Re: Kioshu Conlang Compliments!

 I've been following this discussion with some interest.  This concept of
annexes seems vaguely reminiscent of what I call predicate inflections in
amman iar.  In this case the position of the auxiliary and a "patient/theme
particle (PTP)" establish argument relations.  The PTP functions in a manner
that is "vaguely" adpositional and seems similar to Jeff's annexes.

For example:

John cleaned the room for the guest.
iananne elieth aen i sam erallael i marisnarren

\f John cleaned the room for the guest.
\t iananne         elieth
\m ian  =an   -e   el-        -i    -eth
\g John =masc -[A] assertive- -perf -past
\p nam  =gnd  -erg mood-      -asp  -tense
\x John            did

\t aen        i   sam       erallael
\m aen        i   sam  -0   er-  allo    -ae      -l
\g agt.to.pat the room -[P] do-  be pure -agt/pat -actn
\p ptp        det n    -abs agt- v       -val     -vc
\x [to]       the room      clean

\t i   marisnarren
\m i   mariso =nar     -en
\g the visit  =one.who -[Obl]
\p det v      =agtv    -dat
\x the guest           for

Here the PTP 'aen', here loosely parsed as [to], established the patientive
relation of the following NP, 'i sam', the room.

Stay curious,
David

David E. Bell
The Gray Wizard
dbell@graywizard.net
www.graywizard.net
AIM: GraWzrd

Wisdom begins in wonder.


 -----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]On
Behalf Of Jeff Goguen
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:43 AM
To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
Subject: Re: Kioshu Conlang Compliments!


>>So if I understand correctly, the annexes, rather than marking a function
of a
>>word in a sentence, mark a relation between two words, one being the
subject.
>>This sounds like an interesting difference compared to prepositions and
>>postpositions which usually mark a relation between the *verb* and the
object
>>(except in cases like "of" after a noun for instance). Personally I find
the
>>idea very interesting. I just wonder how you do when the relation is not
with
>>the subject. For instance, let's take a sentence like "John cleaned the
room
>>for the guest". It's the whole action which is done for the guest, and
thus
>>should be related to him. "John" himself is not directly related to the
guest.
>>So in this case it would be more sensible to have a linking mark between
the
>>verb "cleaned" and the noun "guest". Or do you take things grammatically
and
>>consider that the relation still involves the subject? :))
You're very close to understanding my intentions with annexes. The only
difference between your interpretation and my definition is that the annex
is not only a relationship between the subject and object, but also a
relationship between everything before the annex and everything after it.
This sometimes includes the verb, but not always. In your example, "John
cleaned the room for the guest.", the dative annex "ret" would be used to
indicate that the guest is an indirect object (indirect objects come after
the verb, unlike direct objects).

John cleaned the room for the guest.
John (perform verb on) the-room (past) clean (preceding undertaken for
purpose of) the-guest.
John nik usviruo in liuro ret ustotsuin.

Keep 'em comin'!

Thanks!
Jeff