Re: My new conlang

From: "Adam Walker" <dreamertwo@...>
>> > Well, I'm talking about NO verbs which can allow two arguments.  No DO
>> > no IO
>> > no predicate compliments -- nothing.
>> >
>>
>>Me too! In Tagalog the only core argument in verbs is the trigger. All the
>>other ones have oblique marking using prepositions, and are optional. So no
>>verb in Tagalog needs two core arguments. That's enough to say that they
>>are
>>all intransitive isn't it?
>>
>>Christophe.
>
>I'm still not making myself clear.  Too many days since I last slept.  I
>mean the verbs will not permit a seond argument of ANY type.  You could not
>even say "He went to the store," sine NOTHING zipo nada is allowed in that
>slot.  NO arguement of ANY kind, not even in a prepositional phrase.  In
>fact, IIRC, that lang didn't have prepositions.  It's been a loooong time
>sice I worked on it.  In Tagolog no verb *needs* two arguments.  In my lang
>no verb was ALLOWED two arguments.  In fact you couldn't even have a
>compound subject.
Could you have a compound verb?  Then you could just do it with
object-incorporation, as you might do in Trentish:

    upa poligatKitKicwexin

    u     .pa  po  .l'V.igatKi.tKi .cwe.xin'i
    person.TOP PAST.LOC.trade .INTR.go .3ND

    "One storewent" = "One went to the store"

        *Muke!