Jim Grossmann wrote:
> In English that cluster could (should?) be pronouned like "chlorophyll"=
, of
> course we can anglicize it to "clorofill" but would lost its roots. Le=
t me
> play with the English orthography, please... ;-)
>
> JimG -- Hey, this is a free country! But I wasn't so much talking abo=
ut
> orthography as sounds. I assumed that "ch" had its typical English va=
lue
> /tS./ If it's your way of writing /k/, there's nothing wrong with th=
at.
> 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 =
know
> that
> I see you", that it was not only a perception but also a reality. With=
this
> quasi-subjunctive means that it was not real, just a perception.
>
> JimG -- Could this quasi subjunctive be applied to actions or states in=
the
> present? After all, remember that we usually tell appearence from
> perception in hindsight, unless we know the difference in advance, as w=
ith 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 pl=
ace)
> could be a phrase, a noun or an adverb... I guess I could answer bette=
r
> with
> examples (or being corrected in my terminology) when the language grows=
=2E
>
> JimG -- Okay.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Usually is what the verb and the knowlege of the speaker/listener dicta=
tes.
>
> 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 mo=
st 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 f=
ree
> if it is the
> cat who killed the mouse. Anyhow it is prefered to say: "wambo drupe q=
uo
> 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 contex=
t
> 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-relationshi=
p
> (who does what to whom) ambiguities.
>
> With your use of question words in the object-slot, you've got a possib=
le
> 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 an=
d
> develop your question-word marker system.
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Yes, in many cases the voice will be lexicalized... or get series of ve=
rbs
> 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 abov=
e,
> and
> can be predictable, but is not a regular feature)
>
> JimG -- I think this is cool, because I don't hear much about natlangs =
that
> do this, but still think it can work.
Does any body know about a natlang (or a conlang) that does this.
BTW, just most common verbs in Chleweiness will have that feature, I supo=
se that
when Chleweyish had grown to 100000 verbs 98% will use the regular pasive=
with a
"se" particle.
--
o_o
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dw=3D=3D=3Dw=3D=3D=3D=3D#######
Chlewey Thompin ## ####
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/9028/ ## ## ##
------------------------------------------------##-## ##
###
- =BFPor qu=E9 no?
- No tiene sentido.
- =BFQu=E9 sentido? El sentido no existe.
- El sentido inverso. O el sentido norte. El sentido com=FAn, tal ve=
z. O sin
sentido, como aqu=ED.
(-- Graeville 2)