Re: Articles, determiners, quantifiers, whatever...

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> Well, your view of a "twisted" system is just a very agglutinative one.
> I don't find that twisted at all personally :) . Make a twisted system
> without having twenty different affixes on your articles, and I'll be
> more with you :)) .
In fact, there are 23 "aspects" that can be used to build a quantifier...
plus 10 intensifiers/diminishers... plus 29 numbers in one word... plus 2
times 24 possessive quantifiers. And they aren't affixes because there is no
mandatory part in a quantifier except the case marking but you can't call it
a root. So, no root, no affix.  ;-)

Well, I call it "twisted" because, so far, I haven't seen anything like the
shaquean quantifiers. I've seen systems that aren't simple but it's always
so human to have tiny bits floating all along the sentence, whatever the
order and the location. It looked like alien to me to have a big block
containing everything.

Besides, an agglutinative system is so shaquean.  ;-)  The Shaquelingua uses
such a system for its modal/temporal compound, another one for the location
postposition. In fact, I don't think there are any word in Shaquelingua
where you can't add something... Even proper names !  :-)

> The Maggel article is such a twisted thing. In form, it's simply "a(n)"
When will you (at last) put Maggel's grammar on the web? I can't hardly wait
to hear about the Pictics!  ;-)

See ya,

================
Remi Villatel
maxilys@tele2.fr
================

Reply