[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote:
> on 2/20/04 8:59 PM, HandyDad at lsulky@r... wrote:
>
> > --- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote:
--SNIP--
> >
> > 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.'
That necessary separation is why I like having a functional word in
there, like "kay". I keep rolling back to the need to discretely mark
each phrase (though we might omit some markers in casual speech, of
course).
--SNIP--
>
> 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.
Maybe, but I couldn't think what it would be. Too subtle for me? Too
subtle for Ceqli?
--SNIP--
> > 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)
> >
I'm really depending on functionals to keep my bearings within a
sentence, probably because I'm not familiar with the lexicon. "Padey"
and "fudey" ('yesterday' and 'tomorrow'), as predicates rather than
functionals, kind of throw me.
> > 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.
And I'm okay with that, as long as there is a known and limited set
of I.O. markers to use when precision is necessary.
>
> > 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.
Sounds good. (BTW, I use "double quotes" to wrap Ceqli, and 'single
quotes' to wrap English. That's how you know that when I said 'to'
above, I meant the English 'to'.)
--SNIP--
> > 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.
If I think of "gol" as a functional meaning 'for purpose of',
then "go ziq gol ben zi" makes perfect sense to me. And I agree, in
casual speech we might say "go ziq ben zi". But if "gol" is a
predicate meaning "goal" or "purpose", then I get shaky again -- it's
just hard for me to let a word be both a syntax functional and a
predicate.
> 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).
Yes, given that headwords come last, it makes sense to think of the
latter verb as having some kind of priority over the preceding ones.
But "go vo sur cwaq, dorm" turns into "go vo sur cwaq dorm",
where "sur" modifies "cwaq", and "sur cwaq" modifies "dorm", so I
don't know whether the "vo" marks just "sur cwaq" or all of "sur cwaq
dorm".
> 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.
One thing that drives me crazy about Loglan is the arbitrariness (to
me) of verb places. Why would the location of the sleeping be the
direct or indirect object of the sleeping? Why not the purpose of it,
or the time, or the duration, or the mode? I'm okay with "go dorm
cwaq" as a casual shorthand, as long as we have a mechanism for
indicating that "cwaq" is the location where "dorm" happens, should
such precision be desired.
>
> 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! That's what I'm looking for. "Go tir to hon kay dan to dom"
would also work for me, though I agree that there is some subtle
distinction between 'being in the house and throwing a ball'
and 'throwing a ball in the house'.
--SNIP--
--Krawn