Re: Katabala's Grammar Revised

Austin Taylor wrote:
> (no particle): present (I love)
> dul: present progressive (I am loving)
> chak: imperfect (I was loving)
> hadat: past (I loved)
> vishol: perfect (I have loved)
> fwesh: perfect progressive (I have been loving)
> gav: pluperfect (I had loved)
> godo: pluperfect progressive (I had been loving)
> go: future (I will love)
> tsan: future progressive (I will be loving)
> dryel: future perfect (I will have loved)
> akam: future perfect progressive (I will have been loving)
Out of curiosity, have you considered making them analyzable, that is,
made up of different parts.  For instance, you could have something
like:

(nothing) = present
k- = past
d- = future
-a = progressive
-e = perfect
-o = perfect-progressive
(your imperfect would probably be the same as past-progressive)
Thus, you'd have forms like "ko" for "future perfect progressive"
An advantage is that they'd be easier to remember.
Just a suggestion, of course, you can take it or leave it.

You could even combine voice with these, by making them suffixes, like
(nothing) = active
-s = passive
-l = reflexive

> Adverbial functions are accomplished by adding prefixes to the
> adjective or preposition; adverbs do not modify verbs.
Modifying verbs is the main function of an adverb.  If what you're
calling adverbs do not modify verbs, then perhaps you should use a
different name.  Also, how do you modify verbs if you don't have
adverbs?

--
"Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many
ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from insomnia." --
Joseph Wood Krutch
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ #: 18656696
AIM screen-name: NikTailor