Since the beginning of this blog, I have been saying that some good clues on Beanish vocabulary and syntax (and, maybe, even on its origin) might be found in Rosetta’s errors. It is common in language learning to use the errors of an adult learner to pinpoint (and, thus, work with) the “parts” of its mother language that are actually more unlike the language he/she is trying to speak.
GLR and the linguist(s) that helped him were certainly aware of that, and might have bestowed upon us some indications in the unusual graphical representation of Rosetta’s Unglish (which, for example, has settled the matter on what the the circle diacritic meant — it is question mark). So, without further ado:
In frame 2865, “Somewhat” seems to have an interference of an expression “some what”, where the words/morphemes/semantic units are separated. It might just be an expression of Rosetta’s difficulty, but it might indicate a language where they are usually separated. Think about Italian, where you can have both “qualcosa” and “qualche cosa”, in different context (unfortunately, not the one we have here). The same happens with French (Proto-Beanish?), where “qualque peu” (or, farther from the context, “un peu”), an acceptable translation, is separated.
In frame 2868, we have “Where” and “(From) Whence”. “Whence” sounds, of course, archaic, but it could indicate Beanish as a language in which “where” is not used in questions (or, in detail, in questions with this kind of movement — think of the difference between in+ablative and accusative in Latin when describing movement, both of which would generally be translated as “where” in English), and where the best Unglish translation is “Whence”. Regarding the “From” in Whence, while most rigid grammarians of English will complain, it is an attested form since the 14th century — still, it could indicate a language where the equivalent of “from” is eeded.
In frame 2870, I cannot read the faint “to-(something)” at the beginning. The only other notable correction is “sand-(something)” for “desert”, which would an expected substitution from a speaker with Rosetta’s proficiency.
In frame 2873, Rosetta says “Your language is like those spoken by the (…) difficult”. By investigating the space after the article, either she immediately stopped the sentence (which seems unlikely) or the noun is extremely short, two or three letters. My guess would be “old”, and it is not impossible that, somewhere in the Beanish sentences (like in 2723 or in 2861) we have the Beanish equivalent for “old”.
Frame 2874 suggests that Beanish neutral form is “have patience” and not “be patient” (like in most Romance languages).
In frame 2878, Rosetta says “They understand nothing”. While this is normal for Unglish, it shows nothing of the normal interference of Romance languages that makes us expect the double negative “They don’t understand nothing”. It could be that she just got it right, it could be that it works the same in Beanish (maybe it is an evolution of dialects of Italian and French where you have only postponed negations, like in “(non) Capisco mica”), maybe it means nothing.
In frame 2879, Rosetta says “packs” for “bags”. As “packs” would be understandable and she corrects it, it probably indicates that in Beanish “pack” and “bag” are referred to with the same word.
In frame 2880, Rosetta corrects an initial “For (they are heavy)”. It could indicate that in Beanish the equivalent is mandatory.
In frame 2886, Rosetta corrects “house” with “home”; once more, it might indicate that the word for “house” and “home” is the same, or that it this type of sentence you usually use the word for “house”.
I remember that many people in OTT noticed the strange syntax in frame 2890, “How many people strong are you?” (the “strong” is, however, somewhat dubious). The superimposed word seems to be “numerous”.
I have already discussed frame 2891 — it suggests that in Beanish there are no names for large numbers, that they are composed like in modern French.
Frame 2894 is probably a good clue in terms of the final verb used by Rosetta. We should probably ask a good Scrabble player what he/she thinks of it (I get .EL…NA)
In frame 2895, we have yet another particular syntax in “Your sea does not stand alone”.
In frame 2897, a Beanish synonym for “hill” seem to be “rock”. Our Scrabble expert has a new challange, a synonym for “closed” in terms of “…RBIDE”(?).
Frame 2899 shows an interesting and somewhat unexpected used of “build” in “build a map”, with “find” as a tentative synonym. It is also worth nothing the syntax “to understanding”, with a preposition and gerund.
In frame 2901, I have already noted the construction of possessive used by Rosetta “X is (pronoun)”. Once more, it somewhat reminds of French, or maybe Latin, or Greek, or…
In frame 2904, Rosetta uses “forefathers” as synonym to “parents”. It is analog to her usage of “whence”, and could point to a similar construction in Beanish (once more, it brings to mind Romance words, like Italian “ante-nato” and, even better, Portuguese “ante-passados”, not to mention the forms derived from Latin “pro-genitor”, which, by the way, is the source of the English “forefather” calque).
In 2908, it has been noted that Rosetta calls the “castle” a “fortress”.
In frame 2917, we might have another interesting syntax interference, “much too long”.
What now? Well, back to building a Beanish grammar!
Deciphering Beanish 
Fugenkleber said:
I have noticed a few similarities to German instead of the Romance languages we have been suggesting so far.
Frame 2865. In German, Rosetta would have likely answered “etwas”, where “was” literally stands for “what”. This is a bit closer than the French “un peu”, which is “a bit”. The hypothesis about two separate words does not further show itself, though.
Frame 2868. Let us assume that two texts in the same place are not intended to show corrections or necessities where one is wrong or worse and the other is right, but rather possible alternatives in the lexical mind of Rosetta where both are correct. In German, one can both say “woher”, which means “whence”, and “von woher”, which literally means “from whence”. Well, actually, the latter form does not please German grammarians either, but it is a very if not more common spoken alternative today – and not in the 14th century. And spoken forms always win over grammar books in the end.
Frame 2873. If the gap really means the word “old”, it would be wrong in English, since “old” is not a noun, but an adjective. However, in German, one can use a declined adjective just like a noun without adding a “one/-s” as in English (e. g. “spoken by the old ones”). Also, if Rosetta really means her ancestors’ (“spoken by the old”) language and compares it to Cuegan’s Unglish, it is possible that she meant the similarities between English, the predecessor of Unglish, and German, the possible language of her ancestors.
Frame 2874. Consider again that texts in the same place mean aletrnatives, just like in frame 2868. In German, one can equally say “habe Geduld”, which literally means “have patience”, and “sei geduldig”, which means “be patient”.
Frame 2878. In German – unlike Romance languages, which use a double negative which includes a negated verb, and English, which uses a pronoun dependent on the negated verb (e. g. “they don’t understand anything”) – negativity is usually independent of the verb and rather included in negative pronouns (consider the sentence “ich kann niemanden sehen”, which literally means “I can see nobody”). Hence, the form “they understand nothing” corresponds to German use; in fact, it is the only correct form.
Frame 2879. Consider again the assumption of alternatives instead of corrections. Rosetta could have either meant each bag on its own, hence “bags” (“Taschen” in German), or their collection as a single entity, i. e. “baggage”. This latter form is more common in German, and its equivalent is “Gepäck” – one can clearly see its relation to the root “pack”. Also, it is a completely different word than “Taschen”, just as “bags” and “pack(s)” have little in common.
Frame 2880. It is both common to form answers to “why” questions with or without a causal conjunction in German; both alternatives in Rosetta’s answer would be acceptable.
Frame 2886. In German, “home” is “Zuhause” and “house” is “Haus”. The strong relationship between these words is obvious. Also, both alternatives would be correct in Rosetta’s answer.
Frame 2890. When asking about the number of people in a team, often in a military or sports context, it is common and correct to ask “how many people strong” (“wie viele Leute stark”) the team is in German. The size of a team is called “Mannschaftsstärke”, literally “team strength”.
Frame 2895. The expression of a sea “standing” (“ein Meer steht”) means the sea not falling or rising in tides in German. However, I am not sure why Rosetta applied it.
Frame 2897. In German, “hill” (“Hügel”) and “rock” (“Felsen”) are not synonyms, but both make sense in Rosetta’s expression – actually, “Felsen” even sounds better in this context. Another explanation might be Rosetta looking for the word for “mountain(s)” (“Berg(e)” in German) to poetically say that “even mountains change”, but not remembering it and using the two semantically most related terms instead.
Frame 2899. Although it’s not common to say to “build” a map in German, saying “zum (besseren) Verstehen” (literally “to the (better) understanding”) definitely is, which explains this construction.
Frame 2901. When children learn German, they tend to prefer the expression “das ist meins” (“that is mine”) to “das ist mein(e) …” (“that is my …”), especially when the fact of them possessing it is to be stressed. Also, when two things are compared and information of the possessor gets important (e. g. “this sea is yours, whereas that sea isn’t”), it’s also common to apply only the possessive pronoun.
Frame 2904. It is obvious that not the exact generation before Rosetta and the other beanies, i. e. their parents, is meant in this sentence, but rather their ancestors. In German, one would say “Vorfahren”, which includes the “fore-“, or even the slightly exalted term “Vorväter”, which also includes the “fore-” since it literally means “forefathers”.
Frame 2908. Both the words for “castle” (“Burg”) and “fortress” (“Festung”) make sense in German; “Festung” might even make more sense since a “Burg” is really something one would expect medieval knights in.
Frame 2917. The German expression for “way/far too …” is “viel zu …”, which literally means “much too …”.
These are just some clues that have come to my mind while reading your post, use them to your advantage. Also, I very much appreciate the great work you and everyone else have already done and will continue doing on this topic. Happy holidays and a happy new year.
tresoldi said:
This was just great, Fugenkleber! I’ll republish your insights in a post and comment on them, but, in short, I’d say that you seem to have nailed it! Thank you very much! 🙂
J Name said:
I’ve been trying to do this from scratch to minimize the conformation bias. However, have you considered that the writer language could be like Hangul? and phonetics like Gaelic/Hawaiian in that the full alphabet isn’t represented, and not even a full phonetic one. Also he had help from a linguist in developing the language, has anyone tried to find out who?
J Name said:
I knew that you’ve thought of the left-right/right/left dilemma, but what about the Beanish map?
renil said:
I’m glad to hear you’re looking into Beansh again. Here are two small contributions to the cause:
For frame 2870, explainxkcd.com gives a caption of “Nobody resides there”, with a subtext of “lives” for “resides”, but on closer inspection of the image, I think it’s more likely that the second word is “respires”. So maybe one word in Beanish is used for both “lives” and “breathes.
For frame 2894 with the (.EL…NA), I think there might be two Ns in a row in the subtext. If that’s a single English word, “belladonna” fits well. That doesn’t make any literal sense between Big Hair saying “You don’t know.” and Big Hair explaining the deluge, but maybe it’s idiomatic? Like “I must give you terrible news”. If it’s two words and there is an “NN” near the beginning, then some possible words that could fit in the second slot are (unnatural, unnamed, innate, tonnage, innards, annals, pennant, pinnacle, savannah). Or maybe it’s just not two Ns.