[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 5/3/04 8:17 PM, Rex May - Baloo at rmay@hidden.email wrote: >> 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. Now it strikes me that "za", as per what we decided about transitive and intransitive, can also be both. Go pa za kuri. I started to run. Go pa za to kel. I started the show. To bawmxo pa bernza. The wood caught on fire. Can also be expressed: To bawnxo pa bernho. Go pa bernza to bawmxo. I started the wood on fire. Can also be expressed: Go pa bernfa to bawmxo. But "ho" and "fa" don't seem that way at all. Quite different words. The first is intrisically intransitive, the second transitive. I don't know how much this advances the discussion, but it just struck me. Maybe "bernza" emphasizes the starting, and "bernho/fa" emphasizes the result. -- 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