[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
About these sense words. Now, in English there's a difference between look and see, the first having a sense of volition or intention, same with listen and hear, but none with taste, smell, and feel. So I'm inclined to think the distinction unnecessary for the most part. If you have to make the distinction, we have 'tray', from English 'try'. Xaw, tray xaw (xawtray), tiq, tiqtray, smel, smeltray, and so on. Does that make sense to everybody? So, xaw will be the default word for look and see, but can be xawtray when necessary. Next question: The distiction between I smell the food and the food smells good. What are those two 'smell's in Ceqli? Go smel to komxo. That's straightforward enough. Now, can we use 'be' for the other word. To komxo besmel bon. And the 'bon' has to be there, I think, because it's really an adjective, not an adverb. To komxo bonsa besmel would mean the food does a good job of exuding odor, I guess. That's off the subject, tho. To xipe bexaw bel. The woman looks beautiful. To fawl betiq bel. The bird sounds beautiful. So now we have a class of words that calls for an adjective as an 'object'? I forget what the phenomenon is called in English. Are we agreed that this system is optimum? Mike, does Mandarin have a more elegant way of doing this? Back to the main question. Are the be- words the way to go with the sense words? -- >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/