Re: nouns-verbs

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 05:33:38 +0100, Remi Villatel <maxilys@...> wrote:

>Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
>
>> Just take a look at Chatiga, which I shortly posted here (see link in my sig
>> for the webpage). It doesn't make a distinction between nouns and verbs, as
>> it has no verbs - still works just fine.
>
>Hmmm... Very interesting! Conlangs without verb are so rare. Welcome to the
>club!  ;-)  (Shaquelingua also has no verb.)
>
>Do you plan to put some more material on your site? I can't wait to see more.
Of course I will! Next up will me more lessons from the McGuffey First Reader.

>Remi nu woch: "Num grchen pa fir!
"Now begin for us!" !? Doesn't make much sense - begin what?

> Num plu woch krchea pa fir!"
"Now create more languages for us!" Didn't you just say you want more of
Chatiga?



>Just one idea that crossed my head while I was working on my sentence. It
>would be better to prevent the confusion in between "action" and "patient"
>by disallowing the construction:
>
>tense/mode particle + "patient" + "action".
>
>Exple: Num plu woch krchea!
That's not neccessary. If there's no specifier particles, this means that
the nouns are in the order actor/target/action, as in the above example.
Only if you change the word order, you need to use them.

>And only only allowing:
>
>tense/mode particle + "action" + /a/ + "patient".
>
>Exple: Num krchea *a* plu woch!
This way, you would change the default word order, which would require use
of the specifier particles. Also, "a" already has a different purpose.
Here, you need to specify that the action comes before the target now, and
not the other way round as would be expected, so it should be:

 Num         krchea     de     plu  woch!
/imperative/ creation /action/ more language.

Here's a more detailled explanation (I had already posted it in an earlier post)

Example: The cat eats the mouse
-------
Normal word order:
  Kaz     nu      meus   etca.     /kats nu mOis etCa/
  cat  /present/  mouse  food/meal

Words that do not follow this order have to be marked. The temporal particle
can be placed freely.
You generally only do this to put emphasis on a certain word, e.g. because
of an unexpected action.

  Nu meus ti kaz etca.
-> Target marked with "ti" because irregular position, actor/action in
normal order, thus unmarked.
-> The cat eats the *mouse* (and not something else).

  Etca de kaz meus nu.
  Kaz etca de nu meus.
-> Action marked with "de", actor/target in regular order: unmarked
-> The cat *eats* the mouse. (as opposed to e.g. playing with it)

  Meus ti nu etca de kat.
-> Both Target and Action marked because of irregular position.
The cat *eats the mouse*. (as opposed to e.g. playing with a ball)

Finally, you could also rephrase it as "The mouse is eaten by the cat":

  Ga         meus   nu         kat  etca.
  /passive/  mouse  /present/  cat  food/meal

  Nu etca de kat ti ga meus.
-> In Passive, actor and target switch places, so what would be the actor in
the active mood, must be marked as target in the passive mood.

>Wow! It's already so early in the next year!  ;-)  So, you're perfectly
>entitled not to like my idea.
>
>
>tul'xej zato'kja. [tu4(u)'Zej zato:'kja] (= I'll express myself again.)
>
>--
>==================
>Remi Villatel
>maxilys_@_tele2.fr
>==================

Reply