Re: arguments

> But, when a verb has a subject, a direct and an indirect
> object, and a beneficier, it doesn't agree at all
This is the part which disturbs me. This means that a base/root verb agrees
with nothing even when surrounded by plenty of things. After so many other
situations of agree, it's almost like "Eek, too many things to choose from,
so I won't choose any". Where I creating this conlang, I might assign this a
special function (e.g. poetic, being intentionally vague, spiritual
communing). Yet, this is your language, so just because it causes me to
pause means nothing really.

> Is that viable? or illogic? or impossible? or inconsistent?
"Viable" meaning "functional"? Probably.
Logical? Now when has that ever stopped a conlanger?
"Impossible" as in "not found in a natlang"? Maybe
Inconsistent? Not sure the idea applies to languages.

You might enjoy looking at Loglan, Lojban and that whole series of ....
auxlangs? conlangs? Selbri (sorta like verbs) have pre-assigned slots into
which sumti (sorta like nouns & noun phrases) are placed.
Loglan: vecnu = <someone> sells <something> <to someone> <for some amount>
Plus ways to add more slots and rearrange the order to the slots.
(Sorry I can't be more accurate, but every time I look at Lojban, my mind
fogs over.)

Reply