PDA

View Full Version : Infernal Linguistics



Virgo
2009-01-24, 04:55 PM
I'm playing an infernal sorcerer who's something of a linguist in my current game, and although I know very little about linguistics, I though it might be fun to write up a little piece on the language Infernal. Well, about 5000 words later, I'm stuck as to what to address next, so I thought I'd throw it into the playground and see if anyone had any thoughts.

Also, I am not a linguist, nor to I study linguistics. I apologize deeply to those who are.

(And if that bit right there was too long for you, it gets way more tl;dr pretty fast. :smalltongue:)

Introduction:


On Infernal
- Akavi Morvaunt

Language is more than just a mode of communication; it is a way of thought, and a way of expressing value. By looking at the way creatures interact, we can get a vivid picture of the emotions and intricacies that populate everyday life. In my study of the Baatezu and their langauge, I quickly concluded that much could be learned from a simple compliation of that ways that Lessar Baatezu parallels the very structure of the society from which it springs. Mortal (non-Outisder) beings have both bodies and souls, while Outsiders lack any such distinction; their bodies are soul incarnate. Just so, Infernal lacks any of the morphological tendencies that we see among Material Plane languages that evolved over time: along with Greater Baatezu, or Mabrahoring, Lesser Baatezu came into being with the first devils, tied as instrisically into the diabolical psyche as the need for orderly expression.


I. The Five Formalities:

The very structure of Infernal, or Lesser Baatezu, is a reflection of the strictly hierarchical society of the Nine Hells. Where Common lacks any distinguishing conjugation in the second person for formality, and Material Plane languages historically display a maximum of three ‘formality’ tenses (specifically, the ancient Elvish dialects still spoken in the heart of the Sisterlands), Infernal possesses a dazzling five, which apply to both the second- and third-person forms of a given verb. Furthermore, each conjugation changes the meaning and intonation of the verb to which they are applied. I will begin with examples of each, and then discuss a few specific points that they raise. (For simplicity’s sake, I will confine myself to a single tense and disregard the mood while varying the Formality: for the sentences below, I have chosen simple past. Naturally, each Formality conjugates differently as the tenses and moods change.)

The first Formality is called the Inferior Formality, and it is used by a devil when addressing or discussing devils that are four or more ranks below itself (four ranks being the threshold, as well, at which devils can use physical force on any other baatezu, regardless of command chain.) A rough Common example of this Formality is, “I viewed the lemure.”

The second Formality is the Subordinate Formality, used for any devil that is anywhere from one to three ranks below the speaker, as the sentence, “I saw the imp.”

The third Formality is known as the Equivalent Formality, and is used to address or refer to a subject of equal rank as the speaker, as “I met the kyton,” or “The kyton met I.” (The variance in the syntactic structure, and the significance thereof, is discussed below.) Because rank is most commonly defined by form, this Formality is usually used only when a devil refers to or talks with others of its caste; however, even within a group of kytons there is a hierarchy, so the Equivalent formality is highly difficult for nonnative speakers to employ correctly. Where Baatezu have an almost intuitive sense of the ranks of those around them, nonnative speakers must guess… Sometimes with disastrous results.

The fourth Formality is the Superior Formality, used for any devil that is one to three ranks above the speaker. It can best be considered a “mirror” of the Subordinate Formality, in which the speaker applies the Subordinate Formality to him- or her- self. In keeping with our previous examples, “The Pit Fiend saw me.”

The fifth and final Formality is the Superb Formality, a mirror of the Inferior Formality, and is used when the speaker is speaking or referring to a devil four or more ranks higher than him- or her- self, as in “Asmodeus viewed me.” Again, the speaker simply applies the Inferior Formality to him- or her- self. The Superb Formality is also used for all the Dukes of each layer, and the Archdukes, regardless of the rank of the speaker. The Dukes and Archdukes may use the Equivalent Formality among their peer group… But even the other Archdukes are required to employ the Superb Formality for Asmodeus.

Now, for a few points that must be expressed, illuminated by our examples:


1. I struggled with translating the phrases into Common: translations are, at best, a difficult task, and at worst a nightmare. Because an attentive mind will recall that I promised to vary only the Formality between the sentences, it may seem odd to see three different verbs: viewed, saw, and met. In truth, in the original Infernal these three are all the same verb (vyviiss, in this case,) that alters its meaning depending on the Formality applied to the phrase. All verbs in Infernal are so affected by Formality, although the pattern that they take is precise but predictable: where there is a gross inequality in rank, as in the Inferior and Superb Formalities, the verbs express a strong transferal of force from subject to indirect object (“viewed” is strongly locative on the subject, and implies a unilateral action on its part). Where there is a distinct inequality, as in the Subordinate and Superior Formalities, there is a weaker transferal of force (“saw”), and where there is no difference in rank, as in the Equivalent Formality, the transferal of force is egalitarian or bidirectional (“met”).

2. Again, the attentive mind will recall that I promised to discuss the shift in syntactic structure (referred to as ‘topicalization’), and I will do so now. The higher-ranked devil is always named first within a phrase, and if there are multiple devils named, they are named in descending order. The speaker uses a personal pronoun, in the correct order, to represent him- or her- self if such a thing is called for. In translated Common, this has the effect of making the most powerful devil in the phrase the subject, which is an acceptable if simplified manner of envisioning the effect that the topicalization has on Infernal phrases. As such, it is theoretically possible that the Equivalent Formality could be employed with either (to return briefly to our example) “I met the kyton” OR “The kyton met I,” but in practice it is never so phrased by native speakers; they invariably take the opportunity to place their name or personal pronoun first and tacitly establish dominance in the exchange.

So while Formalities are not the grammatical heart of Infernal, for no language is built on only a single structure, they are one of the most important conventions to master before trying to converse; Infernal itself is at its most perfect a reassertion and buttress of the status quo of the Nine Hells, and the Formalities remind each devil his place, granting his power over his inferiors and twisting his very words into subservient fawning when he refers to his superiors. A violation of Formalities when addressing any devil is an egregious error, as it’s representative of an attempt to upset the power structure: devils have been demoted or executed for errors as simple as using the Superior Formality instead of the Superb. Naturally, when mortal interact with devils, it is highly recommended that they employ the latter at all times.



II. Moods:

Moods are, in planar and extraplanar language alike, a set of verb forms used to signal modality, the expressions that are broadly associated with qualities of possibility and necessity of a given phrase. In addition to moods common to Material Plane languages (Indicative, Subjunctive, etc.), Infernal possesses some unique moods of its own as part of a set of 14 in total that make up the language. The translations in the section are, as ever, adjusted to clarify the purposes and semantic shifts of each mood: the end of the section contains a few example sentences that are less correct in Common but far closer to how a sentence would be structured in proper Infernal.

Moods of Certainty

Infernal is not only the language of Evil but of Law, and as such linguistic and factual precision is paramount. Over time, a number of moods have evolved that codify exactly how certain any given statement is, in the grammatical equivalent of a mathematical derivation.

1. Objective Mood: the Objective mood is used for statements viewed as absolute, definitional fact. This includes matters of common definition, diabolic rank, and the edicts and proclamations of the Archdukes of the Nine. If we continue our mathematical metaphor, things in the Objective Mood are the postulates upon which reasoning is built.
2. Assumptive Mood: the Assumptive mood is used to signify that something is a reasoned conclusion. For example, even a thought like “12 is less than 20” must employ the Assumptive because it is predicated on values of 12 and 20 (for which we would use the Objective). Linguistic precision demands that the Assumptive be employed to ensure clarity of reasoning so that, no matter how craven and insane a diabolic plot may seem, it can always be linked back to purest and inarguable logic. Events that a devil personally witnesses are referred to in the Objective to inferiors and Assumptive to superiors, enforcing again Baator’s policy of “might is right.”
3. Dubiative Mood: the dubiative mood represents conjecture or uncertain conclusion that springs from existing Assumptive and Objective phrases. In Common, the rough analogue is any phrase including “should,” “might,” or “may.”
4. Hypothetical Mood: the Hypothetical mood corroborates the Dubiative, but represents a less likely or literally unfounded possibility of the future.
5. Volitive Mood: the Volitive mood is used when describing personal emotions or opinions. Like the other moods in this category, it is employed for the ease of the listener in order to separate fact and what Baatezu would consider baseless emotion.

Moods of Exhortation

Moods of exhortation are similar in structure to the Imperative mood of Material Plane languages, adjusted for the Infernal system of Familiarities.

1. Imperative Mood: as on the Material, this mood indicates a command, and is only used with the Inferior and Subordinate Familiarities.
2. Solicitive Mood: the Solicitive mood is only used with the Equivalent Familiarity, and represents what in Common would be most easily termed to be a request.
3. Supplicative Mood: the Supplicative mood is used with the Superior and Superb Familiarities, and represents a plea.
Through this system, the grammar of Infernal actually makes it impossible to correctly make a plea to an inferior or give a command to a superior. (Two other moods, the Imprecative and the Benedictive, respectively wish ill or well, and are also partially tied to Familiarities; you cannot use the Imprecative with the Superior or Superb Familiarities, although you may use the Benedictive with any Familiarity.)

Additional Moods of Note

Not all moods in Infernal fall into a category like those above, or may interact with more than one category. These two, along with Indicative, Subjunctive, and Imprecative and Benedictive, round out the 14 moods of the Infernal language.

1. Generic Mood: the Generic mood is used to describe a type of noun in general, i.e. “lemurs are mindless.” Usually, an article does not precede the modified noun, but there are exceptions (“An excrutiarch is the best torturer”). The Generic must be accompanied by a mood of certainty that supports the observation made. (In this case, the first is Objective because it refers to a quality of a diabolical rank, while the second is Volitive.) This mood is sometimes known as the Deductive mood because it allows for broad reasoning based on a string of propositions.
2. Interrogative Mood: in Infernal, unlike Common, there’s a specific interrogative mood. Where Common employs a vocal up-tick or punctuation mark to indicate a question at the end of a sentence, the Infernal Interrogative can inflect a specific noun, verb, or adjective with doubt while asserting the integrity of the rest of the sentence. A rough Common translation would amount to, “A human paladin(?) of Pelor,” where the Interrogative mood modifies the word “paladin.” It’s actually grammatically requisite that a statement that contains the Interrogative be answered immediately by a Mood of Certainty, usually taking the form of a long answer in Assumptive that logically and Lawfully asserts the correctness or incorrectness of the word in question, hastily offered fourth by a quivering subordinate.

Sample Sentences

In proper Infernal, moods can and must “nest” like parenthesis in mathematical equations, and precise track must be kept of whether or not all the moods have been resolved before a sentence is completed, lest the sentence remain unresolved… Or worse, lest a mood be applied to an unintended phrase. Below are sentences demarcated for correct mood, disregarding Familiarity beyond what is necessary to determine mood in a given place.


“Asmodeus is Lord of the Nine and all devils serve him, as I must and am happy to do.”

“[Objective: Asmodeus is Lord of the Nine] and [Objective: [Generic: all devils serve him]], as I [Assumptive {[Objective: I am a devil]}: ] and [Volitive: am happy to] do.”



“May the Lords of Baator, our rulers, prosper and succeed in all their endeavors. From the Blood War to the Pact Primeval, all the multiverse will succumb to our might.”
- Traditional Infernal Benediction

“[Benedictive: May the Lords of Baator, [Objective: our rulers], prosper and succeed in all their endeavors]. From the Blood War to the Pact Primeval, [Generic: Assumptive {[Generic: [Assumptive {[Objective: Asmodeus leads the Baatezu], [Generic: [Objective: No force is beyond Asmodeus’ control]}: All forces will fall to the Baatezu}: all the multiverse will succumb to our might].”



“The Infernal hierarchy didn’t expect the elevation of Glasya, who now holds the title Archduchess of the Sixth; it has had an indelible impact on the other Archdukes, and they seek now to reinforce alliances and assure their own positions against the fate of the Hag Countess. Further upheaval could follow, or perhaps nothing more will change at all. It will be interesting.”

“[Generic: Assumptive {[Assumptive {[Dubiative: They appeared to be surprised, in retrospect]}: I recognize the emotion of surprise}: The Infernal hierarchy didn’t expect the elevation of Glasya], [Objective: who now holds the title of Archduchess of the Sixth]; it [Assumptive {[Objective: Impacts motivate a change of behavior],[Assumptive {I have observed that their behavior has changed}: an impact has occurred]}: has had an indelible impact on the other Archdukes], and [Generic: [Assumptive {I recognize a pattern in their behaviors}: they seek now to reinforce alliances and assure their own positions against the fate of the Hag Countess]]. [Dubiative: Further upheaval could follow] or [Dubiative: perhaps nothing more will change at all]. [Volitive: It will be interesting.]”



III. Phrasing (I copied a good part of this section, or praphrased it very closely, from the Wikipedia article on Operator Grammar).


Thus far we have discussed only Formalities (which are applied to multi-word phrases and modify verbs, subjects [nouns], and syntax) and Moods (which are applied to phrases). I continue to seek analogues to Common for ease of reference, and I will build on that as we go along. However, unlike in Common, words in Infernal belong to no particular category (verbs, nouns, articles, adjectives, adverbs, etc). Rather, just as a “lexeme” called LOOK in Common encompasses “look, looks, looking, looked” as alternate forms of the verb, so does a lexeme in Infernal encompass both the possible parts of speech it represents in a given sentence and the Common lexeme within each category. When I referred to nouns and verbs in my previous sections I was referring to the nominal and verbal forms of a given Infernal word.

In truth, each word in Infernal can act as each part of grammar. The act of constructing an Infernal sentence (or interpreting one) requires three processes: Dependent Selection, Probabilistic Analysis, and Lexical Distillation.

Dependent Selection

The base proposition of this phase is that in order for a given word to have meaning, it must be accompanied by certain other words. Because Infernal words are essentially a group of meanings ambiguously within one set of letters, let us refer to a given meaning as an “interpretation.” In the Infernal sentence “Savralesh dsyna vrunnk,” we recognize that the words cannot possibly all be noun interpretations; that sentence would be nonsensical. Instead, we can recognize that if “dsyna” is a verb interpretation, it requires two other interpretations that serve as either subjects or adverbs: “Savralesh” and “vurunnk.” I will return to Common to make my meaning clearer.
In the sentence cultists wear robes, the interpretation wear requires two “arguments,” or logically consistent interpretations, to be present: cultists and robes. This relation gives rise to categories from which the appropriate interpretations of a word, and arguments of an interpretation, can be selected based on the requirements of the words around them. Class A contains interpretations (e.g. cultists, robes) that do not require the presence of other words. Class OA contains interpretations (e.g. pray) that require exactly one interpretation of class A. Class OAA contains interpretations (e.g. wear) that require exactly two interpretations of class A. Class OOO contain interpretations (e.g. because) that require two words of class O, as in cultists wear robes because cultists pray. Other classes are possible, such as OO (is possible), OAAA (put), OOA (surprise), etc. In a proper sense, Infernal has no nouns, verbs, or other parts of speech; each interpretation is defined based on its dependency on those around it.

Probabilistic Analysis

Dependent Selection creates a structure (syntax) in which any word of the appropriate class can be an argument for a given interpretation. The Probabilistic Analysis places additional restrictions on this structure by making some interpretation/argument combinations more likely than others. For example, cultists wear robes is more probable than cultists wear erinyes or cultists wear hand. The Probabilistic Analysis creates semantic meaning by defining each word in terms of the interpretations is can take as arguments, or can act as an argument for.
Each word and interpretation has a set of interpretations with which it has been observed to occur called its Portfolio. The Superior Portfolio of an interpretation is the set of interpretations for which a given interpretation of that word has an above average likelihood of being correct.

Lexical Distillation

The Distillation acts on likely combinations of interpretations and arguments and makes more compact (and therefore efficient and desirable) forms. For example, I expect my orders to arrive can be shortened to I expect my orders because to arrive is likely under expect. The sentence Baatezu are immune to fire and Baatezu are immune to poison can be reduced to Baatezu are immune to fire and poison because repetition of the first argument Baatezu under the interpretation and is highly likely.
In addition, Distillation can reduce words to shorter forms, creating pronouns, suffixes and prefixes by reducing and appending interpretations as necessary and logical. What in Common are called modifies are the result of many such distillations, as are the other parts of speech. Although this grossly simplifies the original Infernal, an example in Common would look like this:

1. Devils have a hierarchy; the hierarchy is strict. (two sentences joined by semicolon operator)
2. Devils have a hierarchy, which is strict. (reduction of repeated noun to relative pronoun)
3. Devils have a strict hierarchy. (omission of high likelihood phrase which are, transposition of the adjective interpretation to the left of the noun interpretation [necessary in Common, not in Infernal])

This sentence in Infernal would be, roughly, “Tsavakai Baatezu vak nssvaanu,” and (to tie the whole thing back to our previously discussed structures) it is the mood of the sentence that informs the initial Dependent Selection phrase: in this case, the Generic mood informs us that there is at least one class A interpretation, and the probabilistic analysis deciphers the sentence’s meaning from there, based on what interpretations are expected to occur within a given mood; for example, the probability of wish and well increase drastically in Benedictive and are virtually impossible in Imprecative. This only emphasizes the importance of applying the correct mood to a given phrase; a single misstep literally changes the entire wording of a sentence or a paragraph, oftentimes altering it beyond recognition. (There is a story, possibly apocryphal, about a rather bumbling gnomish cultist of Dispater who, through an unfortunate confusion of Imprecative and Benedictive, ended up wishing his master not a swift and painless victory but a swift and painful death. This is to be avoided.)



IV. Grammatical Tense:


Given the above-discussed penchant for words to act ambiguously as nouns, verbs, and other parts of speech, it may seem odd that grammatical tense is applied to not to the verbs themselves (as in most verb conjugations in Common), but applies a pitch to spoken Infernal and a symbol to written Infernal to represent the time at which an action took, takes, or will take place. This so-called ‘temporal denotation’ is included with the mood of a phrase, and is not applied to a verb. There is suspicion among linguists that this convention was created for the express purpose of making Infernal complex to understand: if verbal interpretations conjugated or otherwise inflected the “infinitive” Infernal word, it would be far easier to determine which word took with part of speech in a given sentence.
In written Infernal, temporal denotations use symbols similar to small arrows, < and >, compounded and combined to represent future (rightward facing) or past (leftward facing). These marks are known as Vaadic Emphasizers. Vocally, each rightward facing arrow applied to a phrase represents one “step” upwards from normal speaking pitch: each leftward facing arrow represents one “step” down.

A Note on Time in Baator

As immortal beings, Baatezu recon time differently from mortal races; in addition, Baator has no sun to deliniate the passage of time, and most Material Planes are on their own system of what a day, month, and year truly means. In keeping with his Lawful nature, Asmodeus declared a base unit of time to be a nycthemeron (pl. nycthemera), or the time it takes an object without propulsion to travel from Avernus to Nessus on the current of the River Styx, a journey of about 36 Santhillian hours. Unlike Material time, which tends to then group days into weeks and weeks into years, nycthemera do not make up any other unit of time. It seems perfectly natural (and efficient) for devils to refer to an event that happened 2,366,898 nycthemera ago.

Tenses


1. Present: the present simple (I am) requires no vaadic emphasis.
2. Past: the past tenses use vaadic emphasizers to express how recent an event was.

1. Remote Past: describes an event that took place more that 1,000,000,000 nycthmera ago (about 4,109,590 Santhillian years ago). Ex: [I]<<<<<<<he died
2. Nonremote Past: describes an event that took place between the remote past and 1,000,000 nycthemera ago (about 4,109 Santhillian years ago). Ex: <<<<<<he died
3. Nonrecent Past: describes an event that took place between the nonremote past and 1,000 nycthemera ago (about 4 Santhillian years ago). Ex: <<<<<he died
4. Recent Past: describes an event that took place between the nonrecent past and 100 nycthemera ago (about 3 Santhillian months ago). Ex: <<<<he died
5. Decanycthemeral Past: describes an event that took place between the recent past and 10 nycthemera ago (about 15 Santhillian days ago). Ex: <<<he died
6. Cernycthemeral Past: describes an event that took place between the decanycthemeral past and the beginning of the present nycthemeron (at most, 36 Santhillian hours ago). Ex: <<he died
7. Immediate Past: describes an event that took place during the present nycthemeron. Ex: <he died
3. Future: the future tense mirrors the past tense, using vaadic emphasizers to express how soon an event will happen.

1. Immediate Future: describes an event that will take place before the end of the present nycthemeron. Ex: >he will die
2. Cernycthemeral Future: describes an event that will take place between the end of the present nycthemeron and the 10 nycthemera from the present. Ex: >>he will die
3. Decanycthemeral Future: describes an event that will take place between the cernycthemeral Future and 100 nycthemera from the present. Ex: >>>he will die
4. Near Future: describes an event that will take place between the decanyctheral future and 1,000 nycthemera from the present. Ex: >>>>he will die
5. Non-near Future: describes an event that will take place between the near future and 1,000,000 nycthemera from the present. Ex: >>>>>he will die
6. Non-remote Future: describes an event that will take place between the non-near future and 1,000,000,000 nycthemera from the present. Ex: >>>>>>he will die
7. Remote Future: describes an event that will take place more than 1,000,000,000 nycthemera from the present. Ex: >>>>>>>he will die

The alterations in pitch give Infernal an almost songlike effect, but with a distinctly sinister air: most devils naturally speak on what would musically be known as a minor scale, and the steps upward and downward replicate to some ears an instrument or a bard climbing up an down an octave. The unsettling effect of the language is compounded by the fact that only the remote past and remote future complete octaves; most of the time, Infernal is a sinister and lilting tune that fluctuates between haunting and dissonant half-tones.
Below, I’ve reproduced our sample sentences form earlier and added in the appropriate vaatic emphasis. Note that the non-finite phases, such as “may our masters succeed,” and “nothing will change,” always take the remote past or future, and that what in Common would be called the past perfect tense (“I have observed”) simply takes the emphasis of either when the verb occurred or began.


“Asmodeus is Lord of the Nine and all devils serve him, as I must and am happy to do.”

“[Objective: Asmodeus is Lord of the Nine] and [Objective: [Generic: all devils serve him]], as I [Assumptive {[Objective: I am a devil]}: ] and [Volitive: am happy to do].”



[I]“May the Lords of Baator, our rulers, prosper and succeed in all their endeavors. From the Blood War to the Pact Primeval, all the multiverse will succumb to our might.”
- Traditional Infernal Benediction

“[>>>>>>>Benedictive: May the Lords of Baator, [Objective: our rulers], prosper and succeed in all their endeavors]. From the Blood War to the Pact Primeval, [>>>>>>>Generic: Assumptive {[Generic: [Assumptive {[Objective: Asmodeus leads the Baatezu], [Generic: [Objective: No force is beyond Asmodeus’ control]}: All forces will fall to the Baatezu}: all the multiverse will succumb to our might].”



“The Infernal hierarchy didn’t expect the elevation of Glasya, who now holds the title Archduchess of the Sixth; it has had an indelible impact on the other Archdukes, and they seek now to reinforce alliances and assure their own positions against the fate of the Hag Countess. Further upheaval could follow, or perhaps nothing more will change at all. It will be interesting.”

“[<<<<Generic: Assumptive {[Assumptive {[<<<<Dubiative: They appeared to be surprised, in retrospect]}: I recognize the emotion of surprise}: The Infernal hierarchy didn’t expect the elevation of Glasya], [Objective: who now holds the title of Archduchess of the Sixth]; it [Assumptive {[Objective: Impacts motivate a change of behavior],[<<<<Assumptive {I have observed that their behavior has changed}: an impact has occurred]}: has had an indelible impact on the other Archdukes], and [Generic: [Assumptive {I recognize a pattern in their behaviors}: they seek now to reinforce alliances and assure their own positions against the fate of the Hag Countess]]. [>>>>>>>Dubiative: Further upheaval could follow] or [Dubiative: perhaps nothing more will change at all]. [>>>>>>>Volitive: It will be interesting.]”



V. Lexicon:

Infernal posesses about 70,000 distinct words, each of which has 9 interpretations, for a total of 630,000 different meanings in the entire vocabulary of the language. The most comprehensive dictionaries of Common, for comparison, have at most 600,000 definitions.
In addition to the complex rules of grammar, infernal vocabulary is brutally rigorous. Overlooking that every verbal meaning must change according to formality, many interpretations in Infernal display exceptionally subtle variation in meaning. There are about 30 interpretations that express some sort of agreement: binding, casual, written, spoken, contingent, unilateral, et al. Each type of agreement comes with its own set of expectations and legal procudures: in no other language does a single noun ever imply so much. The Infernal language of contracts will be discussed in the next section.
The vocabulary of Infernal demonstrates again the values of the Baatezu society: there are 22 interpretations that describe something akin to the idea of "boss," 28 interpretations for different types of pain (with even more colloquially used by the kytons and excrutiarchs), and 32 interpretations that describe commands, ranging from "suggestion" to "ultimatum." As with most planar languages, it suffers relatively when trying to express concepts contrary to its nature: Infernal lacks a robust series of nouns and adjective to describe states of Chaos, although the devils are almost constantly embroiled in fighting demons in the Blood War. Instead of describing Chaos itsef they describe what it is not, and as such avoid sullying their tongues with any accidental approval. Likewise, words that express pleasures or delight are difficult to find in Lesser Baatezu, but not because they don't exist: rather, only the most powerful of devils are allowed the luxuries and indulgences that require such words, so only the most powerful devils ever have an opportunity to use them.

Telonius
2009-01-24, 05:23 PM
I'd suggest adding a special section under Mood for phrasing used in diabolical contracts. Such as, when "the undersigned" is the subject of the sentence, the mood is always objective; however, when the subject of the sentence is the devil making the contract, the mood might be anything all the way down to Volitive.

Prometheus
2009-01-24, 05:59 PM
Quite a bit of dedication there. For someone who hasn't taken any linguistics, you certainly seem to have a strong interest in it.

As Telonius has alluded too, the only fluff I've read on the Infernal language seems to indicate that it is particularly well-suited for creating contracts that are deceptively written. That is, the Devil's knowledge of Infernal is sufficient to demonstrate the meaning unambiguously in his favor, but the contract-signer's knowledge of Infernal indicates a common misunderstanding of terms which seems plausible, but isn't what is exactly being agreed to.

This would indicate that infernal has a complete set of rules for determining things unambiguously, but there are a lot of specific exceptions to rules and words/phrases that have different meanings depending on the mood/tense/formality.

One interesting thought exercise I went through recently however, would be the effects of a highly ambiguous language on a Zone of Truth (perhaps this would be Abyssal or Slaadi). Since it appears to me that Zone of Truth has no power to penetrate into intentions of the subject, someone can lie if their lie ambiguously refers to something that is truthful. In fact, it may be possible to employ a magical form of translation which operates based on the common usages of the terms (which would be the lie) - thus allowing someone to lie in Common by first speaking Abyssal or Slaadi and than threading it back to Common.

Virgo
2009-01-24, 06:45 PM
These are both really interesting thoughts: I'll have to play with a structure that would allow enough ambiguity to be dangerous, not not so much that it makes the language too vague. I'd prefer to avoid "exceptions" or "irregularities" as such; I think the beauty of it is that, being totally Lawful, it conforms to its own rules perfectly. That said, its rules are maddeningly complex and astonishingly specific.

Leewei
2009-01-24, 11:01 PM
"The language of the damned is filled with glottal stops."
-Roger Zelazny, Dilvish the Damned

The Glyphstone
2009-01-24, 11:35 PM
Very, very interesting read, and extremely well thought-out. I'll be keen on seeing what you write about contracts.

xanaphia
2009-01-25, 12:57 AM
Nice. I enjoyed reading that. You seem to know a lot about the topic.

Riffington
2009-01-25, 08:14 AM
Since it appears to me that Zone of Truth has no power to penetrate into intentions of the subject, someone can lie if their lie ambiguously refers to something that is truthful.

I think this is incorrect. Any truth spell must rely on either the subject's intentions or the absolute truth; the latter would have very interesting ramifications, but would work for very few campaigns. The text version does refer to "intentional lies", and if the speaker chooses his words knowing the questioner will only understand a translation that is a lie, he is intentionally lying. Besides, too many casters of Zone of Truth speak Infernal...
I'd claim there are two caveats. First, that the reference point is the questioner. If you think the questioner speaks Infernal, but that other listeners will be mislead by your device, you're fine. Second, if you yourself don't know how the device works, then you can hardly be held responsible for its mistranslations.

Also: you may consider a house rule that Infernal never registers as a lie. This works best if you think the devil is a fallen angel (who initially created the language specifically so he could lie), and less well if you go by the "standard" D&D cosmology.

BobVosh
2009-01-25, 08:55 AM
Really neat, almost TL;DR however it is too good for that. I'm curious...how sad will you feel when none of the other players care/look?

hamishspence
2009-01-25, 12:04 PM
It looks like the sort of thing that you'd get in a sourcebook- like Draconomicon's bit on Draconic. Only more detailed.

I like the idea.

zagan
2009-01-25, 05:12 PM
Wonderfull work, very well written.

Maybe your character could write it and sell it and/or use it.

It could give a +2 compentence bonus to Diplomacy, Bluff, Decipher Script, Gather Information and Sense Motive when dealing with a Devil.

AslanCross
2009-01-25, 06:12 PM
This is very interesting and well thought out.

I've also thought that anything with outsider heritage would speak differently from other material plane natives.
The half-devil ogre mage BBEG in my campaign, for example, always speaks in the plural when referring to himself. He always refers to himself as "we." On the other hand, he always addresses anyone who isn't a minion in third person. "He cannot depend on his gods any longer" would be something he would say when taunting the paladin, or "They shall find themselves not very different from us" when giving the PCs a Hannibal Lecture on the nature of strength and victory.

Virgo
2009-01-26, 12:15 PM
Thanks for the kind words, everyone! I'm glad people are enjoying it, or are at least vaguely amused.

I added a short section on Infernal Lexicon, and I'm still working on the section on Legal Baatezu. That should be up within the next few days.

Narmoth
2009-01-26, 01:13 PM
Very good. Quite enjoyable reading :smallbiggrin:
Well done

vicente408
2009-01-28, 12:36 AM
Ooooh... thought! Okay, I was thinking, what if spoken Infernal language is tonal? Like Chinese. This adds yet another layer of potential mis-interpretation on the part of a non-native speaker, for whom the subtleties of mere pronounciation have not been mastered. This, unfortunately, doesn't necessarily translate well into written text (aka contracts). Though it works fine when communicating a verbal contract that with a meaning that is subtly different than what would be obvious. :smallwink:

Malacode
2009-01-28, 03:09 AM
Wow, that's a pretty big devotion to the verisimiltude of the game you've got there. It's a good read too, I thought it was pretty in depth (THen again, I'm no linguist, so my opinion is roughly worth the same as a packet of stale crisps'). The way we deal with this 'issue' in games I've been in is that anything said in Infernal/Abyssal sounds like profanities in common, with Infernal being more 'formal' swear words (Do they even exist?). Very fun when you get characters who can't speak common yet can speak Abyssal into a game... Say goodbye to any chance of Diplomacy