Questions about Adjectives

[giraffesareburning]

Okay, so my screen name is Giraffes Are Burning... so I was wondering how I could express that.


For the sake of simplicity I am looking get "Burning Giraffe."  I assume you just pop the adjective in front of the noun, if that's not right please let me know.  For giraffe I guess it could be 'long neck animal.'  So if I wanted to say this do I just put 'frd rtst lrd?' I looked it up on the old forum and read that 'tt' was the prefix to make something an adjective.  Is this still valid?  And if so should it be 'frd tt rtst lrd,' which I think would be 'long necky animal.'  As for the burning, should I just add the 'tt' in front of 'trt', making it fiery?  I was first thinking that I could do "Long neck animal on fire," but the term "on fire" doesn't seem right, as it would mean the animal is sitting on a fire or something similar.

So overall what I'm thinking is 'tt trt frd rtst lrd' or 'fiery long neck animal.'  Is that right?
If that's right, shouldn't 'fiery long neck animals' be 'tt trt frd rtst lrdr'?

[chluaid]

Hey Giraffes! Welcome to the forum.
Words like "burning" or "drowning" will likely be added later to their respective categories (for example words starting with trt will be related to fire). Until then:

Remembering that Sarus has a limited vocabulary with a mission to suppress synonyms or extraneous words, to say "today is windy", you literally say "today is wind" (dms t frf - this can also be literally translated to say 'today wind-ing', essentially the same thing). An even shorter way would be to say "wind today" (frf dms), which means "windy today", unless context states otherwise.

Therefore, to say that something is burning, you simply say it "is fire" (t trt), or even "has fire" (mrr trt). If someone said to you "his hat is fire" (df ssmt t trt), chances are you'd understand.. the concept is simple and you would more than likely picture a hat on fire.. i.e. burning hat. I understand that actual burning is different to simply having fire, so where necessary you could get creative, perhaps by saying it's "fire-eaten" (trt tt fdt) or "dying in fire" (t tsr sdt trt).

For coming up with animal names, bear in mind you don't really need to add the word 'animal' (lrd) if you don't want to. In the same way that we know 'yellow belly' means a type of fish, or 'red back' is a type of spider, you could just say "long neck" (frd rtst). Add "with fire" (r trt) and you have a burning giraffe

By the way, you might not have noticed but animals are split into sub categories:

frd rtst lrd(r) = long neck animal(s)

frd rtst lrdd = long neck bird
frd rtst lrdm = long neck fish
frd rtst lrdf = long neck reptile
frd rtst lrds = long neck amphibian
frd rtst lrdl = long neck insect
frd rtst lrdt = long neck mammal

At the end of the day, Sarus is yours to experiment with. If context sells an idea, great.. if you can get a simple idea across with a few short, simple Sarus words, even better. For me, getting that ideal short phrase is half the fun

[giraffesareburning]

Thanks a lot for the reply!

I think an appropriate way to say burning could be 'trt ssm' or 'fire covered.'  So, 'trt ssm lrd rtst,' would mean 'fire covered long necks,' though I suppose I could also say 'frd rtst ssm r trt.'

However, calling a giraffe a 'long neck,' dropping the 'animal,' brings up another question.  So far you don't have any 5 letter words, right?  Well, following the rules for pluralization I found here: http://s7.zetaboards.com/Brackenwood/topic/428381/1/ wouldn't 'necks' be 'rtstd?'

[chluaid]

that's the correct plural, yep. Also, I know the dictionary says ssm=covered but that will be updated to mean cover (as opposed to uncover, undress or strip - mss). With this in mind, remember the past perfect for verbs: tt. So 'break' (sml) becomes 'broken' (tt sml) and 'cover' (ssm) becomes 'covered' (tt ssm) - (and thereby 'naked' will be tt mss).

Something else to keep in mind: wherever you may have read that we don't have any 5 syllable words was probably written a long time ago, perhaps even several years. Way back then, there weren't any 5 syllable words because there were barely any 4 syllable words. We've come a long way since and while the latest dictionary as yet has few, if any, 5 syllable words, they exist. Just as there are even a few 6 syllable words. The problem with expanding the dictionary into 5 and 6 syllables is that it becomes a massive task and rather than release shreds of updates, full of holes, it would be better to compile it properly and release in full - first the 5s, then the 6s

[giraffesareburning]

Okie dokie, sounds great.  I'm going to try and glyph it out now!