Re: THEORY: Use of Ligatures and the Trigger System in Tagalog

En réponse à Roger Mills :


>Well, if he's referring to Tagalog, he must mean things like
>bahay na maganda
>house linker beautiful = beautiful house
>
>~ magandang bahay
>beautiful-linker house = beautiful house
>
>and other usages.
Well, it was indeed temporary amnesia :) . They are a nice feature that 
I've always thought of putting in some conlang of mine...
_________________________________________________________________________
En réponse à Chris Bates :


>Ligatures are basically particles which glue together related words
>(nouns and adjectives, etc). They're not really closely related to the
>Trigger system I don't think except in my brain, which keeps coming up
>with ideas that link the two of them. *shrugs* I have lots of ideas
>though, and most of them are rubbish. Occasionally I get a gem though,
>so its worth trying them out. ;)
I don't think you can really link ligatures and trigger systems anyway 
(apart from in a superficial way, like a conlang which uses a ligature to 
connect the trigger with the verb ;) ). I don't think there's any reason 
which forbids having ligatures without triggers, or triggers without ligatures.
_________________________________________________________________________
En réponse à Trebor Jung :


>I tho't the term 'ligature' was restricted to script, cf. æ (ae-ligature).
>Nice. Just learned something new today :) But, in any case, could French
>liaison be considered a ligature?
Good answers have already been given, so I will simply say that I 
completely agree with them: liaison is simply a case of allophonic 
variations. It can be rather complex, it can show grammatical features that 
would otherwise stay hidden, but it never indicates that the two words it 
appears between are related in some way or another (the absence of liaison 
doesn't mean they're not related either).

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.