Re: "to be" or "not to be"

You're correct on the criteria, David. Eugene seems to be on the right
track from what I said. Ultimately, I am thinking of a different root
entirely from the copula.

Example:
Be (in all its English forms) as the "positive" copula (for lack of a
better term)
then I'll temporarily coin
Ort (in various forms) as the negative copula.

I am happy. ( I am happy )
I ort happy. ( I am not happy )

One could then add a suffix to make a noun out of it. I'll use "-sa" for
an example:

Be+sa = besa for a being
Ort+sa = ortsa for a non being meaning something imaginary or perhaps
even someone who is dead or a ghost etc.

S

-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On
Behalf Of David J. Peterson
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 1:04 PM
To: CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: "to be" or "not to be"


Roger:
<<
Not sure how Tag. handles that; Indonesian uses a different negator
for nouns:

saya tidak sakit (I not sick) 'I'm not sick'
tidak ada uangku (~uang saya) 'I don't have any money'
saya tidak tahu 'I don't know'

ia guru 'he's a teacher'
ia bukan guru 'he's not a teacher'
bukan ia~Ali yang datang 'it's not he/Ali who's coming'
 >>

Dang.  I think in order to fulfill the criteria we're looking for,
the language needs to have a copula (so, not PRON. + N, or
something similar), it needs to have a standard way to negate
verbs, and then it needs an at least somewhat unrelated purely
negative copula.  What do we think of Eugene's Korean example?

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/