The Spem conlang

The Spem conlang: should

"Should" has a lot of different meanings that aren't distinguished in any language I know of. Here are the three I can pinpoint:

The false subject is also used for jokes (X should have happened = it would've been funny if X had happened), general design (user interface consultant says "the button should be here" = "the interface is better if the button is here"), et cetera. The only consistent rule of this form seems to be that the grammatical subject is not the semantic subject.

Spem of course is going to separate all these. They're all used as adverbs. Here they are so far:



I'm not sure if I need to add one for "two-sided moral irrelevance". "nu rɑ" means it's perfectly okay to not do something and "nu rɑi" means it's perfectly okay to do something, but I don't have a succinct way to explicitly make both statements. I would add 'ro' but that's taken. 'reu' doesn't sound that good. 'ru' is another possibility, but that doesn't sound good when followed by nu. Maybe 'rei'.

Strategic, perfect information

Strategic, given information

The perfect information strategic should words reference what would *actually* promote the subject's goals. The given information variants reference what the subject, at the time, thought would be beneficial. Note that these are aliases for "tu ke ni zɑ(i)".

False subject

My tentative plan for this is to have the words 'wɑ' (should) and 'wɑi' (shouldn't), which go at the beginning of the sentence, since that structure most accurately reflects the "it would be better/worse if ..." that they designate. I'm not sure whether I should distinguish strategic and artistic false subjects. Maybe 'hɑ' or 'θa' for one of them.


subscribe via RSS

Proxied content from gemini://yujiri.xyz/spem/should.gmi

Gemini request details:

Original URL
Status code
text/gemini; lang=en
Proxied by

Be advised that no attempt was made to verify the remote SSL certificate.

What is Gemini?