Re: comments on Itláni
|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 caseto
> convey these relationships would make it tough to distinguish sentenceslike
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
> 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 pictureon/in
> the book.???
> ??? The ink on/in the book did not obscure the picture at (in the vicinityof)
> 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
> 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:
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
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
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
thereby eliminating Jim (Grossman)'s question about tense vs. mood
SOV totally *rules*, dewd (as do sounds like /Z/ and /dz/). Rock on.