[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 3/10/02 3:06 PM, Mike Wright at darwin@hidden.email wrote: > Rex May - Baloo wrote: >> >> Slowly updating correlatives. >> http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Ceqcorrel.html >> When I'm done, I'll delete the Esperanto stuff. > > When you get to the section on <bekau> (<bekaw>?), could you post > something on the logic behind it? > > Is a dog a <diq> or a <pe>? Or can we create compounds on the fly, > like <kwakan>, <kwafaul>, <kwadir>, <kwadaryasol>, <kwadom>, > <kwaduvilvi>, etc.? No, I think the compounds should be limited pretty much to what we've already come up with. Now, of course we can say kwasa fawl, or even kwa fawl, the sa being optional when there's no fear of confusion. > > My feeling is that there is no logical need for special compounds with > <diq> and <pe>, since these, like all nouns, can be preceded by the > <X-sa> forms. It seems like an unnecessary complication. Why would we > prefer <kwadiq> to <kwasa diq>, or <sope> to <sosa pe>? Is there some > subtle difference in meaning between the elements of these pairs? Even > when we can translate <kulpe> as "everyone" and <kulsa pe> as "every > person", is there actually any difference in meaning between the two? > (I'm against trying to match every nuance of English.) You could be right, here. But I feel like we need a short word for 'who'. Seems like most all languages have one. "kwasa pe sta dor?' seems too long to me. Kwape about right. That's really why the compounds in most cases, I think. Just to keep things terse. What if we eliminated all noun-type compounds except the -vo series? Kwavo sta dor? What is at the door? Unlikely meaning. Probably Who is at the door. And if that's okay, why not Kwa sta dor? I am inclined to let the unadorned prefixes, kwa, ci, etc., able to stand on their own as equivalent to kwavo, etc., when there's no fear of confusion. Civo bi kwavo? = Ci bi kwa? > > Or, perhaps there is no need for the <X-sa> forms, and <kwa>, <ci>, > <kul>, and so on, should be able to compound with any noun? > > I just don't see the advantage of having both forms. -- >PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: rmay@hidden.email > Rex F. May (Baloo) > Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp > Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm > Language site at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Uploadexp.htm >Discuss my auxiliary language at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txeqli/