More Comments on Chleweyish

In English that cluster could (should?) be pronouned like "chlorophyll", =
of
course we can anglicize it to "clorofill" but would lost its roots.  Let =
me
play with the English orthography, please... ;-)


JimG -- Hey, this is a free country!   But I wasn't so much talking about
orthography as sounds.   I assumed that "ch" had its typical English valu=
e
/tS./    If it's your way of writing /k/, there's nothing wrong with that.
But /tSl/ is a non-English cluster.

-----------------------------
Not yet decided... I've used in the expression:
Doy a gar doyey a cemel ...
I perfect believe-indicative I-nom+you-acc perfect see-qsub
I've believed to see you.


JimG -- Would "I've thought I've seen you" be a freer translation?

Also, how come you translate quasi-subjunctive as an infinitive?

-------------------------------------
If the indicative had been used, would mean that "I've believed, and I kn=
ow
that
I see you", that it was not only a perception but also a reality.  With t=
his
quasi-subjunctive means that it was not real, just a perception.


JimG -- Could this quasi subjunctive be applied to actions or states in t=
he
present?    After all, remember that we usually tell appearence from
perception in hindsight, unless we know the difference in advance, as wit=
h a
movie or an optical illusion.

------------------------------------
Particles will alway be infront of the word they modify, [snip]

....but actually word order is as free
as the meaning is not lost.


JimG -- Waitaminute.   Do particles always go in front of words or not?

------------------------------------------------

Space (where the action takes place) and time (when the action takes plac=
e)
could be a phrase, a noun or an adverb...  I guess I could answer better
with
examples (or being corrected in my terminology) when the language grows.


JimG -- Okay.


--------------------------------------------

Usually is what the verb and the knowlege of the speaker/listener dictate=
s.

Chl-  Carlos Beatr=EDz lombe
Gls-  Carlos Beatriz love-ind
Eng-  Carlos and Beatriz love eachother.


JimG -- I think you're going to have to mark your core relationships most=
 of
the time.   For instance, how would you differentiate these questions?

Does Carlos love Beatr=EDz?
Does Beatr=EDz love Carlos?
Do Carlos and Beatr=EDz love each other?
Do Carlos and Beatr=EDz love themselves?

-----------------------------------------------

Chl-  Wambo robito drupe
Gls-  cat mouse kill-ind
Eng- The cat killed the/a mouse

Chl-  Robito wambo drupe
Gls-  mouse cat kill-ind
Eng-  The cat killed the/a mouse

Chl-  Robito drupe quo wambo
Gls-  mouse kill-ind who? cat
Eng- The mouse killed the cat.

After all, it is suposed that cats kill mouses, the word order can be fre=
e
if it is the
cat who killed the mouse.  Anyhow it is prefered to say: "wambo drupe quo
robito" or "robito can wambo drupe".  ("can" means "what happend?")



JimG -- I think your use of "who?" in the same slot as "cat" is an
interesting way to mark the object.

But I still think that your unmarked subject/object according to context
would slow the listener/reader's ability to process messages in your
language.

Also, my guess is that more cases than not would require clear marking of
the core-relationships (who did what to whom).

"Cat" and "mouse" with "kill" may be clear, but what about other verbs?

cat mouse see
cat mouse hear
cat mouse bite
cat mouse scratch
cat mouse like

Also, what about negation?
How would context clarify the following?

cat mouse not kill

Also, how about nouns that stand for evenly matched entities?

Bob  Ted kill
bear  lion kill
Northerners Southerners kill

I don't think it's wise to count on context to resolve core-relationship
(who does what to whom) ambiguities.

With your use of question words in the object-slot, you've got a possible
way to mark the object that A. WORKS and B. MAY BE UNIQUE.

As a member of your audience, I hope that you depend less on context and
develop your question-word marker system.

-----------------------------------------

Yes, in many cases the voice will be lexicalized... or get series of verb=
s
like:

drupi - to kill (subject is agent)
dumpi - to be killed (subject is pacient, agent can be specified)
dayci - to die (no agent implied)
darki - to kill oneself (in an accident, by commiting suicide, etc.)
(many of those series are related, like the d- root in the example above,
and
can be predictable, but is not a regular feature)


JimG -- I think this is cool, because I don't hear much about natlangs th=
at
do this, but still think it can work.