[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 04:08:39PM -0700, Rex May - Baloo wrote: > 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? If kwa, ci, etc. are made regular morphemes, then there's no problem with them standing alone, forming a compound with anything, or being connected with sa (for clarity). I don't see a reason not to allow "kwafawl", for example, but if it turns out that this word would sound odd when first uttered, it could be said as "kwasa fawl" for clarity. > > 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? Does this imply that some words won't be able to compound with any noun? That's a rather limiting stance to take this early in the language's development. -- Rob Speer