[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 2/21/04 2:35 PM, HandyDad at lsulky@hidden.email wrote:
> --- 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).
Sure. Kay or vo will work just fine here.
>
> --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?
Maybe. go ziq kay dan dom. seems to be about singing and being-in, while
go ziq vo sta dom. Is about singing and
go sta dom vo ziq. Is about being in the house.
And each is modified with vo-information./
>
> --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.
I think it's best not to thing of any ceqli words as predicates. Go pa dorm
padey. is best thought of as short for Go pa dorm do to padey.
>
>>> 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.
Yes. In my other post.
>
>>
>>> 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'.)
Good idea. I'll try to adhere to it.
>
> --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".
Yes. Then to be precise.
Go vo sur cwaq bevo dorm. Or change word order.
Go dorm vo sur cwaq.
>
>> 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.
Agree.
>
>>
>> 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'.
Yes, a teensy one here. The 'kay' version could include throwing the ball
out of the house!
>
--
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