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=h
> 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", =
course we can anglicize it to "clorofill" but would lost it's roots. Let=
play with the English orthography, please... ;-)
> Fonno chleweye /'fOno 'xlju:ij@/, as known in Chleweyish will be loosel=y
> on the grammar of Colombian Signed Language.
> JimG -- I assume you're referrring to aspects of the language other th=an
> Nouns can take a plural ending -(e)n, or a singular ending -(e)c...
> 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 =use
> unmarked singular.
Usually would be marked if the speaker want to make clear the singularity=
when in English you say "one" instead of "a". The exact use of the singu=
market will arise with use.
> Verbs will inflect after mode. I have not yet decide how many modes wi=ll
> Chleweyish have. I have yet decided for imperative (usually uninflecte=d),
> indicative (usually adds -e), and a yet unamed mode wich implies that t=he
> is not real (or probably not), but is not quite the subjunctive; this m=ode
> usually ends in -el. Infinitives end in -i.
> JimG -- I think you need to clarify your quasi-subjunctive mood: does= it
> 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=
I see you", that it was not only a perception but also a reality. With t=
quasi-subjunctive means that it was not real, just a perception.
> Connectors can function as question word, as adverbs, as conjunctions o=r as
> JimG -- What justifies their classification into a single category? =That
> is, how does your syntax allow question-words, adverbs, conjunctions, a=nd
> prepositions to behave the same way syntactically?
Probably I will make a further distinction when I shape my language, I kn=
question marks can function like conectors (see bellow)... and some adver=
would also be prepositions... I think that when the language begin to bec=
shaped I could have a better base to tell the category of each word. As =
bellow a conector could be compared with a preposition also.
> Particles will alway be infront of the word they modify, they will be
> 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? = Why
> 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 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" =and
> time? If the final constituent is a "connector," what constituents d=oes
> 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=ion
> does. Do the parentheses identify optional elements?
Space (where the action takes place) and time (when the action takes plac=
could be a phrase, a noun or an adverb... I guess I could answer better =
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=V,
> SOV or SVO.
> JimG -- Two of your word orders result in diametrically opposite meanin=gs:
> 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=
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 =
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 =be
> 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= SOV
> having potentially opposite meanings, why wouldn't the forms in which O= and
> 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=
any NNV can not be tell, by grammar alone if it is SSV (like Carlos-Beatr=
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?)
Wambo drupe quo rabito. (the cat killed the mouse)
"quo" will usually be accented and intonated as a question word either it=
as a question word or as a conector.
> Pasive voice would be either marked by a particle (usually "se") or by =a
> 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,= with
> the corresponding passive meaning being expressed by a completely diffe=rent
> verb? (Nothing wrong with that; in fact, it makes your language mor=e
Yes, in many cases the voice will be lexicalized... or get series of verb=
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,=
can be predictable, but is not a regular feature)
Chlewey Thompin ## ####
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/9028/ ## ## ##
- =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)