Hello. (Should I call you Taka, or Tunu, or Mu?)
--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Taka Tunu <takatunu@F...> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Funny that you mention these "theory" coreferencing and applicative
themes all
> at once because I designed a personal language specifically to
address them by
Thank you. I enjoyed looking at Pikutu. I will study it someday.
>
> As a result, to tag X as the adressee I use the
locution "addressing X" or "with
> X as addressee"; to tag X as beneficiary: "benefiting X" or "with X
as
> beneficiary" and to tag it the instrument "with X as instrument",
etc. To make
> an applicative voice I just incorporate the
words "address", "instrument" and
> "benefit" in the verb. That makes any words a potential "case tag".
Ladekwa, Rick Morneau's Machine-Translation Interlingua, also has
many "case tags" that actually come from adverbs which actually come
from verbs which can come from other word classes. Have you looked
at it? Look on
http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/lexical_semantics.html
http://www.axxess.net/ram/lexical_semantics.html
http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/Ladekwa/index.html
http://www.axxess.net/ram/Ladekwa/index.html
> There is
> also a switch to demote and promote primary and secondary objects.
It's crude
> but it keeps the language free from cases. Many natlangs work like
that. I find
> it way more logical and handy than cases. Same with serial verbs
and subclauses.
> I don't think you need several coreferences if you simply have one
tag to tag
> the start and one tag to tag the end of a (sub)clause. You rarely
handle two
> references at the same time except in cases like "the man whose PC
is a piece
> of junk", but in that case I write "the man who the PC of whom is a
piece of
> junk."
Thanks.
----
Tom H.C. in MI