[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote: > on 2/16/04 1:37 PM, HandyDad at lsulky@r... wrote: > > > --- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote: --SNIP-- > >> 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, we're out of positions. Before the verb = subject, after the verb = direct object. > > > > > 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' > Oh. Yeah. > But it would be nice not to have to distort it any way at all. ??? 'I throw the ball to the inside of house.' Who's distortin'? > 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 > If "faq" is our marker for indirect object, then these compounds are fine but probably not necessary. I would still probably use "hu" or "de": "Go tir to boli faq dan hu dom." --Krawn