Re: New Langage "Tyl-Seok": Similar ideas? (Was: Translation pattern of `to have'?)

> [SNIP]
I snipped your examples of how Tyl-Seok works without
the copula.  (I saved your entire post for future reference.)

> I also have a question wrt. your embedding.  I my language, the
> following sentences are all translated to the same phrase.
>
Those "following sentences" weren't in your post to me,
but I believe I've found them in your March 5 post to
Christophe Grandsire.  Here's what I found there:

> In Tyl-Seok, the following six sentences are the same
> (when not using disambiguation particles):
>  A1: I, knowing the man, drive the car.
>  A2: That I know the man drives the car. (quite unlikely...)
>  A3: The man, known by me, drives the car.
>  B3: I know the man that drives the car.
>  B4: I know that the man drives the car.
>  B5: I know the car that is driven by the man.
>  (You may substitute `the' by `a' anywhere -- it is underspecified.)
>
In my conlang, "the" and "a" are likewise underspecified.
Now, I return to your present post:

> There are particles to clarify the meaning if it is impossible to
> infer from context.  I wonder how you handle these sentences
> without
> particles.  Or are your structures different on a more general
> level?
>
My prefixes do the work of your particles, but they do it
in a different manner because my structures are different
on a more general level.

For example, though it is true that my conlang (like yours)
has active SVO structure (with the agent to the left of the
verb and the patient to the right of the verb), its rules don't
mention subjects/agents or verbs or objects/patients at all!
Its rules that apply to prefixed nouns only tell how each
such noun is related (by its prefix) to some particular noun
that precedes it.  Within each such 2-noun relationship,
the preceding noun can be regarded as the agent of the
noun whose prefix relates them, and that prefix's noun
can be regarded as the preceding noun's patient, and that
prefix can be regarded as playing a quasi-verb role, so
"active SVO structure" is inherent in those rules at the
local (2-noun) level.  But a single noun can be (and often
is) both the patient of a preceding noun and the agent of
a following noun, so I had to design the set of word-order
rules pretty carefully to make sure that each sentence as
a whole would automatically evolve active SVO structure
from those local-level relationships.

Unlike your particles, my prefixes cannot be omitted.

** Tommie

Reply