Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: MNCL5 Phonology and Orthography

From:Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
Date:Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 3:09
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:20:38 -0500, Eldin Raigmore
<eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
> >---In, Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...> wrote: >>The phonology and orthography page for MNCL5 is up and ready for >>comments. It's at: >< > > >I like it.
>>A preliminary morphology page is also up. > >At >< > >? > >Although an "initial" is mandatory, it could be "zero", right? That is, an initial >block is (C)- ; and an initial morpheme is an initial block followed by zero or >more medial blocks; and a word has to have an initial morpheme and a final >morpheme; but it's possible the only one of these that has any pronounceable >parts is the final morpheme, which consists of a final block, which may be -V >or -VV or -VC. > >So some words may consist of a single vowel, only; this is thought of as >having a zero intial morpheme and a -V final morpheme, right?
Right, as in |o handa| "someone's hand" or |E katan.| "Cats exist."
>The "aspect" tags might be usable on nouns to indicate whether it's a >mass-or-measure noun or a count-noun.
Hmmm. I'm not sure this fits in MNCL5, but could you elaborate?
>The voice applies only to non-verbs? But it can vary in meaning depending on >whether or not the non-verb in question is a subject or an object? To me >that will be confusing; what tells me which is subject and which is object? A >mark on the verb? Or on the noun?
This comment is very helpful, since it tells me that I need to rewrite that section completely. Only, I don't know how to go about it, especially without referring to syntax. "Subject" and "object" are intended to refer to the arguments of the non-verb form itself, not the verb of the clause, but are probably the wrong terms.
>In general I really like everything about the morphology section you have put >in so far on that page. I worry only about the question I asked above and >about how confusing the zero-morphemes (the ones filled in by "-") will be. > >< > >looks very interesting, but I haven't had time to fully digest and analyze it >yet, so I don't have any other remarks (kudos nor criticism) to make about it >yet. > >However: Thanks! This was fun to read. > >>I'm still working on numbers, compounds, syntax, etc. >>Jeff > >I look forward to it; I'll bet we all do.
Well, one other person has expressed interest. Thanks for the sentiment.