[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Rex May - Baloo wrote:
>
> on 3/27/02 1:14 PM, Mike Wright at darwin@hidden.email wrote:
> >
> > Both just one syllable, though. Or do you mean the number of letters?
> >
> >> It'll be a very
> >> frequent word, and shd really have a CV form. So it's co(vo). Now, I
> >> think we can coin the compound 'fuco' meaning 'after that which has just
> >> been said,' So.
> >>
> >> Da kwaysa kom fuco ho dorm. He quickly ate, then went to sleep.
> >
> > So, can we then say the following?
> >
> > "Da ho dorm paco kwaysa kom." "He went to sleep (and) before that
> > quickly ate." Meaning, "Before eating, he ate quickly." (And that's
> > why he woke up with indigestion.)
> >
> > This would make "fuco" and "paco" work a lot like Mandarin <yi3hou4>
> > and <yi3qian2>, respectively.
> >
> > But what would you think of something even closer to the Mandarin,
> > like this?
> >
> > Da kwaysa kom safu, ho dorm.
> > Da ho dorm sapa, kwaysa kom.
> >
> > In these, "kwaysa kom safu" and "ho dorm sapa" would be time-when
> > adverbial phrases. However, it should also be possible to repeat the
> > subject--especially since there could be two subjects:
> >
> > "Go kom safu, da ho dorm." "After I ate, he went to sleep."
>
> Boy, this really confuses me. My inclination would be to use
>
> Fu go kom, da ho dorm. Or, for extreme clarity
> Fuke go kom, da ho dorm. Or, for computer-programming clarity
At the very least, "fu" or "fuke" should go immediately before the
verb, don't you think? Otherwise, doesn't it apply to the entire
sentence (as we discussed with "clearly")? Of course then it doesn't
sound much like English:
Go fuke kom, da ho dorm.
> Fuke go kom beke, da ho dorm.
I don't understand what "beke" means.
> So, analysing your forms, what's happening is that 'kwaysa kom' modifies
> 'fu'.
Yes.
> So you're sort of regarding 'fu' as an adverb, a la mandarin.
No, as a noun, a la Mandarin.
> Whereas I'm regarding it as a conjunction,
Conjunction? Connecting what with what?
> admittedly doubling as an adverb
> for the purpose of simple tense indication.
I see "sa" as being equivalent to Mandarin genitive <de> (or literary
<zhi1>), so "go kom sa fu" is literally "the future of my eating",
meaning "after my eating". Actually, Mandarin uses the morphemes
<qian2> "front, fore" and <hou4> "back, rear, hind, aft", not having
morphemes for "future" and "past". So, where I used "sa-fu",
"sa-samne" would have been closer. (You'll learn <yi3qian2> for
"before" and <yi3hou4> for "after". In writing we sometimes see the
genitive <zhi1> in place of <yi3>.) Japanese has a very similar
structure, using the genitive "no" with "mae" ("front") and "ato"
("back"), as well as the Sino-Japanese "izen" (<yi3qian2>) and "igo" (<yi3hou>).
"Fuke" and "pake" would be adverbs, while "safu" and "sapa" would be
particle-noun compounds.
> Can both these forms be used? Anybody else's input here?
I think one or the other. I don't mind "fuke" and "pake", as long as
they immediately precede the verb.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.CoastalFog.net
____________________________________________________________
"The difference between theory and practice is that, in
theory, there is no difference between theory and practice;
in practice, however, there is." -- Anonymous