Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Kioshu Conlang Compliments!

From:The Gray Wizard <dbell@...>
Date:Friday, February 1, 2002, 18:46
 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 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 E. Bell
The Gray Wizard
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
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
>>This sounds like an interesting difference compared to prepositions and >>postpositions which usually mark a relation between the *verb* and the
>>(except in cases like "of" after a noun for instance). Personally I find
>>idea very interesting. I just wonder how you do when the relation is not
>>the subject. For instance, let's take a sentence like "John cleaned the
>>for the guest". It's the whole action which is done for the guest, and
>>should be related to him. "John" himself is not directly related to the
>>So in this case it would be more sensible to have a linking mark between
>>verb "cleaned" and the noun "guest". Or do you take things grammatically
>>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