Re: Lenmoct

['de,vId r\oUt]:

>>My goal was to create a reverse-sexist conlang with an interesting-
>>looking orthography.
> First question: Why...?  (Not the orthography part,
> incidently.)
Because I thought it would be interesting.  After  all of my other
conlangs have no gender specificity at all, I wanted to try the
other side and see how bigotedness could drive grammar.  (From
the female persepctive that is.  For some reason, reverse-sexism
is much more acceptable.  Not that I try either way...)
> >That first sentence (there is...) is necessary in Lenmoct, because it
tells
> >you the players in the story and what gender and inversion they will
> >have.
> That might get cumbersome.  Anyway, though, it reminds me of (I'm not sure
if I've got the right term here) resumptive pronouns, where in English
you'll > say, "My friend, he's a teacher" in favor of "My friend is a
teacher".  And, come to think of it, I have a language like this, don't I?
Holy smoke!  Yeah.  I
> made pronouns obligatory in the verb (a situation that could later lead to
a circumfix that agrees with the subject and the object), and so if you want
to
> state the arguments, you have to state them first.
I like this.  It treats the idea differently, but I like a language where
you could never confuse names like "Pat."
> However, with mine, rather that the initial phrase being the rule, it's
the exception.  So, you don't *have* to have the initial adjuncts if the
subject and
> objects are understood (as they always are, presumably, with first and
second person).  Yours seem to work in the opposite way, where the initial
part is
> always obligatory, which leads me to the question: Could you leave out the
verb phrase?  For example, you could "Cil cgot ci tddan", and that would be
> understood as "The woman did something to the man".  You don't need to
know what--especially if context could give you a clue.  Wow, that's neat!
I
> love it!  All right, I need to go shower now.
Nah... that's not how it works.  I'll admit that the introductory sentence
is not necessary for shorter utterances where things are assumed to take
their natural gender.  "Cil cgot ci tddan" can only mean "There is a woman
and a man" because the general articles (cil and ci) would not be used in a
declaritive sentence (at least not that way).  But what you're saying is
indeed possible with the specific articles.  So:  "Li cgot cg tddan" means
the woman did/does something to the man.  I like that!  I'm using it.

> P.S.: I feel your pain with the
I-posted-this-post-three-days-ago-and-not-one-person-has-responded.  Comes
with the territory.  Thick skin, Jake!
The fate of my first post from my last conlang, G'oxajo.  No one responded
ever.  Oh well.  My hide can take it.

Jake