Re: Boreanesian Grammatical Structure

In malat, I just use a suffix for the meaning "to become"; if 'w-t' means
'whiteness':
wet =3D to be white (-e- is the verb indicator)
wetad =3D to become white

I have more changing suffixes besides 'ad' (change to):

pause, temporary stop   -rd
go back from  <=3D=3D @     -wd
change from     @=3D=3D>    -ud
keep progressing        -od
change to    =3D=3D>@       -ad
go back to      @<=3D=3D    -ed
discontinue, cancel     -id

At 06:40 PM 12/21/98 +0100, you wrote:
>-----Wiadomo=B6=E6 orginalna-----
>Od: Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...>
>Do: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
>Data: 18 grudnia 1998 10:26
>Temat: LONG: Boreanesian Grammatical Structure (was: Only One Core=
 Argument)
>
>
>>Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>>At 04:51 PM 12/16/98 +0100, Kristian Jensen wrote:
>>>>I have posted details about Boreanesian sentence structure
>>>>before, but for the sake of clarity I could post a review for
>>>>those interested (especially for the newer members on CONLANG-
>>>>L). It'll definitely demonstrate what I mean by a language with
>>>>only one core argument. For those of you who are interested in
>>>>trigger languages in general, it may certainly be of interest.
>>>
>>>I'd like to see that reposted.  I remember seeing it before, but
>>>I don't seem to have saved it.  In fact, I was just recently
>>>trying to remember what you said several months ago about the
>>>underlying argument structure of the Philippine trigger
>>>languages.
>>
>>First, allow me to apologize for taking me this long to reply. I
>>wanted to make sure that what I was going to forward was up to date.
>>But I ended up rewriting everything of what I posted half a year
>>ago. I'd appreciate any comments, please. Anyways, here goes:
>>
>>The most important feature I feel reflects Boreanesian (and other
>>trigger languages) most is their possession of only one core
>>argument - sentences and clauses with two core arguments do not
>>exist in Boreanesian. Instead, Boreanesian has only predicate
>>clauses with a single argument. Below are some English examples of
>>such predicate clauses:
>>
>
>[big cut]
>
>i can't say that i've read this post carefully, my english doesn't allow me
>do that;
>but as i understand i've done (i'm doing, rather) something similar:
>i've kicked out be-verb and i'm trying to kick out other verbs making only
>nominal predicates:
>
>there is no problem with:
>just nominal predicate:
>'me[abs] man[abs]'
>
>adjectival predicate:
>'man[abs] white[abs]'
>(in fact there are no distinction between 'noun' and 'adjective')
>
>but i don't know how to express verb like 'getting white';
>i mean the situation when feature is more and more intensive, or thing
>become (an active verb);
>(like this famous example:
>passive: dwell, live (i could express it in that way: 'man[abs]
>forest-inhabitant[abs]')
>active: settle (??? something like 'man forest-inhabitant-becomer))
>
>i might express it as inhabitant[noun]-[some noun]
>but i do not know what word use, what its meaning should be...
>
>(or if eregativ:e
>forest[abs] man-habitat[abs]
>forest[abs] man-habitat-?becomer[abs])
--
-Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

-Garrett Jones aka Alkaline
Rising Sun - C&C2: Tiberian Sun - http://www.cnc2.com/
Malat - http://www.metro.net/3jones/malat/