Re: draqa syntax - help please?
|From:||H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|
|Date:||Monday, October 2, 2000, 13:24|
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 08:45:17AM -0700, Autumn Yasmin Ajinqwai wrote:
> conveyant to 'ei-' (toward) or 'ieh-' (successfully
Surely you mean the receptive not the conveyant? The conveyant is the
moving object; the receptive is the destination/goal.
[snip fascinating list of correspondences]
> Well, it seems that the main difference (superficially
> of course) between our systems is that since draqa has
> no Nouns/Verbs, sometimes the central Event in my lang
> corresponds to the Conveyor or Originator in your
> lang, where a Verb would be the Event. Cool.
Very interesting! I'd love to know more about draqa syntax :-)
> Well, it would be nice to find a current theory that
> such systems would fit into. The description I posted
> before, however, is definitely much more "natively"
> intuitable, and would probably representative of the
> draqa's theory of their own language.
Same here. Although there might be some contorted way to represent our
langs in current linguistic theory, I think a more "intuitive" description
of the systems (such as we're posting here) is much more useful.
> draqa is definitely meant for humans - for example...
> me! :)