#That sentence was so weird cuz I didn’t know what verb tense to put it in��you get the point anyway but still

[skhardwarevers1]

Post exam ritual of having ramen complete I can move on from that shit show now

[myheartisbro-ken]

you mentioned in a comment on a supercorp fic (i feel like a stalker, yikes) that you got in contact with darren doyle and he gave you some tips on using kryptahniuo, the sentence structure, the krius thing, etc.. would you mind sharing them? because i feel like i've sucked all available resources dry, and as a huge kryptonian nerd, i'd really appreciate it! (ofc, feel free to ignore me and pretend like this never existed if i'm intruding or unknowingly acting like a jerk.)

Okay, soooo, this is all from 3 years ago and I don’t have the best way to make myself clear when talking to people, but I’m gonna put here the things that are relevant and cut out my cringey communication. This is also for anyone who writes and would like to know a lil bit more about the language, or just people who enjoy conlangs. The vocab is over at kryptonian.info, but this is a clearer explanation of some things I had a bit of trouble with.

It’s pretty long though, so strap in.

Here we go:

Me: I was kind of having a hard time trying to figure out what the present form of zhao would be since it already ends with an 'o' and the present suffix is 'odh', I wanted to say 'I love you' with zhao , and on your page I could only find the ukiem sentence. Would it be zhaodh? And how would the full sentence be? What about shovuh, would it be shovuhodh?

Doyle: Sweet! I'm glad to help (I only wish the writers of the show would help instead of butchering the grammar ... and pronunciation)

Ok ... give me a moment to work on this...

Ok ... /zhao/ ... this doesn't end in /o/ (as in go) it ends in /ao/ (as in cow) which is a different vowel. Even if it did, though, you would still go ahead and use the /odh/ suffix. Two vowels in a row in Kryptonian is going to be super rare (pun intended), but in those cases Kryptonian phonetics will use a slight "w" sound to separate the vowels.

So ... it would be /zhaoodh/which would be 3 characters in Kryptonian writing: zh + ao + odhSo, your sentences would be: /zhaoodh (khuhp) w rraop/ and /shovuhodh (khuhp) w rraop/The subject is optional

Also, this is a sentence that would likely be gendered (familiar and/or intimate speech)

So, "I (female) love you (male)." would be: /zhaoodh (khap) w rrup/

BUT

Let's talk about informal speech, because the I love you stuff gets weird ...

zhao and shovuh are primarily nouns, but at some point they got codified as type 1 verbs (taking suffixes)... and grammatically (especially formal writing) type 1 is kind of the "proper" way to use them. But in day-to-day speech, these usually get treated as type 2 verbs (no suffix)

I should back pedal briefly and say that all this applies to /ukiem/ (familial love) ... and actually to /:jev/ (n. happiness, joy) with /:jevodh/ meaning essentially "like" or "enjoy"

So anyway, the informal variant ends up as something like /zhao w rrup/ (you would almost never use the subject with the type 2 forms of these words) Total side topic ... (hope I'm not overwhelming you here) ...

Since type 2 verbs mark tense with a vowel change, there is an interesting result with /zhao/ ... since the past and future versions end up being /zha/ and /zhi/ respectively which also just happen to be the words for "yes" and "no" which also act as augmentative and diminutive markers...

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation as it's unclear if the "will love/did love" meanings gave rise to the "yes/no" meanings or if the existing "yes/no" words guided the vowel shift as /zhao/ went from noun > v1 > v2

Me: Okay, first, in the verb section of your page you say that not using a suffix creates the potential form of the verb, yet there is a prefix, kai, for potential, so if someone were to ask 'can you do...' say, 'can you speak/say this' would it need the prefix and then the present suffix, or just not use either. Like, would it be 'ta-kai-ehworodh rraop w [thing]' or 'ta-kai-ehwor' or just 'ta-ehwor' or is all of that completely dumb and I totally misunderstood everything? (I'm also not sure when I should and shouldn't use the hyphen) And the second is simpler, I guess: going by 'us-kah' as like a petname for your child, would the same apply to a parent, such as saying 'jeju-te' in sort of the same way kids say 'mommy' and not just expressing relationship. And could that apply to a person's name as well? Like, idk if that works in english, but say you have a nickname for someone and then you say 'that's MY [nickname]', (I do that for my aunt in portuguese, which is why I'm asking)

Doyle: Dang ... the "suffixless form of the verb forms the potential" is actually a holdover from an idea when I first started making the language that eventually got abandoned. Thought I removed references to it, but I missed that I guess.

Hyphens are just there to help show the morpheme breaks when explaining the language. If you are just writing Kryptonian, then you wouldn't use them at all.

so /?takaieworodh rraop ki kryptahniuo/ would be correct

Ok ... the "familial-possessive-honorifics" ...

They kind of act like an honirific (Mr., Mrs., Sir, Ma'am, Señor, Señorita, San, Sama etc.)

They attach using the proper noun punctuation...

So ... Kal-El => /kal,ehl/

Mr. Kal-El => /kal,ehl,jran/

(I'm not related it Kal-El)

Let me start over on that last one

I am talking to you about Mr. Kal-El, I would say ...

* (neither of us is related to him): /kal,ehl,jran/

* (I am related to him, but you aren't): /kal,ehl,te/

* (we are both related to him): /kal,ehl,kah/

* (I am not related to him, but you are): /kal,ehl,ni/

* (Neither of us is related to him, but we are talking about someone who is related to him and that relationship is pertinent to the conversation): /kal,ehl,cheh/

So in that sense, these are honorifics ... they are more formal, not less

so ... us,kah for a child probably wouldn't end up being a pet name

and it means "our" child ... so even less likely in that sense (us,te would be "my child")

and it uses the less intimate gender-neutral form

wait ... scratch that ... /us/ is masculine (derp derp)

so, a more likely candidate for a pet name for your child would probably be /us kir/ (little boy) or /is kir/ little girl

you could also do something clever like /krius/ or /kriis/ (that second word would be pronounced "kree-yees") ... borrowing the "bright" prefix and applying it to the child noun

For Kryptonians that wouldn't have as much of the meaning that an English speaker would assign to "bright" (smart, clever, etc), but more of a sense of "joyful", "pleasant", "you-light-up-the-room" kind of sense.

An English equivalent to /krius/ would be something like when you refer to someone as "my little ray of sunshine"

getting back to your actual question ...  

/jeju,te/ and /ukr,te/ would also be more formal. Kids (especially older kids) would be expected to use this form in public when addressing parents

but at home it would probably be just /jeju/ and /ukr/

for the very youngest kids, /jeje/ would be "mommy", and /uku/ (or even /kuku/) would be "daddy" ... but, unlike some dialects of English (especially in the Southern states), those variants wouldn't last very long as kids would be encouraged to use /jeju/ and /ukr/ as their speech developed

So ... ummm ... I'm not sure if I've answered your actual question ... if I have, I may have indicated the opposite... Kryptonians would remove the "my" on a petname ... does that sound right ... hmmm ... thinking about it

Shoot ... I guess I don't really know how to give you a solid answer on that one. Pet names can be funny things, I think ... because even in English I can see formal titles being absorbed as "cute" ... like having a little fluffy dog that you pick up and in a cutesy voice call "Sir Snuggles"

so ... armed with the info for "normal" speech/grammar ... pick whatever feels right to you!

Me: The first I wanted to ask is if 'Awuhkhu zhadif khap w rrip' is correct for 'I'll never leave you'

And the second I tried to make it out, but the result looked weird so I was just very unsure about (while the other I'm a bit more confident about) so how would 'please don't leave me' be, cuz 'please don't' is a full prefix, right? so it'd be 'please don't' prefix + leave + present suffix and then the pronoun separately. By that logic it'd be 'sozhaoawuhkhodh khap' is that correct?

Now there's actually a third one that I don't even know where to begin (mostly because I didn't try too hard) but I wanted to know would you say the sentence 'she left me alone' or 'my mother left me alone'?

Doyle:

/.awuhkhu zhadif khap w rrip/ ... yep, that's correct!  

/sozhaoawuhkhodh khap/ ... yep, that's right too

or you might go with the future tense, especially if those two sentences are going together

/sozhaoawuhkhu khap/

actually ... whoops... /khap/ is the object of the sentence...

/sozhaoawuhkhu w khap/

Let's see for "she left me alone", I would use the malefactive and the past tense of "to go" (which I just realized wasn't in the dictionary - doh!).

So ... let's see... go+past-perf she w me mal.

hmmm... alone, though ...

cause/PST she be/PRS me w alone ki go/PST/PRG ... ?

/podh zhehd nahn khap w chahvymah ki rrosh/ (that last verb wouldn't take a suffix, derp) ... "She made me alone by going" ... hmmm...

You could always just use /podh zhehd nahn khap w chahvymah/ ... she cause me to be alone ... that's probably the closest to the English 

So that’s it, so much information that I thought it was actually a longer convo