Re: TRANS: Happiness

> I know this is the boring politically correct thing to say, but "very
simple
> grammar" in what respect? If it's a fully functional language with the
> ability to express complex ideas, then complexity has to creep in on one
> level or another. Is it very regular? Does it leave lots of things not
> explicitly expressed (from what you write below, it looks like the subject
> is left understood)?
It's supposed to be a fully functional language, but it isn't natural at
all, which is explained by the language's history.
Yes, it is very regular, in fact, completely regular (except the
morphology).The subject is left understood, but in this sentence is doesn't
matter. As I said before, the language lack the use of pronouns (though, it
has a couple of "primitive" pronouns), but there could be a word for "one"
(in "one should not seek").

>
> >(to find)-happiness (to seek).not.it should
> >or
> >To find happiness you shouldn't seek it.
> >
> >I'm happy to answer any question, mainly because that I'll learn
something
> >just to answer the question, and also, that all questions will help to
> >develop my conlang to the better.
>
> Does the hyphen in "Vionesto-chalman" indicate that the object is
considered
> part of the verb? Would we have the hyphen if it were an finite verb
rather
> than an infinitive (ie, it it was for instance "finds" instead of "to
> find")?
The hyphen is a sort of "auxiliary symbol", to bind descriptive words to
it's "parent". But it's not a part of the verb. I'm in an experimental stage
of the language construction, so the hyphen may disappear in a later
version. Maybe only word order is needed.
The infinitive form is actually the same as the present.

>
> Is "prix" and auxiliary verb?
No, it represents "should".