SilentRebel83 - Mother (Inuktitut অনুবাদ)



SilentRebel83 দ্বারা সোম, 13/03/2017 - 23:30 তারিখ সাবমিটার করা হয়
সাবমিটার এর মন্তব্য:

A simple collection of words rumbling in my head this morning while running through a scenic route.

Align paragraphs
Inuktitut অনুবাদ


Ww Ww দ্বারা বুধ, 06/12/2017 - 19:38 তারিখ সাবমিটার করা হয়
লেখকের মন্তব্য:

Inuktitut (ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ) is an Eskimo language. In it's written native form it would be very difficult to understand for many. Since there is a Latin equivalent, I posted it to be better understood.
The word 'snow' as a generic noun is not. There are many different words for types and verbs of snow. This is common in Eskimo languages. Understand when I say Eskimo it is not defined to a single continent, or country. Apingaut is the first snow in Autumn, in Inuktitut.

"Mother" এর আরও অনুবাদ
Dragon Guest
Icelandic Guest
InuktitutWw Ww
থাই Guest
SilentRebel83: সেরা 3
See also
Kmiltreu    শুক্র, 23/02/2018 - 04:59


I noticed that the orthography used in this translation is rather strange and archaic-looking.
This does not mean your translation is wrong; Inuktitut is a dialect continuum, and it could very well could be some dialect of which I am unaware.
But if it isn't (or if it is...), here is a translation into the South Qikiqtaaluk dialect used in Iqaluit, which is the closest thing to a standard that Inuktitut has:


Ullaaq (Would be realized as "ublaaq" in many Western dialects, "ublar" being a spelling variation)
Aput ("Apingaut", like you noted, does mean the first snow of the season. This is a more generic term for snow)
Anuri (Anore is the spelling used in Greenlandic, in which the lowering of vowels neighboring uvular consonants is reflected in the orthography.)
Qaqqaq ("Kingak", or something close to that, means "nose" in many dialects, but I've also seen it used to describe a hill.)
Siqiniq ("rk" is how "q" is represented in syllabics (ᖃ))
Imaq (Refers to an expanse of water, opposed to "imiq", which refers to a smaller amount of usually drinkable water. "Tariuq" also refers to an ocean, but is less common.)
Ulluriaq (Star, another dialectal variation (bl > ll))
Taqqiq (Again...)
Iji (and again...)
Imiq (and again...)
Ujarak (and again...)
Anaana (...)

I will say that the words you used are recognizable, and with a bit of effort, this would be completely understandable to anyone with some knowledge of the language (and you really don't need that much to read something like this...)

Anyway, I hope this helps! Regular smile

Ww Ww    শুক্র, 23/02/2018 - 21:02

What you are speaking of are dialectic differences in part. Since the language has it's own text there are variances in interpretation to Latin-based print as well ('k' vs 'q'). I recognize your examples. The spoken language would also offer even more similarities and would convey the required meanings.
Generally words like 'snow' are not as common as accompanying descriptive words such as snow. A word that has numerous variations but is not commonly spoken of a just 'snow'. Many words are commonly not used alone. This you may know.

aput - spread out snow (a snowfield)
kringak - nose, perhaps a hill 'takpak' (external part/shape of a nose)
immerk - water (generic form)
immark - water of the sea
*as you say, and again...
Every language has dialects and differences within itself.

Kmiltreu    শুক্র, 23/02/2018 - 21:38

That is exactly what I am speaking of. Like I said, the Inuit languages form a dialect continuum, so it is rather difficult to tell what should be considered a language and what should be considered a dialect of one of those languages (like 'German', 'Chinese', and 'Arabic'; or even English and Scots... אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט - A language is a dialect with an army and navy). Because of this, I would recommend adding a footnote stating what dialect this is, and I can submit the translation into the East Baffin Dialect separately. Also, Inuktitut actually does have a widely accepted romanization system (Qaliujaaqpait - ᖃᓕᐅᔮᖅᐸᐃᑦ) that has gone so far as to replace the syllabic writing system in some areas, and all of the differences between the two translations that are not strictly dialectal (all of my "agains") are results of consistent orthographical differences ('q' > 'rk' medially, > 'r' finally, 'i', 'u' > 'o', 'e' in uvular environments, etc.)