Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Comments on Chleweyish-JimG

From:Carlos Thompson <chlewey@...>
Date:Sunday, March 7, 1999, 7:54
First I will mark that I'm still sketching Chleweyish and many of its fea=
are just taking shape.

Jim Grossmann wrote:

> JimG -- About the name of your language: It starts with a non-Englis=
> consonant cluster. Why not anglicize it fully, since you already hav=
e a
> purely native name?
In English that cluster could (should?) be pronouned like "chlorophyll", = of course we can anglicize it to "clorofill" but would lost it's roots. Let= me play with the English orthography, please... ;-)
> Fonno chleweye /'fOno 'xlju:ij@/, as known in Chleweyish will be loosel=
> based > on the grammar of Colombian Signed Language. > > JimG -- I assume you're referrring to aspects of the language other th=
> phonology.
Of course.
> Nouns can take a plural ending -(e)n, or a singular ending -(e)c... > uninflected > will usually mean singular if the context does not clarify. > > JimG -- You'll need to tell us when to use marked singular and when to =
> unmarked singular.
Usually would be marked if the speaker want to make clear the singularity= =2E Like when in English you say "one" instead of "a". The exact use of the singu= lar market will arise with use.
> Verbs will inflect after mode. I have not yet decide how many modes wi=
> Chleweyish have. I have yet decided for imperative (usually uninflecte=
> indicative (usually adds -e), and a yet unamed mode wich implies that t=
> fact > is not real (or probably not), but is not quite the subjunctive; this m=
> usually ends in -el. Infinitives end in -i. > > JimG -- I think you need to clarify your quasi-subjunctive mood: does=
> refer to hypotheses, dreams, imagination, conventions, which among thes=
e? 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. If the indicative had been used, would mean that "I've believed, and I kn= ow that I see you", that it was not only a perception but also a reality. With t= his quasi-subjunctive means that it was not real, just a perception.
> Connectors can function as question word, as adverbs, as conjunctions o=
r as
> prepositions. > > JimG -- What justifies their classification into a single category? =
> is, how does your syntax allow question-words, adverbs, conjunctions, a=
> prepositions to behave the same way syntactically?
Probably I will make a further distinction when I shape my language, I kn= ow that question marks can function like conectors (see bellow)... and some adver= bs would also be prepositions... I think that when the language begin to bec= ome shaped I could have a better base to tell the category of each word. As = shown bellow a conector could be compared with a preposition also.
> Particles will alway be infront of the word they modify, they will be > usefull > for mark things like aspect, definitivenes, etc. > > JimG -- I can understand fixing the position of particles that mark > definiteness, but why fix the position of particles that mark aspect? =
> couldn't you move the particles around for stylistic effects?
In that case it would be an stylistic effect, but actually word order is = as free as the meaning is not lost.
> Basic phrase order is: > (space and time) subject verb (adverbial and mode conectors) > > JimG -- This basic sentence structure raises a lot of questions. Wha=
t is
> the 'space' category? What specific part of speech specifies "space" =
> time? If the final constituent is a "connector," what constituents d=
> it connect? A part of speech that conveys adverbial or modal meaning=
> doesn't connect things in the same sense that a preposition or conjunct=
> does. Do the parentheses identify optional elements?
Space (where the action takes place) and time (when the action takes plac= e) could be a phrase, a noun or an adverb... I guess I could answer better = with examples (or being corrected in my terminology) when the language grow.
> ------------- > If a verb requires more than one argument, word order will be either OS=
> SOV or SVO. > > JimG -- Two of your word orders result in diametrically opposite meanin=
> OSV & SOV. > > You're going to have to clarify which context resolves the possible > ambiguity. e.g. When O is inanimate and A is animate.
Usually is what the verb and the knowlege of the speaker/listener dictate= s. Chl- Carlos Beatr=EDz lombe Gls- Carlos Beatriz love-ind Eng- Carlos and Beatriz love eachother. 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 is suposed that cats kill mouses, the word order can be free if it = is the cat who killed the mouse. Anyhow it is prefered to say: "wambo drupe quo= robito" or "robito can wambo drupe". ("can" means "what happend?")
> ----------------------------------- > > Context will usually tell which one is correct, or the expression will =
> said in > some other way, like SV "to what?" O or O(pasive)V "by who?" S. > > JimG -- Why do your examples have question words? Also, with OSV and=
> having potentially opposite meanings, why wouldn't the forms in which O=
> S are clearly marked be the "usual" ones?
The usual one is SV (or O"se"V). OSV and SOV can exist, and are ambiguou= s... any NNV can not be tell, by grammar alone if it is SSV (like Carlos-Beatr= iz), SOV (like cat-mouse) or OSV (like mouse-cat). About the use of question word, is because they are question words: You can ask: Wambo drupe quo? (who killed the cat?) Or tell: Wambo drupe quo rabito. (the cat killed the mouse) "quo" will usually be accented and intonated as a question word either it= acts as a question word or as a conector.
> ----------------------------------------- > > Pasive voice would be either marked by a particle (usually "se") or by =
> different verb. > > JimG -- "By a different verb": Do you mean that passive voice will be=
> lexicalized for some verbs? That is, will some verbs be active only,=
> the corresponding passive meaning being expressed by a completely diffe=
> verb? (Nothing wrong with that; in fact, it makes your language mor=
> exotic.)
Yes, in many cases the voice will be lexicalized... or get series of verb= s like: drupi - to kill (subject is agent) dumpi - to be killed (subject is pacient, agent can be specified) dayci - to die (no agent implied) darki - to kill oneself (in an accident, by commiting suicide, etc.) (many of those series are related, like the d- root in the example above,= and can be predictable, but is not a regular feature) -- 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 ## #### ## ## ## ------------------------------------------------##-## ## ### - =BFPor qu=E9 no? - No tiene sentido. - =BFQu=E9 sentido? El sentido no existe. - El sentido inverso. O el sentido norte. El sentido com=FAn, tal ve= z. O sin sentido, como aqu=ED. (-- Graeville 2)