Re: Gz^rod|in (Some grammar now : articles)

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Adrian Morgan wrote:
> > m               Includes first person / not second
> > t               Includes second person / not first
> > v               Includes first and second person
>
> Could you explain what these mean?  Or are they only
> used in the pronoun usage?
Yes, that's right.

> > w^              Past perfect (had done)
> > ^               Past tense
> > o <or> iu       Present or timeless tense
> > eq              Future tense
> > ww              Imperative (future)
> >
> > Ends with ...   Property ...
> > c               Question or polite imperative
> > (pi)            Hypothetical scenario
> > kk              Vocative explanation
> > <blank>         Ordinary statement
>
> So, the article indicates the verb's tense and mood?
> Interesting.
Yup. Using the nominative article for this
purpose seemed as logical a scheme as using the
verb (since tense is really a property of the
sentence as a whole), and it's at this point
more than any other that I diverge from
Indoeuropean norms.

> This system seems very artificial, but of course,
> if you don't care about being naturalistic,
> that's not a flaw.  It's quite interesting.
I'm not looking to create something gratingly
artificial, which is why there are a few
irregularities (imperatives in the tense column,
'o' and 'iu' equivalent for present tense). But
I can't exactly borrow from other languages here,
I don't want to invent all the combinations one
at a time, and the scheme needs to be relatively
easy to memorise, so all things considered the
letter-by-letter solution seems reasonable. If it
gives Gz^rod|in away as my first conlang, I don't
really mind because, after all, it _is_.

(There are, are there not, languages that often
construct words one or two sounds at a time?
Just a rumour I've heard...)

Adrian.
--
http://www.netyp.com/member/dragon
http://www.flinders.edu.au