Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: comments on Itláni

From:laokou <laokou@...>
Date:Saturday, November 10, 2001, 4:07
From: "Jim Grossmann"

> "prepositional" and "locative": Do you want to exclude "in" "on" and > "at" from your inventory of prepositions? Using only your locative case
> convey these relationships would make it tough to distinguish sentences
> these:
Perhaps one of the reasons I like Itláni (sorry to see the name Druni go, but what can one do) is that it has a striking resemblance to Géarthnuns. Géarthnuns has no quantitive or ablative case, but it's got all the rest. In Géarthnuns, the locative has locative, ablative, and allative functions, depending on context, but a postposition can always be pulled in for clarity (with good context, a question like, "Chau teshers la cher-ha hömal?" [Where's the cat?"] could be answered, "Chau övwarsauv." [the chair-locative], with possible context-bound meanings "on the chair, on top of the chair, under the chair, near the chair, beside the chair, in front of the chair, behind the chair, etc." (in other words, "somwhere roughly in the vicinity of the chair"). For such generality, body language like finger-pointing or lip-pointing would be good.). Barring that, go for a postposition.
> The ink on the book did not obscure the picture in the book.
> The ink in the book did not obscure the picture on the book.
Weird sentences, but point taken.
> ???The ink at (in the vicinity of) the book did not obscure the picture
> the book.??? > > ??? The ink on/in the book did not obscure the picture at (in the vicinity
> the book.???
Heh? Like, "near"?
> Granted, "in," "on," and "at" could often be distinguished by context as > implicit in a locative, but you may want prepositions available for those > situations where context isn't sufficient to avoid ambiguity.
Again, Géarthnuns does this, but postpositions always invoke the postpositional case.
> Another nit-picky comment: Verbs: Should the "tense indicator" be > "tense/mood indicator"?
I'm not sure where Jim (Hopkins) is going here. Since the "ya" exists in all verb forms, I'm not sure I understand why he parses (for example): korun + yar + u (do/present/1st sing) as opposed to korunya (the infinitive) + ru (1st sing present) whereupon you could get a paradigm like: Present: korunya/ru I do korunya/ri we do korunya/re you do korunya/ray you (pl) do korunya/ror he does korunya/ren they do korunya/rel she does korunya/rad God does korunya/ra it does Past: korunya/vu I did korunya/vi we did korunya/ve you did korunya/vay you (pl) did korunya/vor he did korunya/ven they did korunya/vel she did korunya/vad God did korunya/va it did etc. OR, one could do it korunya + r + u verb + pres/indicative + 1st sing korunya + v + u verb + past/indicative + 1st sing korunya/v/u I did korunya/v/e you did etc. thereby eliminating Jim (Grossman)'s question about tense vs. mood indicator. SOV totally *rules*, dewd (as do sounds like /Z/ and /dz/). Rock on. Kou