[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 3/10/02 7:27 PM, Mike Wright at darwin@hidden.email wrote: > 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. Me neither, really. > >> There is a >> difference between dasa pe and dape. > > What is "dape"? "He-she-it person" doesn't add up to anything for me. Sorry, sorry, sorry ? The Ceqli is ga, mandarin is da. I meant to write gasa pe and gape. > > 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. Yes, I should be clearer. What I mean is that blusa fawl is a modifier-modified, but blufawl is not. By dint of being a compound, it has a specific meaning, like a morpheme does, and not the intrinsically ambiguous meaning of a modifier-modified. Even something as simple as pisa pe can be ambiguous. If you're looking at pictures of people, 'small person' could mean what you would think, but it could also mean the person whose picture is small. But pipe means dwarf and that's that. > >> 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?) How about this approach. Set all these prefixes to have noun meanings, what one, this one, etc. Then the Xsa form would be a case of an attributive noun at work. I'll bet there are a heap of contradictions there. May we're (I'm) trying to hard to get things to fit a nice paradigm. > > 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?) You betcha. Maybe even a Cortina method. But I always liked the little bald Berlitz guy. -- >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/