Re: MNCL5 really long

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:01:30 +0100, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-
conlang@...> wrote:
>
>* Jeffrey Jones said on 2007-12-26 13:36:53 +0100
>> * On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:59:12 +0100, taliesin wrote:
>> > * Jeffrey Jones said on 2007-12-25 09:54:33 +0100
>> > > Note: "medial" is my term for "non-final suffix".
>> >
>> > > 2. Argument Structure Conflicts
>> > Dos 5 allow implicit default (fallback) objects, like: (3rd
>> > person) animate for this set of verbs, (3rd person)
>> > inanimate for this other set?
>>
>> I'm not sure what the question is. In most constructions,
>> optionally omitted arguments are indefinite. Some are likely
>> to be animate while others are likely to be inanimate. Does
>> this help?
>
>Part way. You could add more information than definiteness, then
>you'd have an implicit object.
I suppose so, but so far I don't see the need to, other than the
characteristics aleady implied by the verb. Am I missing something? I still have
the vague feeling we're talking past each other here.

>Hmpf, what a typo... "dos" indeed, maybe time to reinstall :)
Reinstall DOS 5? Ah, the good old days! Limited internet access, I think. I had
planned to do something like that so I could continue programming (even
thought that's now completely useless) but I have only one completely
working computer.

>> > > 3. Trivalent Imperatives
>> > > (a) a new medial (like the grammatical voice medials, but
>> > > used on -u forms instead of non-verb forms) such as -s-
>> > > for the 2nd translation of each pair, with the unmarked
>> > > form used for the 1st translation, and (b) allow the
>> > > existing grammatical voice medial -m- to be used on -u
>> > > forms to indicate the 1st translation, with the unmarked
>> > > form used for the 2nd translation.
>> >
>> > Or c), inject something from natural languages (trivalent
>> > verbs are rare) and have each verb has a preferred
>> > imperative that fits with that verb's meaning, and an
>> > inverse marker if you want to preserve the oppsite
>> > possibility.
>>
>> I thought that was what I was doing in (a) and (b). Either
>> I've misunderstood or what I wrote wasn't clear.
>
>I meant: treating each trivalent verb as an exception and
>tailoring stuff for each of them, not as a group.
For 5, I'd much rather treat them as a group, where possible.

>> > > 5. Conatives
I'll have to continue this part later.

>> > > 7. Tetravalent Verbs
>> > > Obviously, I'll have to use an adverbial or secondary
>> > > predicate final (-i or -in) for the 4th argument. The main
>> > > question is which?
>> >
>> > "bet" is 5-valent, which 4-valent verbs are there in 5?
>>
>> It is?
>
>I.1 bet you.2 five_dollars.3 on_Daily_Arabian_4 to_win_5
>
>and maybe even add a sixth "by a whole yard.6"
>
>1 to 4 need to be explicit and it, gah, English fails me, it is
>debatable whether 4, 5 (and 6) really are a broken complent
>sentence ("Daily Arabian will win by a whole yard" -> "I bet you
>five dollars that Daily Arabian will win by a whole yard" but
>then the 6 looks even more like an adjunct...) and so not proper
>etc. etc. but there are so few such verbs anyway that they can
>be special-cased all the way to Saturn and back.
I had thought of only the complement sentence possibility. I'm not sure what
I'd do if I wanted to omit "win".

>> I could only come up with four arguments. I guess "sell/buy"
>> could take a 4th argument.
>
>The bartered item/sum of money, right?
Right. Incidently, I've come up with a tentative solution to the original
question: if the secondary verb (say, -uxc-) means something like "offer"
or "tender", it would relate to the primary verb's agentive argument (the one
representing the seller or bettor), so that -i should be used.

Jonak Toma vendek horsa pento gat'luxci.
"John sold Tom a horse for five cats."

>> > > 9. Partitive and Superlative Constructions
>> > > I came up with some morphosyntactical possibilities for the
>> > > partitive construction, but I don't like them.
>>
>> I had in mind things like "three of the (four big) dogs" --
>> specifying a subset, by size, of some defined set. I don't
>> know what else to call it.
>
>Have a look at how Finnish uses its partitive - weird.
True. I don't think I'll be copying Finnish for 5.

>> > > In some of my other languages, the superlative
>> > > construction is formed by adding a simple (lexical)
>> > > adjective to the partitive construction. I'm not sure that
>> > > will work here.
>> >
>> > Maybe superlative is not right for this language. Not all
>> > langs have it, after all. How would you do without?
>>
>> I don't know. All the natlangs I know of have either an
>> analytic or synthetic superlative.
>
>I found a good book on adjectives at the library once but can't
>recall it's name... you'll just have to take my word for it
>until I can remember/find the reference :/
Don't worry about it unless you happen to run across it again and care to
paraphrase. It's highly unlikely that I could find the same book locally, and I
don't really have a book budget.

>> > > 10. Compound Phrases
>> > > What I mean is expressions such as "John and Tom". I'm
>> > > thinking of creating a new final (maybe -al) to be used for
>> > > "and" on each subphrase but the last. The same final might
>> > > also be used in compound numbers.
>> >
>> > Compound number: higher than the base? number+fraction?
>>
>> something like "forty-five" and more complicated things. I
>> guess that would be higher than the base. Number + fraction
>> would also qualify, I think.
>
>With the numbers you could simply do nothing, just put them
>next to each other in some well defined order: four, five => 45
>etc. No need to add extra syllables, save that for fractions and
>rare cases.
That's not really possible. The morphology requires _some_ final suffix, which
can't be zero without changing the phonology as well. I guess this wasn't clear
since I didn't include a link to the existing grammar. Or did you mean something
like just leaving out the -ty in forty-five?

>
>t.
Thanks again.