Re: Mapwords
| From: | Ted E. Saratoga <tedetedet@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, July 21, 2003, 15:55 |
|---|
Shouldn't each mapword either precede or follow the wordproviding semantic
content?This would have precedent (to a degree) in various human languages.~~
Anything below this line is NOT from me ===> Ted Saratoga ~~--- On Mon
07/21, Peter Bleackley < Peter.Bleackley@RD.BBC.CO.UK > wrote:From: Peter
Bleackley [mailto: Peter.Bleackley@RD.BBC.CO.UK]To:
CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDUDate: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:53:30 +0100Subject:
MapwordsThe recent discussion of parts of speech has inspired this idea for a
veryweird one.A mapword is a word whose entire purpose is to define the
grammaticalstructure of a sentence. It is a polysynthetic compound of
particles, eachmorpheme corresponding to the function, role and gramatical
relations ofthe words following it. Each sentence begins with such a
monstrosity, therest of the sentence consisting of isolating semantic words
which are itsarguments. Here's an example (in English
gloss).n-pat.adj-attrib-pat-sup.vb-pt.adj-attrib-agt-comp.n-agt
dog big buy small boyThe smaller boy bought the biggest dog.Word order is
simply mapword : everything else.Of course, when you start using subclauses
things can get seriouslycomplicated.Any thoughts?
_______________________________________________
Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.
Reply