Re: Karnnugaan isn't working

In the last episode, (On Wednesday 11 July 2007 11:33:34), Geoff Horswood
wrote:
> > I encourage you to keep up. Rather than trying to
> > come up with umpteen
> > different nuances at once, why not concentrate on a
> > few basic ones for
> > starters? For example, you could start by being able
> > to write sentences that
> > incorporate the idea of "now the big x runs speedily
> > towards the..." and
> > continue on to "now the small x runs slowly..."
> > later.
>
> <snip>
>
> > The short way of saying this is that just because it
> > looks ambiguous to you,
> > don't assume that (a) it's ambiguous to your
> > conculture; (b) things which to
> > you are not ambiguous are not to your conculture.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> I expect I'll keep on with it.  And you're right.
> Ambiguity per se is not a problem.  The problem is
> that I designed the language to be deliberately
> obscure and ambiguous, and it's working beyond my
> wildest dreams!
:-)
>
> One of the big problems I seem to have is that there
> are no straightforward pronouns, so even saying "I see
> the cat" is problematic.
Well lots of languages use pronouns only for emphasis, either with or without
markings on the verb for subject (and/or direct object/indirect
object/applicative object). Spanish does this, and marks subject on the verb
with DO and IO as clitics; Japanese doesn't normally use pronominal verb
affixes OR pronouns at all (indeed the words that are analyzed as pronouns
don't, as in English and Spanish, even form a closed class); Georgian again
doesn't use pronouns except for emphasis and marks S, DO and IO (or Agent and
Patient, depending on the verb tense (split ergativity)) on the verb.

 One idea I'm toying with with for Velyan is having two sets of pronominal
affixes on the verb (well, really a lot more than two, but two broad groups),
one used where Spanish would use pronominal endings and clitics, and English
would use unstressed pronouns (I went to the shops), and another where
Spanish would use pronouns and English would use stressed pronouns (/I/ went
to the shops). That would presumably eliminate the need for "pronouns"
entirely, even if some would analyze them as "cliticized pronouns".

You can also decide whether to use any or all of them in the presence of
nominal expressions or a restricted set thereof. Doing so makes them more
like pronominal endings; not doing so makes them more like clitics.

>
> There's a root which carries the meaning "self", but
> this can indicate reflexivity in the verb as well as
> the first person.  And so far I don't have anything
> approximating the second person at all.  I hate to
> create another root (Oligosynthesis is another thing
> I'm trying for) unless it can do multiple duties.
>
Well if you have a root for "self" then it's not too much of a stretch to have
a root for "other" (possibly including 2 and 3rd person)!

Also, to differentiate between "first person" and "reflexive" you could put
subject endings on one end of the verb and object endings on the other - this
is often done to avoid having to come up with separate subject and object
endings! Then depending on where the morpheme for "self" was it would either
unambigiously mean "I" or "my/your/his/her/them/self/selves".

OR, you could have verb affixes on the verb and make a rule that the word that
means "I" means "myself" in the presence of the verb affix that also
means "I".

HTH

Jeff
--
"Please understand that there are small
European principalities devoted to debating
Tcl vs. Perl as a tourist attraction."

                            -- Cameron Laird