a question/describing morphosyntax

Interestingly enough, sometimes I find myself spending
too long thinking about my language in a purely
linguistic way. If I just looked at the way certain
things are done in other languages and not bother with
the terminology I ould probably save myself a lot of
time :)
Incidently, I think someone has already said this, by
do try
'Describing Morphosyntax' - its a wondeful book.
Although I'm convinced there's a mistake - p266 in my
paperback. Pragmatically marked structures. Example 10
reads: 'She came in through the bathroom window'. The
book says that that is objectively referential,
however I disagree. I think it is identified, however
not specific because there could be several bathroom
windows but it is simply not relevant which one it is.
What does everyone else think?

James

--- "[Adam K. Shuck]" <AKShuck00@...> wrote: > Ok
I enjoy designing the alphabets for my languages
> and the actual
> grammatical structures, but I don't stress so much
> on morphology and syntax
> and all those other big words that I have no clue.
> I'm sorry if I'm seeming
> childish, but I dont understand half the
> conversations that go on on this
> mailing list.  Please respond.  Isn't it ok not to
> think about all that stuff
> when designing a language?
>
> ~Adam S.
>

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie