Re: A Conlang, created by the group?

        Finally, after reading all those messages and meeting Mathias (just on
midday), I've decided to join the group of creation of a new conlang. I
don't know if I will be very active, as I have many other things to do, but
if I can help, I will be pleased to do so.

At 09:51 09/10/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>De: Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>
>Fecha: Viernes 9 de Octubre de 1998 03:17
>
>[...]
>>Ok. How may of us prefer suffixes and how many prefixes ? If no majority :
>>
>>Maybe we could split like : cases are postfixed and tags showing parts of
>> speach (verb/adverb/adjective -if any/noun, etc) are prefixed. I've never
>> tried it but I know Japanese heavily use demonstrative front-topics
>> resuming to different part of speach everywhere.
>
>I like it... but I would vote for part of speach, and gender postfixed and
>cases prefixed.  Also, I would voto for a non-traditional case system like
>  agent
>  patient
>  undergoer
>  theme
>  static predicate
>  dinamic predicate
>  modifier
>  clasifier
>  determinant
>
>and some small particles (prepositions?) to extend some meanings.
>
        I like it. What about the plural? And do we need a plural (it can be only
lexical, like using some words like 'many', 'various' or numerals to mean
plural). If we use postfixed gender, I would vote for a postfixed plural.

>>> >Also, how about word order? SVO, OVS, VOS, what? Head-final or =
>>> head-first?
>>> >I think everyone should take some piece of the language and work out a =
>>> sketch.
>>
>>You're perfectly right, it makes things go faster. However I think
>> head/final pattern should rather be a collective decision precedent,
>> however long it may be. Let's vote.
>>
        No preference. Things can be very flexible, just see below.

>>> I think it would be interesting to try SOV, with Japanese-like syntax for
>>> things like modifiers and relative clauses,
>[...]
>
>The case system would give some freedom, but I like the Idea of a standard
>word order, like SOV... or in my case system Agent-Patient-Theme-Predicate,
>and Modifier-Main morphem syntax.
>
>>> >We have
>>> >
>>> >1 noun inflection
>>> >2 verb inflection
>
>A way of mixing them?
>Tense could be used in either nominal phrases (Agent, Patient, etc) or
>predicates.
>Aspect: perfect aspect mark = definite article mark?, how about other
>aspects?
        I'll think of it. One of my languages doesn't make a verbal/nominal
distinction in aspects. For instance, the suffix of 'temporalised' (I like
to say 'hic et nunc' is also used as a definite article, but with the
aspect role not forgotten).

>Gender: animate/inanimate gender = dinamic/static predicates?
>
>>> >3 adjectives (like nouns? like verbs? comparatives?)
        I'd prefer adjectives behaving like verbs (it gives the best solution for
the copulative 'to be' I know, and allows many derivations).

>>> >4 word order
>>> >5 stress, tone, vowel length (?)
        Tone would be very difficult for most of us. Vowel length also, but it's
easier (for me at least). We should use stress at least to seperate lexemes
(nouns, verbs) from particles (if we use any).

>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--Pablo Flores
>>>
>[...]
>>> Should we have grammatical gender? It wouldn't have to be as traditional
>=
>>> as
>>> masculine/feminine/neuter (one of my neglected language sketches has four
>>> genders of "north, south, east, west"), but it's something to consider
>>> before we go very far with the morphology.
>>
>>'Genders' may be classes like 'thought', 'feeling', 'material phenomenon',
>> 'action', 'physical state', 'yellow strawberry' (rare occurence),
>'conlanger'
>> (rarer occurence), etc.:-)
>>
>>Mathias
>
>What about genders and subgenders?
> Animate
>   Person (any thing able to speak, wath ever speak would mean)
>     Human being
>     Deity
>     Corporation
>     Alien
>   Animal
>     Domestic compaining animal
>     Cattle
>     Wild animal
>     Insect and other small animals
>     Microscopic animals
>   Weather and natural phenomena
> Inanimate
>   Living inanimate things
>     Parts of animate beings
>     Plants
>   Tangible non-living things
>   Intangible things
>
        Do we need such differentiations? Well, I'll think of it. I've got an
idea: why not use a gender agreement as we find in Swahili? It would give
even more freedom in the sentence order (and in the phrase order).
Moreover, if we use suffixes for gender, it would allow easy rhymes, rythm
and alliterations (with prefixes also, as I think of it). I find it an
interesting feature. What do you think of it?

>Any body has make experiment with subgenders?
>
        I'll work about it.

>-- Carlos Th
>
>
P.S.: I'm absent for the weekend. So I won't be able to read your mails
before monday. Don't create the language without me in only two days!
(kidding... just kidding)