Re: going without "without"

Gerald Koenig wrote:

> I had a logic version of the sentence which was something like:
>
> She left, and it not the case that (simultaneously) she said goodbye.
> P&~Q.
"There's more than one way to do it." Using conjunctions works fine.
In my own radically-verb-ized conlang, verbs take over the functions
of conjunctions and prepositions, and word order determines the
(just two) core cases. I don't know yet if my scheme actually works ...

> If that's what serial-verbing is I do agree that it's probably a better
> way to put the sentence.  I was just trying on the other construction
> for size. For me the DeLancy-Nilenga expressions clarify case. I agree
> with you and Matt that they can get ugly. But since case is a
> categorization exercise where certain limited "innate" cases are mixed
> in with another finite set that a conlanger or a culture prefers, it
> is helpful (for me) to have a way of creating as many cases as there
> are adverbs; and nilenga can convert nouns to adverbs: this is the
> hyper-specification process that Matias speaks of as characteristic of
> the Japanese verbs carried even further. My personal esthetic is for
> unique cases that can be created on the fly to fit a situation, as well
> as for the standard "innate" three or four. Serial verbs seem to me to
> not create sets and put members in them, like cases. But again, I am
> just exploring these ideas. What do you think?
I think you're serial-nouning like the Romans did sorta, but systematically.
And they were a very practical people. I've read (Delancey, Bickerton)
that cases can arise in natlangs from either direction diachronically,
nouns or verbs becoming prepositions or postpositions licencing case.