Re: THEORY: Cross-Referencing the Arguments of Consecutive Verbs, And Similar Things
|From:||Rik Roots <rik@...>|
|Date:||Friday, July 1, 2005, 22:48|
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 01:49, Tom Chappell wrote:
> [OTHER PEOPLE'S CONLANGS]
> Does anyone have an example of a ConLang they think would be particularly
> good here?
On the dependent clauses bit, if the subject of the dependent clause is the
same as the subject in the main clause then the dependent clause is happy to
drop its subject and mark that it has done so both on the linking conjunction
and on the dependent clause verb (well, I like redundancy).
ce roub let strimace mizelh - we were running home
ye tuusehrh glueface mizelh - we saw the dog.
loifem ye tuusehrh glueface - the men saw the dog.
We were running home when the men saw the dog.
Ce roub let strimace mizelh retas loifem ye tuusehrh glueface.
We were running home when we saw the dog.
Ce roub let strimace mizelh retase ye tuusehrh gluefoce.
On relative clauses, Gevey has a system of relative conjunctions sort of
inspired by switch-case systems - these allow the relative clause to follow
the main clause rather than embed itself in the clause.
Jone ye loif gluefase ïsta'deefsubz - John sees the man in the field
loife yuu pouzuul primase ta'tuusrheks - The man gives a stick to the dog
Jone ye loif gluefase ïsta'deefsubz zhek yuu pouzuul ë primalta ta'tuusrheks
óc - John sees the man giving a stick to the dog in the field
Jone ye loif gluefase ïsta'deefsubz zhekteh yuu pouzuul primase ta'tuusrheks -
though Gevey grammarians will pull their hair out at such a bastardisation of
> Tom H.C. in MI
More on Gevey at: http://www.kalieda.org/gevey