[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 4/3/02 6:29 PM, Mike Wright at darwin@hidden.email wrote: > I'm beginning to get the feeling that Ceqli is a sort of mixture of > English (and other Indo-European) approaches and Mandarin approaches. > > Since English has so many foreign influences, especially from French, > it already sort of lacks unity of structure. Notice how many things > can be said in very different ways, like "the mountain's top" vs. "the > top of the mountain". > > Mandarin, too, has some oddities that appear to come from foreign influences. > > This really struck me when I noticed that Ceqli has the word "gi" for > "during", which works as a progressive aspect particle before a verb. > I assume that this is intended to mean "during" when used before a > noun. Here I don't follow you. The before a noun part, I mean. I'm not at all wedded to the meaning of gi as both progressive particle and 'during', but I see no contradiction, either. Go gi soma. I'm reading Go soma gi(ke) zi dorm. Oh, maybe you mean like Go soma gi dia. I read during the day. If so, sure. > If so, this is very much English word order, and very different > from Mandarin, but in other cases, we are using Mandarin word order. > Sometimes we seem to be using structures that don't match either > English or Mandarin. I'm hoping that different linguistic structures from different languages _can_ form an organic whole, if selected with that in mind. The biggest danger is what you pointed out before, that we (I) will adopt English thinking subconsciously for some things. In fact, here's a problem I've been chewing on: Go ploy krayon skri gosa kyam. I use a pencil to write my name. That seems to be a pure Mandarin structure to me, and the meaning is certainly clear from the context. I've adopted the verb-as-preposition mandarin idea. But Go ploy krayon kay skri gosa kyam. I use a pencil and write my name. The two actions are possibly unrelated. So can we say Go skri gosa kyam ploy krayon. And how do we know (other than from context) which verb phrase is modifying which? Is this a problem, or am I just seeing a problem where there isn't any? do we need a word to specify the relationship between the two phrases. or do we at least need such a word in case of confusion. a word meaning 'in order that' maybe. It just occured to me: Zi kwasama skri. How do you write? Go ploy krayon skri. I write with a pencil. so maybe 'kwasama' wd be rare, and the usual way to ask that question wd be Zi ploy kwa skri? I'm wondering if maybe we don't need an 'in order to' particle, but simply a particle that _subordinates_ one phrase to the other, and context will show the actual relationship. Of course, especially in cases like 'ploy', the relationship will be so obvious that the subordinating particle won't be necessary. For the most part, location phrases should be obvious. Go sta cam soma hon. I read a book in the room. Go sta cam ja. I go in the room (going around inside the room) Go ho sta cam ja. I go into the room. Now. Go ho sta cam pawja. I walk into the room. Go pawja ho sta cam. I get into the room by walking. I see that as the difference in emphasis shown by the two word orders. We could have a subordinating particle that would do the same job. Go pawja X ho sta cam. That means the sentence is about walking, with the destination modifying it. Go X pawja ho sta cam. That means the sentence is about entering the room, with the method of transport modifying it. -- >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/