Re: Two part verbs (Why They Shouldn't Make Me Wait)

Hi!

Christopher Bates writes:
>...
> > Oh, that's a pity, I really liked it when I read the grammar.  It has
> > a feasible, organic feel that e.g. my engelangs do not have (of
> > course, that's why they are engelangs).
> >
> Really? :) I was thought that it was veering a bit on the freak-lang
> side. ;) It was intended to be vaguely plausable though, and certainly
> most of the individual bits that make it up are attested in various
> natlangs, although I don't know any natural language that has all of
> them. :)
Yes, I found it plausible.  I did not find it overly freaklangish
(although admittedly a refreshing bit), probably because some natlangs
I've read about felt *really* strange.  E.g. West-Greenlandic and some
Amarind langs.  When I read Fortescues Greenlandic grammar, I had more
problems gathering how constituents were interconnected in nested
sentences, for example.  But maybe it was only his style of
writing... :-)))

Funny that you give examples where natlangs already do it except
worse(tm). :-)  I liked that 'there is a man' uses a different verb
than 'there is a woman' and that in fact there is a fine-grained
classification system in some natlangs with more than just two
classifiers.

**Henrik

Reply