Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: question - for organizing a long-delayed language

From:Rodlox R <rodlox@...>
Date:Monday, May 9, 2005, 23:08
>From: Christopher Wright <dhasenan@...> >Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> >To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU >Subject: Re: question - for organizing a long-delayed language >Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 01:30:14 -0400 > >On Sat, 7 May 2005 22:18:15 +0000, Rodlox R <rodlox@...> wrote: > > >I've finally gotten around to starting to try and find organizing >principles > >to sort/simplify Metes (that terror of conlang discussions)...but I'm not > >sure how to proceed. > > > >What I did, originally, was to take the PIE words, modify them slightly, >and > >type them in X-SAMPA as I thought they would be pronounced. > >Much like I did with Sturnan, though I greatly twisted the words in many >cases (random sound changes on each lexical entry). > > > >Unfortunately, what resulted was that several words had widely differing > >definitions (ie, "ba" means both "to speak" and "to shine")...and other > >definitions had a great many words (a lotta words that mean "to tear" for > >some reason). > >A bias from the reconstructions of PIE. Try introducing severe lexical >drift, and see if you can find a different root for the offending >similarities
certainly something I hadn't considered. thank you.
>(i.e. create a new word "shine" from the root for "silver"). Or >you could posit multiple sound-change paths with reborrowing--"speak" would >probably retain the conservative / main-line root "ba" whilst the less >common "shine" would be borrowed from a sister language, changing to, for >instance, "v&".
ah. *thinks* interesting.
> >here are some ideas I've had thus far...suggestions more than welcome: > > > >teq(m) = 10 > >teu- _=_ to do, perform, show favor, revere . > >teu- _=_ to lack, to be wanting; to tire . > > > >teu-teqm = to revere 10; teqm-teu = to lack 10 > >Both transitive--this would be great for distinguishing unergatives from >unaccusatives,
Am I mistaken in suspecting that this "transitive" doesn't refer to an object/word in motion?
>otherwise. So perhaps the verb cliticizes to assign >accusative case (or for Theme/Patient) and remains in place for anything >else. > >Then if you have an unambiguous ditransitive,
um, pardon me - what is a ditransitive?
>you can move focus by not >cliticizing the verb. It'd be an odd construction--you'd be moving the >theme >to some sort of oblique argument status--but I'd appreciate seeing it.
> >thank you for your time. > > > >-Rodlox. > >Please, sir, I'd like some more.
*sigh* fine. just let me update my website.