Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 30/05/99 22:03:17 , Charles a =E9crit :
> > i'll try to stick to your word
> > order although i think it's one of the worst you can design for an=20
auxlang=20
> :
> =20
> In my experiments it seems impossible to have part-of-speech terminal
> vowels and SVO order without eventually gravitating to adjective-noun.
>=20
it's because you get short of vowels so you have to root-root bon-fishoobedo=
o=20
in the end. anyway i think PoS tags should be head like in svo pidgins.=20
switching adj-noun means that you link inversion and attribution (like in=20
Chinese and English). in the same time you make a hierarchy ranking=20
attribution as secondary, derived word order and i feel it's not accurate.=20
maybe you can systematize children's language :
house its door hurt john his head.
dog ADJ it red TOP it nice =3D the red dog is nice
friend my his sister she nice =3D my sister's friend is nice
sister my friend she nice =3D (ditto)
where integrative ADJ makes "it red" attributive like "his sister" is, and=20
resumptive TOP closes substuff.
it seems strange, but that how attributive really works in children's heads =
:=20
actor comes first, then attribute. this has nothing to do with verb-noun=20
difference. either verb is noun's attribute or noun is verb's attribute=20
because it's unaspectivized (that's my favourite rabitting-on subject) :
"gone the car" =3D "the car gone" =3D the car is gone (as my little cousin s=
ays :=20
"partie, la voiture !").
that's why i think your "reversive" language is a good basis for childish=20
auxlang.
> > i always avoid to reverse SVO order in integration, be it with adj-noun=20
or
> > within compound or derived words.
> =20
> By using an inverse-transitive voice or doing French-like compounding,
> root+preposition+root as in salle-a-manger, it could work well maybe.
>
that's basically what i did with "kases" (remember ? ;-)
but you may try with real prepositions made from real verbs.
> > let's say :
> > i : verb
> > o : substantive
> > a : adj =3D attributive to a substantive
> > e : adv =3D attributive to a verb
> > -r- : nomen agentis
> > -k- : noun of action
> > -s- : genitive
> > -t- : and (resumptive)
> >
> > bone fishi =3D to fish well
> > bona fishi-r-o =3D the good fisher
> =20
> Hey, I may have to steal this -r- and -k-, at least;
> what would be the most productive set of these?
mapping all possible roles like ATProgrammers try to do now : maybe the firs=
t=20
100,000. mapping like rick morneau, you know that better than myself. mappin=
g=20
like indonesian : around 10. mapping like i would ("kases") : around 50 (all=20
most frequent roles in their main aspects used in derived words). if you are=20
willing to use long words and avoid ditransitives by means of serial verbs :=20
you need 4.
> And adding -u as a 5th part-of-speech for conjunctions.
>
you don't need them if you have as many disruptive-resumptive pronouns as=20
PoSs.
> > bone-a fishiro =3D the fisher fishing well
> =20
> Misagglutinatedly; how about "bone-fishiro" or
> "bone-peciro" (if you tolerate c =3D /S/) ?
> Or better maybe, "bonpecio" (I like ambiguity) ?
funny that Marcos and you both like root+root+suffix pattern.
remember that english adj is one degree in integration between words,=20
different from compound (if you want to make that distinction in your=20
auxlang), different from other degrees of integration in other natlangs like=20
jap for instance (in jap adjectives may be aspectivized as state verbs).
> It feels weird modifying a noun with an adverb: "bone pecio".
> But "bone pecia =3D bonpecia =3D well fishing" seems safe.
> Maybe double-vowel POS's don't work as well as -ro does.
> =20
> > ;-)
> > It's just hell.
> =20
> Let's not be judgemental, even in this year of 9's.
> =20
i mean : who would speak that ?
Mathias