Re: Theory about the evolution of languages

On Thursday, August 19, 2004, at 12:03 , Afian wrote:

> Well, I said such a language wouldn't need an Imperative. Let's imagine a
> language that has a vocative unsing the ending ne.It also has these words:
> ti=dog and tef=fetch. So, we could make the following sentence: "Tine
> tef!". "Fetch, dog."
Actually no more than many natlangs already do as the singular imperative
is often just the verb base.

> If we only had a nominative ( ending fe) the dog
> would suddenly be in the third person (let's say, for convenience, that
> the verb isn't conjugated) "Tife tef." The dog fetches. Here, we would
> need an imperative , let's say the suffix sa is added to the verb: "Tife
> tefsa!" Fetch, dog. You see what I mean?
No, I don't - especially as you've contradicted yourself. You say "let's
say, for convenience, that the verb isn't conjugated" and then to
illustrate your point you add the suffix -sa to show the verb is
indicative mood & not imperative mood. The darn is conjugated!

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760