[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 5/2/04 6:49 PM, Rex May - Baloo at rmay@hidden.email wrote: >> 2.5: "dwelho"...when do we use "ho" and when "za" to >> connote 'commencement'? > > Yikes! Damned if I know! Loglan has 'cenja' for 'become' and 'satci' for > 'is the beginning.' > For obvious verbs.... dormho/za, komho/za, seems equivalent > adjectives... gaho/za, grinho/za, pretty much equivalent > nouns, now: zbanho/za kiqoho/za... Now 'become a spose' or 'become a king' > seem logical, but we seem to be missing a copula with "za" 'start being a > spouse,' 'start being a king'. But is that a problem? I somehow don't > think so. Can we have an independent word that means both 'become' and > 'start'? > > To diya pa ho. The day started. > To xyen pa ho kom to pan. The dog started to eat the bread. > To caylo pa ho dareno. The boy became a man? Ah. Here's what we need! > To caylo pa biho dareno. The boy started-to-be a man. > > And "za"... do we need it? Maybe not. Is there anything "za" means that we > can't say with a "ho" or "fa" or some ho/fa-derived word? Esperanto has > komenci, igi and ighi. > > La tago komencis. To diya pa ho bi. > Mi funkciigis la auton. Go fuqfa to tomo. > La hundo dormighis. To xyen pa dormho. > > If those translations all make sense, I'm not sure we need "za" for > anything. But I expect we should keep it. Maybe "dormho" and "dormza" will evolve to have different meanings, slightly. -- 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