Re: Quantifiers vs. Articles... THE END

Remi 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...

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):

http://www.langmaker.com/outpost/ro.htm

...and...

http://www.rick.harrison.net/langlab/ro.html

Here's the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro

I won't try to describe Ro, because I might misrepresent it.

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.

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Reply