Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: More Comments on Chleweyish

From:Carlos Thompson <chlewey@...>
Date:Monday, March 8, 1999, 1:20
Jim Grossmann wrote:

> ----------------------------- > 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?
This is a literal translation from Chleweyish into English.
> Also, how come you translate quasi-subjunctive as an infinitive?
but the original where a translation from Spanish. There is another way = it can be translated into Chleweyish: Doyey a cemel gar.
> ------------------------------------- > If the indicative had been used, would mean that "I've believed, and I =
> that > I see you", that it was not only a perception but also a reality. With=
> quasi-subjunctive means that it was not real, just a perception. > > JimG -- Could this quasi subjunctive be applied to actions or states in=
> 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.
Used in the present (not perfect) would mean that you can only ensure the= perception and you have no clue if it is real, used in the past, it would= mean that is a perception and either you know is not true or you don't know ye= t.
> ------------------------------------ > 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?=
In normal speech they always do. But poetic licenses may allow to move i= t.
> ------------------------------------------------ > > Space (where the action takes place) and time (when the action takes pl=
> could be a phrase, a noun or an adverb... I guess I could answer bette=
> 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 dicta=
> > 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?
Carlos lombe quo Beatr=EDz va?
> Does Beatr=EDz love Carlos?
Beatr=EDz lombe quo Carlos va?
> Do Carlos and Beatr=EDz love each other?
Carlos Beatr=EDz omi lombe va?
> Do Carlos and Beatr=EDz love themselves?
Carlos lombe Beatriz lombe va? Actually if you want to be clear, or in normal situations you would use a= ny of the above. (Drop the "va?" to make it affirmative) "Carlos Beatr=EDz lo= mbe" should not be used in normal situations but IS legal. When used would be= understood that they love each other..
> ----------------------------------------------- > > 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=
> if it is the > cat who killed the mouse. Anyhow it is prefered to say: "wambo drupe q=
> 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=
> 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 =
> 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=
> (who does what to whom) ambiguities. > > With your use of question words in the object-slot, you've got a possib=
> 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=
> develop your question-word marker system.
The question word marker system IS the preffered way, inlcuding the "can"= conector. The point is that NNV and NVN are valid constructions, even if= not prefered, and semantics, not grammar, should tell if it is SOV, OSV. BTW, if your audience don't know that cats kill mouses and you want to te= ll that you could say: wambon drupe quo robiton. robiton dumpe agu wambon robiton can wambon drupe wambon, robiton dumpe agu yor agu /'a:GU/ - by who? yor /ZO@/ - pronoun marking previous subject. (BTW, what are the correct ASCII-IPA for voiced and voiceless palatal fricatives, as longer as I know /S/ and /Z/ are for postalveolar). -- 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 ## #### ## ## ## ------------------------------------------------##-## ## ### - Cay yu? - Xeno rem cay - Xeno quit? Xeno fune cay. - Xeno rechiye. Zot xeno lolle. Xeno zompe, chir=E1. Zot xeno cay, = partu un=ED. (-- Grayville 2)