Re: Gz^rod|in (Some grammar now)

Jesse S. Bangs wrote:

<snip my gender system>

> Worf-Sapir could go crazy with this one ;-).  It seems
> like a pretty good gender system--how does it relate
> to syntax?
There exists a point of view that Worf-Sapir were
just plain crazy, full stop :-)

I really need to explain a lot more before I can
get to the ins and outs of the relevant syntax
(how to convert verbs into abstract nouns); the
next thing I want to put forward for group review
is the article system - so I'll say now that
gender is carried by the article.

> However, I did notice that your orthography is
> very esoteric, and would probably present a
> stumbling block to reading for most people.
> That's not necessarily bad, since there's other
> natlangs and conlangs that do far worse, but
> you might want to keep in in mind.
There's only a small number of characters that
have totally different functions (in some of my
earlier drafts, there were a lot more). As you
say, there's a lot of other languages both real
and imaginary that are just as 'bad', so I feel
I'm only following a precedent.

> You might consider a system using Greek letters,
> but ones that correspond to their sounds--i.e.
As I explained, I insist on using letters where,
as in the Latin alphabet, the first penstroke
begins near the top. So ... no. Again, by
reorganising the functions of borrowed letters
I'm only following precedent - c.f. the German
use of beta to mean SS. Besides, my assignment is
far from random - the shape of pi looks vaguely
like it should have something to do with teeth,
whereas lamda is similar to an upside down y and
hence lends itself well to being adopted as a
vowel.

Adrian.
--
http://www.netyp.com/member/dragon
http://www.flinders.edu.au