[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: > > > >>>> Now, about these moveable adverbs: > >>>> > >>>> I've always felt that some adverbs are clearly verb-modifiers. Go fast, > >>>> sleep well, etc., but that many feel more like _sentence_ modifiers. > >>>> I eat today, Clearly, the dog is asleep, etc. > >>> > >>> Reminds me of "Gladly, the cross-eyed bear." > >>> > >>> Do you see any difference between the two following sentences? > >>> > >>> "Clearly, the dog is asleep." > >>> "The dog is clearly asleep." > >> > >> No. Hm. I think the difference I see is semantic. The dog eats fast, it > >> tells how the dog eats. How the eating is done. The dog clearly eats > >> doesn't tell us anything about the style of eating, but about the truth of > >> the whole sentence. That's what I mean by sentence modifier, I guess. > > > > Yes, You're right. Those two sentences have the same meaning because > > the adverb precedes the verb in each case. To modify the verb (in > > English), the adverb would have to follow the verb, which doesn't make > > sense with "clearly" in this example. > > So, in English, at least, the distinction is made, but not in any systematic > way. Possibilities: > > A suffix of some sort. FroyX to kan pa ho poji. > > Or, adding nothing at all to the system, do this. > > Froyke to kan pa ho poji. > > Which is short for: > > Go froy ke to kan pa ho poji. Would this work as well with "klar"? Klarke to kan pa ho poji. Go klar ke to kan pa ho poji. > Now, logically, it would have to come at the beginning of any sentence, > because the 'ke' says that the phrase/sentence following is to be treated as > a unit, usually the object of what precedes the 'ke.' > > That wd be the normal way. If you want to add an attitudinal as an > afterthought, I suppose > > To kan pa ho poji, go froi. > > Giving the order of elements OSV, allowable in Ceqli. This all seems pretty reasonable to me. > And I can see no sensible way to insert it in the middle, but who would need > to? If it's an afterthought, it can go at the end. The only time I can see doing that is when you want to topicalize the subject: To bon kan pa ho bon. The good dog got well. To ba kan, froy ke, (da) pa ho poji. As for the bad dog, happily (he) died. -- 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