[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 7/7/05 4:30 PM, Jim Henry at jimhenry1973@hidden.email wrote: > On 7/7/05, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@hidden.email> wrote: >> on 7/7/05 3:32 AM, Jim Henry at jimhenry1973@hidden.email wrote: > >>>> sewa rent v. >>> >>> Is this "to rent something from someone" or "to rent something to someone"? >>> >> Good question. I'm curious as to what the usage is in other languages. >> In English it's ambiguous. > > It should not be ambiguous in an IAL, particlarly a loglang. > >> Maybe it should be a compound. "zusel" - to >> sell the use of something. Go zusel camgu ko zi. Then make a compound >> with "buy". Go zukini camgu. > > I like these compounds. Anything > to reduce the number of roots to memorize, as long > as frequent compounds aren't made too long -- and > I don't think these are too long for their probable > frequency. > > You could also do the same with "give" -> "lend": > > don - to give > bedon - receive a gift > zudon - to lend (give the use of) > bezudon - to borrow (receive the use of) Right! Good extension of the idea. That last one, I think, is better as zubedon. The be might be thought of as reversing the zu. Bezu would mean "to be used." As in komcari bezu ci japanzohaim. Chopsticks are used in Japan. > >> And in constructions like this, is using ko for to reasonable? I'm thinking >> of resurrecting "de" for a specific meaning of "from," tho I'm admittedly >> ver vague about what I want to do in that regard. > > I prefer to have more specific prepositions rather than vague ones, > generally. In my own conlang gjax-zym-byn I have separate > postpositions for motion toward, giving-or-selling-to, > becoming-related-to, etc. - so many and specific that > they sometimes carry the whole burden of the sentence > with no verb being required. But I'm not sure such fine > granularity makes sense in an IAL; at least not > as a requirement. > > Maybe you could have a triplet of highly generic > prepositions - to, into/at, in/from, out of > - and a larger set of more specific ones. Beginners could stick > to the core set until they get comfortable with the more > specific prepositions. And maybe some of the specific > prepositions are compounds of some noun or verb root > plus one of the core vague prepositions. (All this > is stuff from gjax-zym-byn.) Yes, I meant that my thinking was vague rather than that I wanted a vague preposition. I have 'ko' for to/towards, and it can make compounds like danko, surko, balko, so I'm thinking of 'de' for the opposite. > >>>> bai according to v. >>> >>> How does that work as a verb? Example sentence? >>> It sounds like a preposition, like Esperanto "laux", >>> French "selon". >>> >> I believe you're right. I more or less call things verbs when they can be >> regarded as verbs in the Chinese sense. But is there a verbal meaning for >> "bai"? Maybe "to dau bai to fiume" - the path goes along the river. > > Could that be considered shorthand for > > to dau sta bai to fiume > > That is, is there a general rule that "sta" can be omitted > if the presence of a spatial postposition makes the sense > clear? > > Oh -- I just noticed that "sta" is glossed as "at" > as well as "to be located". So is the general > rule that all such words can be used > as prepositions or spatial-location verbs as the > speaker pleases? Pretty much. I'm following what I know of Mandarin in such usage. They have the habit of using verbs where we'd use prepositions. Go zu spun kom. I use spoon eat. I eat using a spoon. So 'sta', which means 'to be located', can be thought of as 'at.' Go sta ceq pa xau faul. I located-at city past see bird. Now, "ci" also means at, and that bothers me a little, but "ci" is definitely not a verb, but what I guess I'll call a true preposition. It's analogous to pa, fu, do, and is what Loglan calls a "free modifier." Ci go dorm, Go dorm ci, go ci dorm, all mean the same thing. And I also let these forms act as a sort of preposition when they go before something that makes sense. Go dorm ci. I sleep here. Go dorm ci janzo sa dom. I sleep at John's house. Go dorm pa. I sleep before (I slept). Go dorm pa zi. I slept before you (did). "Sta" differs from "ci" in that it means "located at in the customary manner," so "ci cer" means at the chair, but "sta cer" means seated in a chair. "sta slon" means mounted on an elephant, etc. > > These issues should be treated in the grammar, > not just in the glossary. Quite so. I plan to retire in a year, and then I'll only have TWO jobs, and maybe I'll have time to really get systematic about this. > >>> The definitions sound like adjectives - maybe they >>> should be glossed as "be portable", "be potable". >>> Or not. >> >> I didn't do that, because of the alphabetization problem. Maybe I just need >> an explanation at the beginning that Ceqli adjectives are all verbs in >> nature. Or gloss them "portable (be)", etc. > > OK, that makes sense. But it would be better to make it clear in the glossary in any case. How about them reading like: hoq - red (to be) -- Rex F. May (Baloo) Visit my website at: http://homepage.mac.com/rmay/ Great leadership training for boys at: http://afewgoodkids.com Strange language from an alternate universe at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Texperanto.html