[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 2/16/04 1:37 PM, HandyDad at lsulky@hidden.email wrote: > --- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote: >> on 2/16/04 9:45 AM, HandyDad at lsulky@r... wrote: >> >>> We shouldn't drop the indirect object into the prepositional > phrase >>> bucket, as I was earlier suggesting. >> >> I think I follow. >> >> "I throw you the ball" You is ind ob. > > Yes. > >> >> Go tir to boli zi. >> >> But, >> "I throw the ball into the house" the prep phrase, by our > standards, is the >> indirect obj, right? > > Not precisely. The indirect object is the recipient of the action; in > this case, that's the INTERIOR of the house. Yes. > >> >> Go tir to boli (faq) dan to dom. > > Yes, just what I was thinking: 'I throw the ball to inside the > house'. Now it's clearer that 'to' is our indirect object marker, and > then any other preposition just helps to identify the object or > recipient: it's not the house as a whole, it's not the roof of the > house, it's not the lawn just south of the house...it's the inside of > the house. (Note how I've sneakily shifted the grammatical role > of 'inside' from a preposition to a noun.) > > Thinking of it this way also clarifies that if we only say 'I throw > the ball inside the house', then 'inside the house' is simply an > adverb of location that modifies the action -- throwing -- without > saying anything about the recipient, which could be the wall, the > ceiling, yourself, whatever. > >> >> This makes sense, but how do we prevent bolidan or bolifaq or > bolifaqdan or >> faqdan from forming as compounds? Practically, we don't need to > worry >> about this, but it keeping with making ceqli able to disambiguate >> completely, we do need something. >> >> What would >> >> Go tir to boli te dan to dom. >> >> mean? Can the 'te' make 'dan to dom' into a noun phrase that is > then >> unambiguously an ind ob? > > Maybe, if we're not counting on "te" for other purposes as well > (e.g., it couldn't mark a DIRECT object). Whatever word is used, > there must be a rule that it cannot compound. No, what I was trying to say was that the old 'te' could make 'dan to dom' into a noun-oid of sorts, and then, by position, it occupies the spot of an indirect object. Not clear the way I put it, and I'm not that crazy about it anyway. > > Also, my Euromind wants 'inside of house' rather than 'inside the > house': > > "Go tir to boli te dan vi dom." (defining "vi" as 'of') actually, it could be 'hu': "Go tir to boli te dan hu dom." 'dan hu dom' = 'dom de dan' But it would be nice not to have to distort it any way at all. Actually, I think we'd have compound prepositions like Eng into, onto. faqdan faqsur, etc., and then "Go tir to boli dan to dom." would have to mean that the whole thing took place inside -- 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