[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Rex May - Baloo wrote: > > on 3/10/02 3:49 PM, Alexander Browne at alexbrowne@hidden.email wrote: > > > Mike Wright 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. > > > > [...] > > > >> 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.) > >> > >> 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. > > > > I agree with Mike here. To me, it makes the most sense to be able to > > combine them with any nouns. > > > > Okay, the question is, then, is there a difference between kwape and kwasa > pe I truly see none. > Does kul mean all also in the sense of Go vol kul. I want all, > everthing? Can we release all these prefixes to act as either prefixes with > an adjectival sense, or as noun-equivalent stand alones? I'm not as fond of noun-equivalent use. > There is a > difference between dasa pe and dape. What is "dape"? "He-she-it person" doesn't add up to anything for me. While we're at it, I notice that the definition of "da" includes "they". It's interesting that even in languages that don't have obligatory number, there are still explicitly plural pronouns. I think that this is because you can't normally put a number, or an adjective of quantity, in front of a pronoun. So, my inclination would be to add a pluralizer for "da". Maybe "dada", to match "zida" and "goda"? > One is modifier-modified, the other is > a compound with a specific meaning, in effect, a new morpheme. To be picky (which, as you know, I normally never am), I don't think it's a good idea to muddle the difference between root morphemes and compounds, even casually. A compound is a compound is a compound. A morpheme has a mandatory phonemic shape. > But there is > no difference between gerpe and gersa pe. So shall we just not bother with > the second and always use the first? Because it's shorter? I'm moving in > that direction. I think so, but I'd tend to retain the combination with "vo", thus keeping "kul", "ci", "jaw", and so on as true modifiers, rather than sometimes modifier, sometimes noun--just for the feeling of consistency. (But is "vo" a particle, as advertised, or is it a noun? Could it be considered a kind of all-purpose pronoun?) Of course, you should probably save the old html file for that page, just in case it doesn't work out in practice. > Getting away from the Esperanto paradigm and into the > Mandarin "It works, doesn't it" system. > > So maybe we don't need to list correlatives at all. Perhaps just a list of the most common combinations, at least in the glossary of the tutorial. (There *will* be a _Teach Yourself Ceqli_ book, won't there? And maybe something from Berlitz?) -- Mike Wright http://www.CoastalFog.net _____________________________________________________ "China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese." -- Charles de Gaulle