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 =
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.
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=
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?
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=
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.
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 ## ####
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/9028/ ## ## ##
------------------------------------------------##-## ##
###
- 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)