Re: very confused - syntax question

You've all been so much help that every helpful response has been cancelled
out by another helpful response, and then some. :-)

So I have devised a band-aid so that I can move ahead with the development
of this language, which I want to be workable before the school year gets
hectic.

There are three new rules that I hope will cover the problem. (1) A noun
phrase can be marked for argument even it is not the main argument of the
verb. (2)"Kah," the benefactive bastard that started the whole thing, has
been widened to include the sense of "instrumental agent." (3) The
resumptive ending "-ena" shows that the "real" subject of the verb is
outside the relative clause. (An interesting rule that doesn't actually come
into play.)

so we have:
ta rusak@mi sa na akanyase ko kanyanal inya kah
with my-brothers that the-prize was-won by them

Where "inya" agrees with "rusak@mi" and because rusak@mi is marked as an
agent, "kah" must mean "instrumental agent"

While reluctant to ask another question, can anyone foresee problems with
this scheme?

And I apologize for being so vague. Seems that's what started this whole
mess. Now you see why I said I was a little frightened.

Jennifer



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com