[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 3/10/02 8:35 PM, Rob Speer at rob@hidden.email wrote: > >>> 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. I think there's a hangup in my own mind that works this way... When a modifier-modified MM is clearly different than the corresponding compound (CPD), like blusa fawl and blufawl, I'm comfortable. But when they seem to be pretty much the same thing, like kwape and kwasa pe, I feel uneasy somehow, because in my mind a compound means something -more specific- than the corresponding MM. But I'm wrong in that tendency. Kwape is a fine word. Now, I'm getting persuaded by Rob that we can call these base prefixes nouns. Kwa ? What, which (one) Ci ? this one So ? that (by you) one Jaw ? that (distant from you) one Som ? some one, something. Heni ? any one, anything Zoy ? no one, nothing, none of Kul ? every thing, every one, Ger ? some one else, another one In short, the 'vo' series without the vo. Now, I see no reason why these noun forms can't go ahead and compound with the other base words whenever we like. Obviously, some will be a lot handier and more frequent than others.... pe, sor, jay, etc. So, with that, the first lesson of the Berlitz Ceqli Book will be: Ci bi kwa? (Chee bee kwah) Krayon Stilo Booma Hon and whatever we come up with for 'key' and 'box.' -- >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/