my grammar (and a little of Word Order Indicating Tense)
|From:||# 1 <salut_vous_autre@...>|
|Date:||Friday, December 31, 2004, 0:07|
>as for dropping of arguments, there are some language like Japanese where
>you can drop the subject, object etc if they're obvious without marking on
>the verb, and without any verbal agreement, so for instance you could say:
>for "I have a car", "you have a car" etc if the subject was obvious, or:
>if the object (for instance car) was obvious. If your language freely
>allows the dropping of arguments like the subject or object without some
>marking that this has happened then I don't think your system is workable.
>But since this isn't the case....
Is it a dropping of argument in something like
- Do you have a car?
- I do
"You do what?" would ask someone who arrives and didn't heard the question
Does a language need a capacity to drop arguments?
I can't find an example ef that kind of thing in French
- As-tu une voiture? (Do you have a car?)
- J'en ai une (I have on)
In french it needs a pronoun to replace the word car ("en")
So I think I can make my conlang without having to think to these droppings
I will come back on a few mistakes or changes I've made in "my grammar"
>V1 -> V2
>i -> I u -> U e -> 2 A -> o E -> E~ a -> a~ O -> O~ @ -> @ (unchanged)
I forgot the A -> o I don't need these and it lead to ambiguity with de A
and the O
Also I will add "6 -> 6" and "y -> y" it's a little useless but they were
>4: the question form simply inverts the subject and the pronoun
>VOS a question about the past OVS a question about the present OSV a
>question about the futur
What have I said? invert the subject and the object, I meant
>5: There are 7 aspects, represented by the first consonant of each verb
>(there can have a vowel before or it can beggin the verb)
>perfective: f S x inchoactive: pp\ ts kx cessative:
>pf tS qX perpetual: p_h t_h k_h progressive: p t k
>iterative: liguo-labial plosive, post-alveolar plosive, and [q] (all
I said "perfective: f S x"
but it is "perfective: f S X"
I said 7 aspects and I only gave 6 I forgot the last one after writing the
I forgot the "Habitual": p\ s x
>9: the stress is always on the last vowel of the word wich is not a schwa
I should say "a schwa, an open schwa or a [y]
>"You probably didn't want to beggin to be eaten by them"
>Q not a question T past As inchoactive V passive M potential Af
>"dza'g6:n pi' ga~' "
Mistake: I kept the first person subject instead of the segond person
It is "dza'g6:n te' ga~' "
I'll work on the adverbs, adjectives, and stuff
But there's something I don't know
Does a language needs to have a way to distinc definite and indefinite
I've heard that some languages don't have a definite indefinite distinction
How can this works? it simply lets the ambiguity or is there a equivalent
grammatical way to do this in these languages?