Re: Grammar idea

Hi all,

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Yann Kiraly wrote:
> Hi! Based on a grammar I used for the schedule - less relay,
> I have created a new language with a veeery simple grammar.
> I would just like to know what you think about it and if you
> think it would work as a spoken or written language.
> There is only one syntax rule in this (unnamed) language:
> X Arguments.X na/.
> That is supposed to mean:
> Every word X is followed by its arguments. The end of the
> list of these arguments is marked either by  na or by a full
> stop. This is easier to understand when you imagine the
> grammar rule like this:
> X (Arguments.X)
> The opening parantheses doesn't occur in speaking or writing.
> The closing parantheses is indicated by na, which closes one
> open parantheses, or a full stop, which closes all open
> parantheses. That's the whole syntax.
> Here's an example:
> Pakja luru panja gama na na nau kwa.
> Here's an interlinear with added parantheses (the na's are
> replaced by closing parantheses in the interlinear):
> Strong (appeal (grin (fruit)) to (I)).
> A smooth translation would be:
> Grinning fruit appeals strongly to me.
> or:
> I like jack-o-lanterns very much ;-)
> So, please comment on this little language.
> Thanks in advance,
> Yann Kiraly
Yann,
I have some thoughts on this:
1) Very logical!
2) The repetition of "na" would work better in writing than in
speech - and whole meanings would change if the speaker had
a slight and unpredictable stutter!
3) It seems to me your example violates your syntax rule.
Or does "appeal" modify "strong"?  I would have thought the
reverse applies.  Perhaps you mean more by "argument" than
"modifier".
4) I believe some natlangs offer the opposite scheme; namely,
they _introduce_ each successive argument to a word by a
"na"-like morpheme.  That almost requires that arguments
follow the word they modify.
5) How effectively does your rule handle situations that in IE
languages usually require auxiliary verbs?  eg
"You, too, could like jack-o-lanterns very much, but we
shouldn't take that for granted."
6) Does having a word for "to", as in your example, really
follow the syntax rule?
7) If language X has "yemi"=man, "gilgash"=bite, and "ho"=dog,
what is the meaning of "gilgash yemi na ho."?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/118 - Release Date: 3/10/05