Fun with Words: Dragons, Hearts, & Thieves

JinzasXi-yjuxmlesk(Onzas)xixcn belxatbel-obcatoszmagin-‘sig.

Close Translation: We who could be heart-thieves might to the dragon’s tower be now traveling.

Loose Translation: We could go to the dragon’s tower now to steal its heart.

The jinzas (Jinzas [which should go above the primary word, in this instance “Xi“]) makes the entire sentence conditional (so could and might are assumed). Xi goes at the structural start of the sentence because it is the pronoun.
The inzas (Onzas[which in this instance should be directly below yjuxmles]), turns the verb yjuxmles into a noun. Yjumles (lit. sly [les] move [yjum]) means ” to steal” (+x after the first vowel to make it plural, “steals”), becomes the noun “thief,” or in this instance, “thieves”. The concept of thieves is modified by xixcn, meaning “heart,” and creating a new, inflected noun– heart-thieves.
Heart is a moderately tricky word in Nyix, as it has the collective plural modifier of +xc after its first vowel, but is not a collective noun– depending on context, it could be considered the collective plural of “self” (xin).

Note: it is not thieves of the heart, which would have a different connotation (or in Nyix: a different qaja or flavor). That would be “xixcn-yjuxmles,” as thief and heart would have a zas to make them two separate concepts, and it would need for thief to come before heart (remember that while sentences are read left to right, the meanings in a given section are conceptually right to left).
This would not alter the structure of the overall sentence, because the subject section is head-initial, and the subject (thieves) remains (conceptually) in the head-initial location.

Belxatbel-obcatoszmagin-‘sig (be to the dragon’s tower now going): sig is the mutable/ alienable form of “to be.” The myzas (‘) indicates the illative case and is attached to sig because it is suggesting that they exist in motion towards something (ie, the dragon’s tower). Obcat (tower, lit. earth there) is modified by oszmagin (dragon, lit. intricate fire), so it is the dragon’s tower.
Finally, the verb, belxatbel, which is at the end (not structurally but conceptually, again), because the predicate section is always head-final. Travel (belxat, lit. here there) is modified by now. Most verbs in Nyix are modified by some sort of time indicator.

Note: If this sentence were not in the conditional tense then:
1) most if not all of the zas would likely be etzas, to modify the concepts into the optistic case, so as not to offend (“I wish” versus “we will”), unless of course the speaker is very familiar with those they are speaking to– which we know is not the case in this instance, as the pronoun is attached. If the speaker were appropriately familiar with the receivers, they would drop the pronoun and leave it assumed. This is way of displaying trust/ comfort with others.
2) It would likely have to be structured differently altogether. Because it’s about mundane matters it is SOV, rather than religious matters (SVO) or technical matters (OVS). As it’s currently structured, and without a conditional tense, it would be read as an imperative (We are heart-thieves, we will go to the dragon’s tower now), which is rude under almost all circumstances. A subject-auxiliary inversion would need to occur to acknowledge the autonomy of the receivers. Also, without the conditional tense modifying the concepts, the qaja could seem to be saying that we are heart-thieves… for any particular heart, at any particular time or location, rather than specifically in relation to the dragon, whose tower you could be going to.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s