Re: CHAT: Conlanging has the Hacker nature? (was Re: CHAT: music // was Leaf script)
|From:||Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon) <dragon@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, August 31, 2004, 12:24|
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote, quoting myself:
> > kket = "do so" in this context, but there is no direct
> > translation; think of it as a pronoun for verbs. Note that
> > /E/ is realised as [&] after /x/.
> Interesting - sounds like "fassec" in Verdurian.
It can be interpreted as "do" or else "do so" (an object is optional)
or else simply "act" as in, "to perform an action". It doesn't even
have to be active. If I say, "mona kket ton" (the gender-neutral way
of saying, "I somethinged you") then this simply indicates that some
form of interaction occured between me and you. It could very easily
be passive: it could mean "I was somethinged by you". The verb is
Indeed, the verb placeholder "kket" (or a derivative of it) appears in
all passive sentences. For example, as previously stated "yara" is the
verb for desire, and the equivalent of "was desired by" is "yaral
kket". Example sentences: "Maniu yara ryn cynt" (I desire the sword)
versus "Ryniu cynt yaral kket man" (the sword is desired by me).
The reason for this is that the passive sentence can be parsed as,
"The sword acquires the attribute of being desired by virtue of an
abstract interaction involving me" and the word "kket" simply stands
for the "abstract interaction". The verb for desire ("yara") is placed
in a form called the byverbial (or viaverbial) indicated by the -l
suffix, which is a special adjective form that indicates that the verb
in the same clause is responsible for the adjective becoming
applicable to the noun. Does that make sense?