[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 1/28/04 12:30 PM, HandyDad at lsulky@hidden.email wrote: > 1) Please check my literal translations: > > a) > > "To jini hu pa kay bu do bi gose fren, sa, kay zise pamose fren hu > toyl sta to honseldom, sa, sa do gi dwel to hoqse dom." > > 'The woman who was and not now is my friend, her, and your > father's friend who works is-at the bookshop, him, they now are > living-in the red house.' > > Should 'who works is-at' be 'whose work is-at'? No. 'who works is-at' translates it nicely. > > I had initially imagined that each "sa" would gather up its own > toys plus the previously gathered "sa"-bags. But I think your way > is more logical. Also, your way could be extended to include a > similar usage for other pronouns and anaphora; "sa" is just the > easiest and most general-purpose way. > > > b) > > "kyu zi jan to jini hu pa kay bu do bi gose fren? kay zise pamose > fren hu toyl sta to honseldom? Juy kay fuy do gi dwel to hoqse > dom." > > 'Do you know-of the woman who was and not now is my friend? > And your father's friend who works is-at the bookshop? J-woman > and F-friend now are living-in the red house.' > > Could there also be a question marker "Kyu" at the outset of the > second question? > Yes. Better. > > 2) I note that you are rigourous about using the "se" mopheme to > mark a modifier, so I will be so, too. This means that two > adjacent morphemes are (excluding "se") are either a > compound or are two separate words that do NOT have a > modifier/modified relationship, yes? That isn't the way I'm thinking. I'm thinking that hoqse fawl is different from hoqfawl, but that hoq fawl is equivalent to hoqse fawl. Tho you're right, I do tend to use se in all cases. Anyhow, I don't see what 'hoq fawl' could mean other than 'hoqse fawl.' > > > 3) Just to be sure this horse is dead.... Is it agreed that, when we > have two adjacent spoken morphemes, one of the following is > happening: > > a) They form a compound or form separate words because one > or both of the morphemes is from a small, readily memorized > set that has specific compounding rules (e.g. "-se" marks a > modifier, "go" can compound with a few other words [pronouns, > specifically], articles don't compound, etc.) Yes, and tho they're not marked by wordshape as in loglan, I do see a category of 'grammar words' in Ceqli, separate from content words. Articles, pronouns, etc. , and since they are grammar words, they don't compound with content words, or so I hope. > > b) They form a compound or form separate words based on the > tone profile with which they are spoken. > > Thus, we don't have to know Ceqli semantics exhaustively to > know whether morphemes are compounding. > hhmm... yes. -- Rex F. May (Baloo) Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/book-GesundheitDummy.htm