Re: Telona grammar, part 2

Hi, Johnathan,
Thanks for your responses;    Telona becomes more interesting by the post.
I don't
understand it all, but if I ask more questions, maybe that'll change.
1)    If you've got two word classes, referential words and operators,
should you say that
Telona has no parts of speech?
2)    Regarding Telona's head first structure, you write:
"...Telona phrases are strictly head-first -- that is, the referent of a
given phrase is a subset
of the referents of the first word in the phrase, and not of those of any
other
non-co-referring word later in the phrase. Even when all the words co-refer,
as in 'tyha
dene', there are good pragmatic reasons for considering 'tyha dene' to be a
kind of 'tyha'
(man), and 'dene tyha' to be a type of 'dene' (tall thing)."
I think you should specify said pragmatic reasons.   If the referential word
that names the
biggest set always comes first, aren't you using syntax to differentiate
types of words
analogous to, say, attributive nouns vs. head nouns?

3) Regarding the + & - operators.   Can you indicate reciprocal action by
combining
these?   How do you indicate reflexive action?   What kinds of sentences do
the work of
structures in more conventional languages with linking verbs like "become,"
"resemble,"
and "be less than"?

I know it may be premature to ask, but how do you indicate the quantities of
referents
when you wish to specify them?   Also, can your language do without
pro-forms?

I've often dreamed of designing a language whose sheer simplicity makes it
exotic.   So
far, you've come closer to realizing that vision than I ever have, and your
effort is
fascinating.   As a stodgy old cuss, I suspect that you will eventually need
more operators
than the 0-form, +, and - if you want to avoid impractical ambiguities.
You may even need another word class.    But we'll see, won't we?

Jim