[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote: > The more I think about it, the better I like your notion of using a kay > construction rather than a vo construction, all things being equal. > > Go pa sta cwaq kay dorm. Da kun go kay ja seldom. > > But we have to maybe use vo when the vo-clause _modifies_ the main verb: > > Go zu krayon kay dra hwar. > > I guess we wouldn't have to, because human insight says that we're using the > pencil to do the drawing, but to be unambiguous, we'd go with vo > > Go vo zu krayon dra hwar. I draw a picture by means of a pencil. or > > Go vo dra hwar zu krayon. I use a pencil for the purpose of drawing a > picture. Would it make the "vo" construction seem more parallel to the "kay" construction if we put "vo" in the same place that "kay" would occupy? "Go dra hwar vo zu krayon." 'I draw a picture by using a pencil.' "Go dra hwar kay zu krayon." 'I draw a picture and use a pencil.' ... "Go zu krayon vo dra hwar." 'I use a pencil for the purpose of drawing a picture.' "Go zu krayon kay dra hwar." 'I use a pencil and draw a picture.' > > Of course, all this is colloquial ceqli anyway. Disambiguated versions: > > Go pa sta ta cwaq beta kay dorm. Da kun go kay ja to seldom. Probably really don't need "beta" since "kay" is a compound-breaker. Right? > > Go zu ta krayon beta kay dra ta hwar beta. etc. > Side issue: More and more I count on my mental pronunciation of multisyllabics with the down-up tone profile to keep word boundaries clear. --Krawn