Re: A Language built around a novel grammar

Hi!

Jonathan Knibb <jonathan_knibb@...> writes:
> > How does your conlang handle the following sentences?  Does it need
> more than the two/three operators already mentioned?
>
> I like Lars' solution very much - it's actually very close to how Telona
> handles these constructions. For clarity, I'll omit the obligatory
> markers of aspect, number and definiteness. I will have to explain that
> the phrasal syntax is strictly binary-branching; there are no unattached
> words and no branch points with more than two branches. The top-level
> branch point in a sentence divides the topic (given information) from
> the comment (new information about the topic). Typically, therefore,
> there are several ways to rearrange a sentence, putting different words
> in the topic position.
That's most interesting!  If you define the serial verb construction
of S11 as a right branching binary operation, then this quite similar
to S11, since it has topic fronting.

> HT example 1: I read the book that John gave to Mary.
> Translation 1.1: I' read + book - give John give-to + Mary.
>
> The tree structure of this sentence is as follows:
> (I (read (book (give (John (give-to Mary))))))
Ah.  So accent for marking branching.  So you do have additional
operators for indicating clause structure -- what a relief. :-)

>...
...much more interesting examples and explanations...

From your examples, I think there is an interesting difference between
topic handling and reference maintenaince between Telona and S11:
Telona has two operators + and - which, if I understand correctly,
also serve to swich the topic and in the sub-clause, the reference,
into place.  S11 has only one operator here to compound verb-noun
pairs, and the topic is always the noun part.  OTOH, for subclauses,
S11 has two reference particles: one for the whole clause and one for
the first topic, while Telona does not need this because it can shift
'verbs' into topic/reference position.

So it seems that while S11 has two open word classes at
morphosyntactic level, Telona maintains one class even there.

Do I understand Telona correctly?

Dispite any similarities, the structures of Telona, S11, and Tyl Sjok
feel totally different although I had no problem linking them, but
e.g. the = operation just feels differently from SVC.

What is also interesting is that you use an open class content word to
indicate possession (namely, 'own'), in contrast to special structures
used in most natlangs (special possessive constructions).  This is
very similar to S11, only for esthetical reasons I could not resist to
have a special additional inalienable possession -- so S11 is not
radically minimal (while Tyl Sjok was). :-)

Nice explanations about Telona!

> Does this make sense?
Oh, yes, a lot.  It explains much of Telona I did not know so far.
Thanks!

**Henrik