Re: Quantifiers vs. Articles... THE END

David Peterson wrote:

> <<Don't be affraid by the impressive summary, the quantifiers aren't overly
> complex. Their are just numerous to say the least.  ;-)>>
> Thank goodness Esperanto didn't go this far...
Sorry, but sometimes I just can't stop...  :-D

> I now remember what this reminds me of (aside from two of my very first
> conlangs).  Let me see if I can find the web page...  Ah yes.  Have you ever
> heard of the language Ro?  There are two sites that I can find (just
> going off of Langmaker.com):
Yes, I know Ro, the (old) philosphical a-priori conlang.

> I won't try to describe Ro, because I might misrepresent it.
But I see what you mean. It's the "juxtapostion thing" of tiny bit of 2
letters that make shaquean quantifiers look like they were invented by our
good ol' reverend.

> Anyway, just one thing: Why did you only settle on two forms of possession:
> Alienable and inalienable?  My language Kamakawi has five, and I think it's
> (in that respect, at least) still believably human.
If only I knew! These two forms of possession appeared quite spontaneously
and they've always been here since the very beginning.

Any way, they were certainly more kinds of possession in old forms of
Shaquelingua because what they classify as alienable or inalienable is not
obvious.

I looked at your possessive prefixes and the preposition. From a shaquean
point of view  ;-)  it's all mingled. But, according to your classification,
Shaquelingua has 4 kinds of possession when it comes to express them with
postpositions.

"tøpa" = coming/originating from, engendered by...
"jedø" = with respect to, conform to, and many ambiguous uses...

These 2 postpositions correspond to Kamakawi's "po-" and "tøpa" will also
include "ti-".

"fra" = part of (inalienable)

This one corresponds to your "o", partially to your "oi-" (1) and it's also
used where Kamakawi uses "ti-".

(1) It depends if you consider the "boy's pet" as a simple animal or more.

"pei" = of (alienable)

This one corresponds to your "li-" and it's also the one that will be used
for "somebody's animal".

But the "drop of blood" isn't any kind possession in Shaquelingua. A good
quantifier will be used instead.

dóxu yikëj [dOx\u: HikEj]
= (about) a very tiny unspecified quantity of blood.

dó (variator) + x(#) (unquantitative aspect)

Shaquelingua's lexicon doesn't have any word for "drop". There is a word for
"tear" but it's reserved for what comes from the eyes.

See ya,

--
==================
Remi Villatel
maxilys_@_tele2.fr
==================