[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 4/4/02 3:51 PM, Mike Wright at darwin@hidden.email wrote: > Rex May - Baloo wrote: >> >> Hm. That is a problem. Let's see. In Ceqli it would be >> >> Go vol pomo. which is short for. >> Go vol ke go pomo. >> >> Now, to say I want asstance.... >> >> Go vol bepomo. I want to-be-helped. short for >> Go vol ke go bepomo. >> >> Of course, pomoka is an act of helping, so could say >> Go vol pomoka. >> >> If you mean some kind of tangible help, like money, could say >> Go vol pomoxo. >> >> However, this whole thing leads me to wonder if maybe the thing to do is go >> with the Loglan system, which started this whole thing anyway. If we did, >> here's what we'd have: >> >> 1. Except for some grammatical particles, everything is a verb. >> >> Go pomo. I help. >> >> To pomo sa kan The help dog. dog who helps. >> >> To pomo. The helper, one who helps, which we now signify by 'pomovo'. > > And would you still have "bepomo"? Yes, In fact, the 'be' concept was borrowed from Loglan in the first place. > > Go bepomo. I am/was/will be helped. > > To bepomo sa kan The helped dog > > To bepomo The helpee > > Now how do we say: > > The dog helped the cat. > To kan pomo sa felin. > > The cat was helped by the dog. > To felin bepomo to kan. ??? > Mandarin-style would be: > To felin be to kan pomo. Yes, and that has uses, but not nearly as many as the Ceqli be system, thus: Go fo pani. I need water. Pani befo go. Water is needed by me. Pani befo. Water is necessary, is a necessity. Pani dan spun. Water is in the spoon. Spun bedan pani. Spoon contains water. A lot of words are the be-ification of others. > > The cat who was helped by the dog ate the rat. > To kan pomo sa felin kom to xu. > > Mandarin <bei4> is not attached to the verb, and can be followed by > the subject of the verb. > >> In this case, the rule would have to change and there could be no more >> sentences like >> Kan pomo felin. Dog helps cat. >> We'd have to make it explicit that a noun is a noun. >> >> Te kan da pomo te felin. Dog helps cat. > > Now "da" starts to look like the postpositional subject marker "ga" in > Japanese. Or else, "te kan" is the topic, and "da" is the subject, > repeated for emphasis. What does "da" add to this sentence? How is it > different from "Te kan pomo te felin."? Yes. It's meant here, in Loglanized Ceqli (which is a dead letter, we're just discussing it) simply to keep the two nouns from forming a compound. It's kind of an appositive of the Te kan. > >> Te being the default noun marker that can be definite/indefinite, whatever. >> >> And if we do that, why not go ahead and reserve CV(V) for grammar words that >> do _not_ behave that way? I say not because it's just too darn arbitrary. >> The number of grammar words should be small enough to memorize. >> >> Anybody want to Loglanize the predicates of Ceqli this way? Mike, this wd >> maybe give it some internal consistency that you feel a lack of. > [...] > > Hmm. The farther I go in this, the more I see a lack of internal > consistency in Mandarin. Although I feel very comfortable with it, I'm > beginning to see that it's not a lot more consistent than English. > > At this point, if I were designing a conlang from scratch, I'd take > only the following points from Mandarin: > > 1) strict SVO word order, with topicalization in sentences > 2) modifier-head order throughout > 3) prepositions rather than postpositions > 4) stative verbs not requiring the copula in the predicate > 5) no obligatory syntactic gender, number, tense, person, mood, > aspect, or definiteness I think all these are principles of Ceqli, except for a little more looseness in number one, the emphasis of the verb, that is. > > I would examine every new idea about syntax to make sure it didn't > violate any of these five principals. Beyond that, I'd aim at > simplicity, consistency, and clarity. I would go as far as possible in > abstract syntax design without any concern for expressing particular > ideas. One purpose would be to avoid relying on familiar forms. > Another would be to avoid relying on context. I agree with Kevin's > point that grasping the intended structure should not depend on context. I don't entirely agree. In all languages, context enables a lot of simplification. As I said before, ciq stu is short for Go ciq ke zi stu, but it could mean a lot of other things. Da pa ciq ke go stu, etc. But I want to be able to say Ciq stu. However, I want to be able to go context-free when necessary and expand the whole thing till it's no longer ambiguous. > > I would write out the syntax as a set of formulas, either creating my > own notation, or learning about what linguists use: Gad. I don't think I'm up to that. > > 0) simplest sentence > Pred <intransitive|stative> > > 1) simple sentence with intransitive verb > NounMarker Subj <noun|pronoun|verb> Pred <intransitive> > > 2) simple sentence with stative verb > NounMarker Subj <noun|pronoun|verb> Pred <stative> > > 3) simple sentence with transitive verb > NounMarker Subj <noun|pronoun|verb> Pred <transitive> NounMarker > DirObj <noun|pronoun|verb> > > 4) simple sentence with passive and no subject > NounMarker DirObj <noun|pronoun> PassiveMarker Pred <transitive> > > 5) simple sentence with passive and subject > NounMarker DirObj <noun|pronoun> PassiveMarker NounMarker Subj Pred > <transitive> > > or, alternatively, > NounMarker DirObj <noun|pronoun> PassiveMarker Pred <transitive> > NounMarker Subj > > Throughout this process, I would attempt to enumerate the various > instances required for each category of particles (markers), and begin > to come up with actual sounds for them. A single PassiveMarker, "be" > might suffice, but there would be a need for quite a few NounMarkers. > > This means that I would have to identify what kinds of ideas should be > expressed through syntactical structures and particles, and which > should be left to lexical items. I would have to decide, for example, > whether tense needs to be expressed through syntax, or whether it can > be left to words like "today", "next Wednesday", "last year", "want > to", "plan to", and "already". > > Only after I had gone as far as possible with this would I begin > creating a bare minimum of vocabulary items to replace the > placeholders and test the abstract syntax. I would then move from > simple sentences to more and more complex, convoluted sentences. I > would strive to always create patterns that could be expressed as > formulas. (And I would not promote flexibility at the cost of > simplicity and consistency.) > > The fact is that any language will have hundreds of basic sentence > patterns. There is no way to avoid designing them. The work has to be > done. The only question is whether to do it the easy way or the hard way. > > It seems to me that approaching the design of those patterns from the > bottom up is bound to be the most efficient, just because it will be > easier to be consistent. And approaching the design at an abstract > level will reduce the introduction of inconsistencies based on natural > languages. > > No matter how it's approached, it's a very difficult task. I'm glad I > don't have to do it. Whew! Other reactions? -- >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/