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
>---In email@example.com, Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...> wrote:
>>The phonology and orthography page for MNCL5 is up and ready for
>>comments. It's at:
>I like it.
Right, as in |o handa| "someone's hand" or |E katan.| "Cats exist."
>>A preliminary morphology page is also up.
>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?
>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.
Well, one other person has expressed interest. Thanks for the sentiment.
>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
>However: Thanks! This was fun to read.
>>I'm still working on numbers, compounds, syntax, etc.
>I look forward to it; I'll bet we all do.