Re: OT: sorta OT: cases: please help...

YHL wrote:
>On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 09:57 , Thomas R. Wier wrote:
>
>>Quoting Yoon Ha Lee <yl112@...>:
>>>    :-/  I've never been able to figure out how/why je/me are clitics,
>>>mainly because the only thing I know for sure is a clitic is "que" of
>>>Latin "[X] [Y]que," and I could even be wrong about that.
>>
>>English has lots of clitics.  "n't", "'m" (for am), "'re",
>>"'s" (for is), "'s" (for possessive), "'em" (plural "them"), etc.
>>French is only confusing because it doesn't write je/me as such,
>>unlike English and Latin. (Greek didn't mark at least one as such
>>either: <te> "and" is always written as if it were a freestanding
>>particle, though it changes the phonology of preceding words like
>>an enclitic)
>
>I get it now.  Thanks!
>
>ObConlang: I think the only clitics I've got in *any* of my conlangs are
>the conjunctions in Tasratal, which behave like the Latin "[X] [Y]que":
>
>"Yoon" "Yune"-zel : Yoon AND Yune (where Yune is my younger sister, whose
>name is pronounced *exactly* the same and even spelled *exactly* the same
>in *Korean,* God knows what our parents were thinking)
>
>"Yoon" "Yune"-ga-zel : Yoon OR Yune
>
>"Yoon" "Yune"-ken-ga-zel : Yoon XOR Yune
>
>(One comp-sci class too many, even though I'm awful at logic gates...)
Neat. However, I strongly suspect that XOR is more common than OR in normal
speech (ie English "or" mainly means XOR, but doubles up as OR), so perhaps
it'd make more sense to have XOR as the less marked form.

                                                       Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Reply