Re: Universal Translation Language

From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:

> i'll try to stick to your word
> order although i think it's one of the worst you can design for an auxlang :
In my experiments it seems impossible to have part-of-speech terminal
vowels and SVO order without eventually gravitating to adjective-noun.

> i always avoid to reverse SVO order in integration, be it with adj-noun or
> within compound or derived words.
By using an inverse-transitive voice or doing French-like compounding,
root+preposition+root as in salle-a-manger, it could work well maybe.

> let's say :
> i : verb
> o : substantive
> a : adj = attributive to a substantive
> e : adv = attributive to a verb
> -r- : nomen agentis
> -k- : noun of action
> -s- : genitive
> -t- : and (resumptive)
>
> bone fishi = to fish well
> bona fishi-r-o = the good fisher
Hey, I may have to steal this -r- and -k-, at least;
what would be the most productive set of these?
And adding -u as a 5th part-of-speech for conjunctions.

> bone-a fishiro  = the fisher fishing well
Misagglutinatedly; how about "bone-fishiro" or
"bone-peciro" (if you tolerate c = /S/) ?
Or better maybe, "bonpecio" (I like ambiguity) ?
It feels weird modifying a noun with an adverb: "bone pecio".
But "bone pecia = bonpecia = well fishing" seems safe.
Maybe double-vowel POS's don't work as well as -ro does.

> ;-)
> It's just hell.
Let's not be judgemental, even in this year of 9's.