Re: Typologic survey, part I
| From: | Dan Sulani <dnsulani@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, January 28, 2001, 11:52 |
|---|
>---- PART I Conlang Typlogic Survey 2001 ----
>
>House-keeping data
>
>Name of the participating conlang:
rtemmu
>Name/id of the creators:
Dan Sulani
>Name/id of the submitter, if different from the creator:
---
>Place used, if any:
No conworld/time associated with it
>Web-address with more information, if any:
none
If I understand Rick's system, rtemmu would be 2.1.2
in that rtemmu is not intentially based upon any extant
lang, nat or con, thus it would be a priori. The vocabulary
is not the result of a categoization system, so I guess it
would fall into the category of a priori with non-categorical
vocabularies.
>
>1: Word order of Subject (S), Object (O) and Verb (V)
>
>The possible orders are: SVO/SOV/VSO/VOS/OSV/OVS/free/doesn't apply
>Which order(s) is/are most common?
In short: doesn't apply.
rtemmu does not use the "action-object" paradigm. All content words
describe processes.The first process in a sentence is the topic of
the sentence, and all further processes serve to modify one's understanding
of the topic, in the order in which they are given. (ie, a series of
comments.)
>Which orders are possible?
How fast must a process change in order for it to be considered a "verb"?
Or alternatively, how slow can it change for it to be considered a "noun"?
There is nothing in the rtemmu grammar dictating how fast a topic must
change, or how fast the first, second, etc. comment must change.
One could speak about having roughly SOV or SVO or even VVV or SVV or
SOO or VOO, depending upon how fast the various processes are said to be
changing.
>Is the order different if the verb is intransitive, if so, how?
>If it doesn't apply, why?
No intransitive verbs as such.
>
>---- END part I ----
Dan Sulani
--------------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.
A word is an awesome thing.