[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 2/20/04 8:59 PM, HandyDad at lsulky@hidden.email wrote:
> --- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote:
>> on 2/17/04 9:33 PM, HandyDad at lsulky@r... wrote:
>>
>>> --- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
>>>> --- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote:
>>>>> faq isn't the ind ob marker as such, it just means direction.
>>> Tho
>>>> it'll
>>>>> probably end up being -one- such marker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go tir to hon (faq) zi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go ziq ben zi. I sing to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the first case, faq can be omitted because it's
> understandable
>>>> without
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Go ziq ben zi" opens up the next can of verbs: how to handle
>>>> auxiliary verbs.
>>>>
> --SNIP--
>> So if we use that old particle vo:
>>
>> Go vo dorm sur cwaq. or
>> Go sur cwag vo dorm.
>> I'm on the bed, sleeping.
>>
>> Go vo sur cwag dorm. or
>> Go dorm vo sur cwaq.
>> I'm sleeping on the bed.
>>
>> (a Mandarin speaker, I understand, wouldn't see much difference in
> these)
>>
>> I think the vo-clause coming last would tend to be the default
> ceqli word
>> order.
>
> I really like having verbs where we would use prepositions in
> English. Here are some things I think I understand, plus some
> questions.
>
> "dan" is a verb, meaning 'to be inside of'. It is a two-place verb:
> the thing that is inside, and the thing whose inside is where the
> other thing is being. (That would sound better at a cocktail party
> after several drinks.)
Yes. Well expressed, actually :)
>
> "go dan dom."
> 'I be-in house.'
>
> If I sing inside the house, I could express it this way:
>
> "go dan dom ziq."
> 'I be-in house sing.'
Yes, but even in the most imprecise ceqli, we have to be sure to pronounce
it so that the space is 'heard,' and it isn't 'domziq.'
>
> Or:
>
> "go ziq vo dan dom."
> 'I sing be-in house.'
>
> The "vo" indicates that "dan dom" is not the object of "ziq", but is
> a linked verb phrase? Or that it functions as a prepositional phrase,
> coordinated with the verb "ziq"?
Actually, it sort of makes it into what Loglan callse a 'free modifier,'
modifying the whole sentence.
>
> Do we need "vo"? Could this same idea be expressed this way?
>
> "go ziq kay dan dom."
> 'I sing and be-in house.'
Yes. Subtle difference in meaning, maybe.
>
> Or:
>
> "go dan dom kay ziq."
> 'I be-in house and sing.'
Yes.
>
> This way neither form would be preferred. I would just be making two
> linked claims about the world: where I am being, and what I am doing.
> And I might sing elsewhere; and I might do other things while I'm in
> the house. All this sentence says is that, in some time free sense,
> I'm in the house and I'm singing: habitually, right now,
> yesterday.... It depends on context, which is fine.
>
> We need some words for establishing other relationships between
> linked verbs. 'I be-in house therefore sing,' or 'I sing therefore be-
> in house,' or 'I be-in house because sing,' or 'I sing because be-in
> house.'
Yes, I think these could be compound words based on 'kay' Or maybe not
compounds. Andhow, I just made up 'faloce' for the translation puzzles,
meaning. (it) follows 'ce' (What has just been said)
>
> Let's go back to "go ziq ben zi", 'I sing benefit you' ('I sing to
> you'). To me, 'sing' is a three-place verb, and 'you' is the indirect
> object. ('Song' is the implied direct object.) So I would be inclined
> to translate 'I sing to you' as "go ziq [I.O. marker] zi",
Yes, or, without marker:
go ziq ziqka zi.
On the theory that the 'zi' can't be filling any other role here, so it must
be the I. O.
> where "[I.O. marker]" is the indirect object marker. I can't think of
> a preposition aside from 'to' that would be a convenient indirect
> object marker. All other prepositions really seem like verbs to me
> now.
I'm inclined to think that ceqli does need a few 'real' prepositions, and
the IO marker sure feels like one. I'd say 'ko,' from, coindicidentally,
Russian -and- Hindi.
>
> If I wanted to say 'I sing for your benefit', then I would want to
> link two verbs, 'to sing' and 'to benefit', but with a different
> conjunction than just 'and':
>
> "go ziq kay ben zi."
>
> just seems to say that I sing and I benefit you; the two are not
> necessarily related. Let's try:
>
> "go ziq [for-purpose-of] ben zi."
> 'I sing for-purpose-of benefit you.'
Ah, but this is different! The purpose part is added. I'd say:
Go ziq gol ben zi. I sing with the aim of benefiting you. I sing for
you. In practice, little or no difference.
Zi pa ziq ben kwajin? You were singing to whom?
Zi pa ziq gol ben kwajin? You were singing to benefit whom?
Back to the other matter. You can say the same thing a lot of ways in
ceqli.
Go dorm sur cwaq. I sleep on bed.
Go vo sur cwaq, dorm. I on bed sleep. (here the vo means that 'sur cwaq'
modifies the whole sentence, or, a distinction without, possibly, a
diffence, the verb of the sentence. At least, it means the sentence is
about sleeping, not about being located on the bed).
Go dorm kay sur cwaq. Your notion, and a good one. Very unEnglish, but
very clear.
Go dorm cwaq. Simplest way possible to say it. Letting 'dorm' be
transitive.
Now, the remaining problem is when the indirect object of the verb is a
prepostional phrase.
Go tir to hon zi. No problem. "I throw the book to you." but
Go tir to hon dan to dom. Is too ambiguous. But with 'ko' we can solve
it.
Go tir to hon ko dan to dom. Now it means 'into the house,' and
Go tir to hon vo dan to dom. Just the opposite. Here, the 'vo' means that
the 'dan to dom' modifies the verb, and doesn't act as its object. Does
this solve our problem?
Yes, and with the adoption of 'ko', 'faq' can return to its original more
narrow meaning of direction.
Zi ja kwa faq. What direction are your going (North, that way, etc.) as
opposed to
Zi ja kwa. or Zi ja kwajay. Where (to what place) are you going.
>
> It's reminiscent of an Appalachian and American midwestern construct:
>
> 'I sing for to benefit you.'
> 'I work for to earn money.'
I reckon as how you're right!
>
> Just some thoughts. Been a long hard week; I'll think more clearly
> tomorrow.
>
--
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