>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.