it as "The Gitaxian's whispers are of other worlds", or something of the like, so there's a chance that the word highlighted on the right is "Gitaxian's". The blue highlights were just me noticing another similarity between the two words. Not sure what it means.
My guess is that "Elesh Norn" is simply "Grand Cenobite" in Phyrexian. If Phyrexian is indeed a symbolic language, Elesh's name is written with letters identical to those used in other words, instead of a separate set of characters (like phonetically spelling out english words in Katakana.)
That said, that line of text is pretty long for a two syllable name. Perhaps the Phyrexians hype her up a little more?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
True, though the second method would probably look very awkward, with the line being clearly broken.
Another side note: is the language clearly phonetic/not-phonetic? It seems like certain symbols (Phyrexian symbol for example) have specific meanings, but some people have said it seems phonetic.
Honestly, I'd rather it be more symbolic, as I'd rather it be easier to read/write than easier to speak.
I strongly doubt it's symbolic. There's not nearly enough variation in the characters. My opinion is that it's almost completely phonetic.
The Phyrexian symbol is a complicated issue. It could both be a letter unrelated to the symbol, or strongly related. I don't think that the circle character in the script actually stands for anything other than a phoneme.
My guess is that "Elesh Norn" is simply "Grand Cenobite" in Phyrexian. If Phyrexian is indeed a symbolic language, Elesh's name is written with letters identical to those used in other words, instead of a separate set of characters (like phonetically spelling out english words in Katakana.)
That said, that line of text is pretty long for a two syllable name. Perhaps the Phyrexians hype her up a little more?
I'm pretty sure we've already discovered that there's a "Grand/Great/Magnificent" that starts the second half of the Card Name. I also stand by my interpretation of the phonemes for the "Elesh Norn" part, as well as the language being clearly almost purely phonetic. But again, I can't shut that any theories down without more clear proof.
I do like the idea of Elesh, or Norn, or both being a title, rather than a name. Although, this would go against Wizard's naming pattern, but on the other hand would be flavourful for Phyrexians.
Actually, passive voice requires an auxiliary verb. "Controlled" is in this case simply an adjectival participle, making its function an adjective in the phrase.
We have no way of knowing whether the Phyrexian card is using "Vigilance" or "Vigilant". Noun or adjective.
I actually completely agree with you on the last part, but I'm not going to discount Trancebam's theory completely until there's clear evidence against it.
Not necessarily. Often, passive voice entails the use of an auxiliary verb with a passive participle. But there are languages where verbs themselves can have passive voice. In Latin, for example, you can form passive voice either with an auxiliary verb with the perfect passive participle, or by conjugating the verb in passive voice.
Not necessarily. Often, passive voice entails the use of an auxiliary verb with a passive participle. But there are languages where verbs themselves can have passive voice. In Latin, for example, you can form passive voice either with an auxiliary verb with the perfect passive participle, or by conjugating the verb in passive voice.
I stand corrected, but I can't think of an example in English where you can form the passive voice without an auxilliary. Also, I was technically wrong in calling the adjectival participle an adjective, but it essentially functions as such.
I didn't realize a tangent went off on my theory about the symbol possibly being for a form of "control". I was wrong on that. The word is likely representative of "the".
We have no way of knowing whether the Phyrexian card is using "Vigilance" or "Vigilant". Noun or adjective.
This is sort of true. Note that the word used is a noun in every other language Wizards prints cards for - this is a templating principle. Creatures "have" vigilance; they don't become vigilant. It strikes me as unlikely that this would change for Phyrexian.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
This is sort of true. Note that the word used is a noun in every other language Wizards prints cards for - this is a templating principle. Creatures "have" vigilance; they don't become vigilant. It strikes me as unlikely that this would change for Phyrexian.
Phonetic or not, the language needs some way of writing it conveniently, so I mapped Phyrexian symbols to English letters and punctuation marks, basing on the semblance to letters, which allows to write it down quickly and refer to certain symbols by their codes.
Underline modifiers are written before the code and overline modifiers are written after the code.
Here is my map (OUTDATED - see http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6538074&postcount=143 ):
'ZE_^MxS^TH^D^T xMxNL'ZNxA`KT^HZXx.
Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
N^LV^Z"'X:E'ZN* X:N*LV^XxD^.
Legendary Creature - Praetor
N"VFX:T^D^QXxT.
Vigilance
N*ESM:L_^_^SX^OSX^N"Q'X:Q_^N"SEN"O 'X:EE'ZN*+2/+2N^FXxLX:EX^.
Other creatures you control get +2/+2.
N*ESXxOSON"T^JJX^AxSX^N"Q'X:E_^SN"E 'X:EE'ZN*-2/-2N^FXxLX:EX^.
Creatures your opponents control get -2/-2.
N"ESX:HD^Z"ON"XxSZ^FFXxN*SM:L_^_^X:ENxOOZ^N` N^F'ZFA`E'ZEXx.
The Gitaxians whisper among themselves of other worlds.
ZLSZ^FFXxN"SX:OT^_LT^_ 'X:L'X:LS'NLS'X:GD^N*OZ^N` 'ZEMxN"L'ZNxT^_LX:GXx.
If they exist, we must bring Phyrexia's magnificence to them.
~XvGD^N*YJ'ZN".
Phyrexian (language)
'ZQSMxHX:D^X:Xx~X:FD^N"X:ENxOZ^N` MxNxL'ZNxT^~X:FTS~X:_^T^L~X:ET
The Great Work of New Phyrexia is complete
N"ESV^J'ZZ"'ZO'ZVZ"VOVVS TL'ZT^SM^HX:D^LX:Xx'ZT^T^EN"FN" N"F_^Q'ZENv
New sources of mana power the Machine Orthodoxy
N*ETD^HZ^T^S'ZOZO'ZFVS~XvFD^N* X:_^XxN*EN*FMxSOMxX^TT^FD^FN*
Beneath the Phyrexian skin, the heart of Mirrodin burns
N*ESXvN*OT^T^T^SN*EX^FXx 'ZFA`EE'ZXxSXxOYFD^Xx N^FAxX:LT^'ZEZ^
The body is whole, but whispers splinter the mind
V^JJ'ZZ"STH'ZFNxS
The Father (of Machines)
THAxEX^S'X:L'X:L
is coming
ST^L'X:TON"~X:_^Z^FX^HMx
Destroyer.
They may not be exactly accurate, especially the modifiers, because they all look alike and are hard to tell from each other on low-res pictures.
^,",*,: marks look very alike, as do ~ and '.
Some interesting conclusions can be made:
1) some symbols are modified more frequently then other. J,H,Q and F,G,E,K,L symbols do not have modifiers (unless you count G as modified F and K as modified E). S and O are never modified. X is always modified, often with both overline and underline modifiers.
'X and ~X look very alike but seem to be different. So X comes in varieties:
Xx X^ X: 'X: ~X: Xv ~Xv
N and Z often have modifiers:
Nx N^ N* N"
'Z Z" Z^
Other symbols can have few modifiers: T or T^, Mx or M: (never without), D^ (seems that symbol D actually comes with ^ modifier initially), V or V^, Ax or A` (again, never without).
2) some symbols are really rare. Y, G and K, in particular. Though G is probably either modified F or it's the same symbol and low-res makes it look like F or G.
I've met K only once, in 'Grand Cenobite', but it is clearly distinguishable from E.
3) 'Phyrexia' corresponds to ~XvGD^N* or ~XvFD^N* sequence (met four times in those phrases), which adds to the theory that F and G are the same.
4) most of the sentences start with N, Z or X - some kind of article?
I think S is some kind of word or concept separator. It's found in between "Elesh" and "Norn", and some other places where it would make sense to be in between words.
I guess if O has no modifiers/dingies, it might be some kind of punctuation or special function too. Alternatively, it and the other characters that sometimes appear without the modifiers could be some type of sound.
Also, great job on the character mapping! =D Easier to notice some patterns. =)
p.s. You forgot Legendary in the creature type
Also, with regards to concern earlier about the line spacing being different in the second line: If you look closely, that whole line is larger. The Os are larger, everything is larger. It's simply some kind of technical issue.
Thank you! I've wondered why 'creature' is so long and now it makes sense.
N^LV^Z" [B]'X:E'ZN*[/B] X:N*LV^XxD^.
Legendary Creature - Praetor
N*ES M:L_^_^ S X^O S X^N"Q'X: Q_^N"SEN"O [B]'X:EE'ZN*[/B] +2/+2 N^FXxLX:EX^.
Other creatures you control get +2/+2.
N*ES XxO S ON"T^JJX^Ax S X^N"Q'X: E_^SN"E [B]'X:EE'ZN*[/B] -2/-2 N^FXxLX:EX^.
Creatures your opponents control get -2/-2.
Bolded parts could be 'creature' and 'creatures'. If so, syntax is weirder than we thought. Yoda syntax? 'Other you control creatures +2/+2 modified get'?
Another interesting observation: doubled identical symbols often come near plural nouns. The above example stands for 'creatures', other instances I've noticed:
JJ near 'opponents'
FF near 'Gitaxians'
FF near 'they' (ok, not technically a noun)
EE near 'whispers'
JJ near 'machines' (if it is read as 'The Machines Father')
also, VV near 'sources' and OO (not exactly) near 'worlds'.
It is possible that plural form in Phyrexian is formed by doubling certain symbols in the word.
It really isn't that hard; I've done it a few times myself. Just time-consuming if you want it to be fully functional.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese visual kei heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: http://www.onmyozatheatre.com
Bolded parts could be 'creature' and 'creatures'. If so, syntax is weirder than we thought. Yoda syntax? 'Other you control creatures +2/+2 modified get'?
At least one other person familiar with Japanese and I have advocated since the beginning that the verbs are located at the end. He suggested that the last part might even be "modifier receive". I don't think we're 100% sure about the order of the words before "creature" though. =)
Edit: If I didn't have a final exam in 8 hours, I'd try to figure a whole lot more details out. But one can think about corroborating the previous suggestions of where "other" is placed, and looking at the differences and similarities between the +2/+2 lines and possible meanings. It's easier to deal with now that you've put it in typeable form.
That's exactly what I'm saying. I think that symbol means "noun". I'll try to put up some images to show what I'm talking about.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
Edit: I misunderstood you, ignore.
Ok, the highlighted parts were what I was talking about. The bit at the beginning of Elesh I could be wrong about, but I'm pretty certain on the bits at the beginning of "Creature/Creatures".
Also, the parts highlighted in red. The one on the typeline would be "Legendary", and the one on the first line of text would be "Vigilance". What do these two words have in common? That's right, they're adjectives. I believe every word has a symbol at the beginning that signifies what part of the language it is (noun, verb, adverb, adjective, etc.)
EDIT:
I think the first word on the second ability would then be "Control", or a version of it (past tense, present tense, participle, something like that). If I'm right about the symbol at the beginning signifying "adjective", then it fits.I don't know how I thought that was an adjective. Control is obviously a verb. I'll keep thinking.EDIT AGAIN: Actually, control can be an adjective. "Controlled creatures". Not saying that's exactly what it says, but at least in the English translation, that form of "control" would be an adjective. My theory holds water!
EDIT: I just noticed something. Look at the typeline. "Legendary" and "Creature" aren't seperated by a "|". I think that adjectives are added onto whatever they're modifying.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
I wish the resolution on the card was better. My eyes say that the dingies in the +2/+2 sentences are different from the ones in "legendary" and "vigilance", but I have no way of knowing if that's true or not.
I also wonder if those characters would be pronounced or not in this case. It'd be kind of awkward to start all adjectives with the same sound.
Moreover, "vigilance" is a noun in English.
Though it's possible the symbol(s) in question has something to do with modifiers, it's also possible that it just represents a common phoneme. I question the utility of graphemes/phonemes representing parts of speech - POS-assignment is a fairly primitive role of syntax, so anyone fluent in the language would be able to figure it out without the aid of a particular symbol or phone to tell them about it.
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
It wouldn't be that awkward. Consider Spanish verbs. Depending on the conjugation, a large variety of verbs end in the same sound: trabajar (to work) and molestar (to bother) in the "I" form are "trabajo" and "molesto". It's kind of a stretch, but it's not that strange.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
The right part of image is most certainly incomplete because of the low-res pictures.
It's likely not an "alphabet" like the English alphabet. It's probably more like Japanese, or possibly Hebrew. Considering the various modifiers to similar symbols, I'm guessing it's closer to Hebrew actually.
My guess would be you'd start off a sentence with that "|", and then just continue writing until you reach the end of your sentence, then right a line through it and hook it at the end. It's basically punctuation. There is a possibility that they put the line in each symbol as they write though.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
True, though the second method would probably look very awkward, with the line being clearly broken.
Another side note: is the language clearly phonetic/not-phonetic? It seems like certain symbols (Phyrexian symbol for example) have specific meanings, but some people have said it seems phonetic.
Honestly, I'd rather it be more symbolic, as I'd rather it be easier to read/write than easier to speak.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Actually, passive voice requires an auxiliary verb. "Controlled" is in this case simply an adjectival participle, making its function an adjective in the phrase.
We have no way of knowing whether the Phyrexian card is using "Vigilance" or "Vigilant". Noun or adjective.
I actually completely agree with you on the last part, but I'm not going to discount Trancebam's theory completely until there's clear evidence against it.
It's most likely a phonetic language, like Hebrew. Each symbol likely has it's own sound to go with it, rather than each symbol meaning a different word. I've discovered something interesting, gonna post an image of it soon.
EDIT: okay, so based on this picture
each of those words is a form of "Phyrexia". I think the farthest left one is "Phyrexia's", as in the possessive. My reasoning?
That's just of the flavor text. Based on the English translation, we know the word highlighted on the left is the possessive "Phyrexia's". I don't know what the word highlighted on the right is, but you'll notice that they both end in the same three symbols. Changing up the wording of the first sentence a bit, one could translate it as "The Gitaxian's whispers are of other worlds", or something of the like, so there's a chance that the word highlighted on the right is "Gitaxian's". The blue highlights were just me noticing another similarity between the two words. Not sure what it means.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
That said, that line of text is pretty long for a two syllable name. Perhaps the Phyrexians hype her up a little more?
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
I strongly doubt it's symbolic. There's not nearly enough variation in the characters. My opinion is that it's almost completely phonetic.
The Phyrexian symbol is a complicated issue. It could both be a letter unrelated to the symbol, or strongly related. I don't think that the circle character in the script actually stands for anything other than a phoneme.
I'm pretty sure we've already discovered that there's a "Grand/Great/Magnificent" that starts the second half of the Card Name. I also stand by my interpretation of the phonemes for the "Elesh Norn" part, as well as the language being clearly almost purely phonetic. But again, I can't shut that any theories down without more clear proof.
I do like the idea of Elesh, or Norn, or both being a title, rather than a name. Although, this would go against Wizard's naming pattern, but on the other hand would be flavourful for Phyrexians.
Not necessarily. Often, passive voice entails the use of an auxiliary verb with a passive participle. But there are languages where verbs themselves can have passive voice. In Latin, for example, you can form passive voice either with an auxiliary verb with the perfect passive participle, or by conjugating the verb in passive voice.
I stand corrected, but I can't think of an example in English where you can form the passive voice without an auxilliary. Also, I was technically wrong in calling the adjectival participle an adjective, but it essentially functions as such.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Point taken. =)
Underline modifiers are written before the code and overline modifiers are written after the code.
Here is my map (OUTDATED - see http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6538074&postcount=143 ):
Here are all coded phrases from Elesh Norn and New Phyrexia (OUTDATED - see http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6538074&postcount=143 ):
They may not be exactly accurate, especially the modifiers, because they all look alike and are hard to tell from each other on low-res pictures.
^,",*,: marks look very alike, as do ~ and '.
Some interesting conclusions can be made:
1) some symbols are modified more frequently then other. J,H,Q and F,G,E,K,L symbols do not have modifiers (unless you count G as modified F and K as modified E). S and O are never modified. X is always modified, often with both overline and underline modifiers.
'X and ~X look very alike but seem to be different. So X comes in varieties:
Xx X^ X: 'X: ~X: Xv ~Xv
N and Z often have modifiers:
Nx N^ N* N"
'Z Z" Z^
Other symbols can have few modifiers: T or T^, Mx or M: (never without), D^ (seems that symbol D actually comes with ^ modifier initially), V or V^, Ax or A` (again, never without).
2) some symbols are really rare. Y, G and K, in particular. Though G is probably either modified F or it's the same symbol and low-res makes it look like F or G.
I've met K only once, in 'Grand Cenobite', but it is clearly distinguishable from E.
3) 'Phyrexia' corresponds to ~XvGD^N* or ~XvFD^N* sequence (met four times in those phrases), which adds to the theory that F and G are the same.
4) most of the sentences start with N, Z or X - some kind of article?
I guess if O has no modifiers/dingies, it might be some kind of punctuation or special function too. Alternatively, it and the other characters that sometimes appear without the modifiers could be some type of sound.
Also, great job on the character mapping! =D Easier to notice some patterns. =)
p.s. You forgot Legendary in the creature type
Also, with regards to concern earlier about the line spacing being different in the second line: If you look closely, that whole line is larger. The Os are larger, everything is larger. It's simply some kind of technical issue.
Bolded parts could be 'creature' and 'creatures'. If so, syntax is weirder than we thought. Yoda syntax? 'Other you control creatures +2/+2 modified get'?
Another interesting observation: doubled identical symbols often come near plural nouns. The above example stands for 'creatures', other instances I've noticed:
JJ near 'opponents'
FF near 'Gitaxians'
FF near 'they' (ok, not technically a noun)
EE near 'whispers'
JJ near 'machines' (if it is read as 'The Machines Father')
also, VV near 'sources' and OO (not exactly) near 'worlds'.
It is possible that plural form in Phyrexian is formed by doubling certain symbols in the word.
It really isn't that hard; I've done it a few times myself. Just time-consuming if you want it to be fully functional.
http://www.onmyozatheatre.com
BelzDecks: Check out my current decks !
BelzCards: Look at all the neat cards I made up !
At least one other person familiar with Japanese and I have advocated since the beginning that the verbs are located at the end. He suggested that the last part might even be "modifier receive". I don't think we're 100% sure about the order of the words before "creature" though. =)
Edit: If I didn't have a final exam in 8 hours, I'd try to figure a whole lot more details out. But one can think about corroborating the previous suggestions of where "other" is placed, and looking at the differences and similarities between the +2/+2 lines and possible meanings. It's easier to deal with now that you've put it in typeable form.