Re: Novel ConGrammar

On Monday, September 27, 2004, at 10:36 , Rodlox wrote:

>  hopefully, this isn't #6.
>
>
>>> inspired by an actual archeological object.
>>>
>>> This language appears to be SVOn (subject-verb-object-number), in which
>>> the
>>> number can be an actual number, or simply "possession of (#)".
>>
>> SVO i understand. But what does 'number' relate to?
>
>  the number of something - it automatically is shunted to the end of the
> sentance, regardless of which category it otherwise would have been in).
>
>> By position it would
>> seem to imply it relates to the object. Does this mean that only the
>> object can be singular or plural and/or can be possessed?
>
>  yep.  (unless the subject is a group of people who possess eight carrots)
> .
Sorry - I am still unclear how this 'number' category works. Could you
give actual examples?

[snip]
>>> )
>>
>> I don't understand the third one: present (definite & indefinite?). Could
>> you explain?
>
>  I wasn't sure if there'd be one Present tense (both of them), or two
> Present tenses.
Yes - but what I am not clear about is what you understand the difference
is between "present indefinite" & 'present definite".

>>>  indefinate future (farther than one can think)
>>>  definate future (fore-sight & planning)
>>
>> I fail to see how the future can ever be definite. Foresight & planning
>> can do much to increase the likelihood of a situation - but it can never
>> be definite.
>
>  the heat death of the universe, is an example of a definite future event.
In that case "farther than one can think" has very little meaning  :)

But nope - it's a future _possibility_ according to one theory (or maybe
several theories). I have seen it also argued that the universe is
indefinitely expanding; and I am sure there are other scientific theories.
  Who knows what other theories will emerge as our understanding grows?

But in any case, it would seem perverse to build a tense into a language
so that you can refer to the death of the Universe.

You seem to be having a three-way tense system with definite & indefinite
aspects. However, with regard future, I think you have think in terms of
probabilities, i.e. relatively high probability ~ unknown probability.

But many languages, including English, do not have a future tense (in the
proper sense of 'tense'), but use a mood expressing prediction, intention,
  volition etc. In English we commonly used the _modal_ auxiliaries _will_
(preterite _would_) and _shall_ (preterite _should_). I am not suggesting
that you do this, merely suggesting something else to think about  ;)

>> Exactly what is this archaeological fragment?
>
>  a block from Chatalhoyuk.
>
>> It seems to be very scant on
>> some features, for example the consonant inventory,
>
>  WIP.
>
>> but can apparently
>> give use complete picture of the tense system. How can this be?
>
>  because I'm basing a conlang on an otherwise unknown language.  :)
Right - so let me get this right. You are using an actual fragment from a
block at Çatal Hüyük in Asia Minor. Then from the fragmentary inscription
you will construct a conlang? Interesting.

If I've got it right, it would be helpful to know what the fragment is and
to distinguish between what is based on the fragment and what is invention.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Reply