Re: My new conlang

>From: Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:09:56 -0500
>
>From: "Adam Walker" <dreamertwo@...>
> >
> >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!
Nope.  that would also be verbotten.  It has a strictly one argument -- one
verb rule.  There are no loop-holes that I am aware of.  Even so, it works
well enough that it was the only one ofmy langs into which I ever translated
the Bable text.

Adam

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.