Re: A Conlang, created by the group?

Herman wrote :

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 15:04:34 -0300, Pablo Flores
> <fflores@...> wrote:
>
> >That's why I want to do -- some pure verbal roots. And I guess the =
> others
> >would agree to that? Otherwise the case system will have to be =
> redefined.
> >We don't want that, do we?
I think there is a good chance for that but we could try to have as many cases
as we can, then add new cases if necessary, then give up and pick a pure verbal
root if we fail otherwise.


> >
> >If we have, say, _kjak-_ "bite", we could have
> >
> >kjako      "a biting" (the action, default noun meaning)
> >kjakailo   "a bit" (the mark of the dog's teeth, a derivative meaning =
> "result")
> >kjakango   "biter" (i. e. the dog)
> >kjakes-    "(be) bitten" (new stem)
> >kjakeso    "a being bitten" (the action from the point of view of the =
> patient)
>
> I like that, and the general idea of V(V)C for derivative suffixes is a
> good one. That means it might be wise to stick to CVCCVC-type words for
> roots in the B vocabulary (less frequently used words), to avoid being
> confused for derivatives of CVC words.
>
I agree, but someone proposed an ABLAUT ROOTING-SYSTEM (like in  Arabic)

What do y'all think of that ?


Mathias



-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17125
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/