[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 5/8/04 7:01 AM, HandyDad at lsulky@hidden.email wrote: > Finally, critique of verses 7-9, plus thoughts on pronouns: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Verse 7 Come! We will descend and we will confuse their language > there, that [they] will not hear [one] man the language [of] his > friend. > > "Ven! Gozi fu dimkoja kay payrofa kuyde bol cu, vopor ke kuy bu fu > gemaynde boltiq. > > 7.0: Cool! > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Verse 8 And YHWH scattered them from there on the face of all the > earth, and they ceased to build the city. > > Hi ti jawe pa fentir kuy vofrom cu ko kuljay hu sta dunya, hifoloco > kuy pa par ke baw to ceq. > > 8.1: Does "hifoloco" mean 'therefore'? It's not listed in the vocab > as a compound. I misspelled it. I meant it to be "hifaloco", meaning 'and-following what was just said'. But now it doesn't look logical to me at all. It would have to be "hi faloco ke" at least. And that is ambiguous anyway. Does 'following' mean therefore or after? Ambiguous. I think the standard way to say therefore should be "coface", and the standard way to say 'then,' in the temporal sense, should be "fuco". In this translation, either might be meant, but I'll opt for the latter. Making it Hi ti jawe pa fentir kuy vofrom cu ko kuljay hu sta dunya, hi fuco kuy pa par ke baw to ceq. Or, if we think it a logical connection, Hi ti jawe pa fentir kuy vofrom cu ko kuljay hu sta dunya, coface kuy pa par ke baw to ceq. Now, in a sense, one might want to require "hi coface hi," because "coface" is itself a sentence. However, co/ce constructions seem to be obviously tight little sentences unto themselves, and consequently don't need "hi." > 8.2: "hu sta danya" = 'on the face of the earth'. Okay. But see my > comments on verse 9. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Verse 9 Therefore called its name "Babel," because there YHWH > confused the language of all the earth, and from there YHWH scattered > them on the face of all the earth. > > Hifuco, to turu kyamho "ti bepayro," cefaco ke ti jawe pa payrofa to > bol hu pukul to dunya behu, kay juy pa fentir kuy ko kuljay vosta to > dunya. > > 9.1: "hifuco" is also 'therefore'? Not present in vocab. Yes, here we want therefore, so it should be: Hi coface, to turu kyamho "ti bepayro," > 9.2: "cefaco" is 'because'? Not present in vocab. (Nice word, that > one.) Yep. > 9.3: "vosta to dunya"... why different from the verse 8 form? If I > understand "hu" and "vo" right, I think "hu" is what's needed here. > This is not a verb (or verbal preposition) phrase that modifies "pa > fentir" directly; it modifies "kuljay" as a subordinate clause, > doesn't it? Also, "to" is okay to indicate that we're talking about > the world that we all know, but it could certainly be omitted in > casual speech. In sum, I would translate the phrase as "hu sta to > dunya". > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are right for the reasons given. Make it: hi coface, to turu kyamho "ti bepayro," cefaco ke ti jawe pa payrofa to bol hu pukul to dunya behu, kay juy pa fentir kuy ko kuljay hu sta to dunya. > > Regarding the earlier corrections that you replied to, I'm cool with > your responses. Please put "vo" into the vocab when you get a chance, > along with the other candidates mentioned above. > Will do. > ----------------- > > I am still stumbling over the Cuy pronouns. It may be that a scheme > of 'they-most-recently-mentioned', 'they-next-most-recently- > mentioned'... pronouns will develop, or perhaps just 'they- > first', 'they-second'..., or maybe 'they-subject', 'they-object'....? > A tough one. How does Mandarin, or other languages that feature fewer > pronouns than English, such as Turkish or Hungarian, avoid confusion? > > Or here's a thought about pronoun usage. When we first use a noun or > name, we don't necessarily know that we'll want to use an anaphor for > it later. When we do, sometimes we reinforce just which noun is being > associated with the anaphor. Then from that point forward, we just > use the anaphor: > > Jim and Joe met John. But he - Joe - said he had to leave to pick up > his kids. > > Once we've established clearly that 'he' = 'Joe', we're free to use > it unencumbered the rest of the way. The listener doesn't have to > apply a rule based on different forms of 'he'; we give the listener > the rule explicitly. I feel as though any anaphor scheme, including > the Cuy scheme, might benefit from this explicit restatement ability. > What do you think? Definitely yes! ti jim kay ti jo pa zamho ti jan, hi juy hu bi ti jo pa sey ke juy pa dwa sali vopor tomotom juyde ze cayl. Or, there might be a shorter way than "juy hu bi ti jo" maybe "juy kwal jo" or "juy bi jo", the reasoning being that since we've already said "jo", we don't need to repeat "ti" this soon. But since we've made a little ID sentence, we'd then use juy as a pronoun: ti jim kay ti jo pa zamho ti jan, juy bi jo, juy pa sey ke juy pa dwa sali vopor tomotom juyde ze cayl. And we could go on: ...gojuy bi jim, hi gajuy pa sey ke bien gajuy dwa sali vopor ja kolalbwajay. -- 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