[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 7/8/05 4:39 AM, Jim Henry at jimhenry1973@hidden.email wrote: > On 7/7/05, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@hidden.email> wrote: >> 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: > >>>> I believe you're right. I more or less call things verbs when they can be >>>> regarded as verbs in the Chinese sense. ..... > >>> 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. > > I suppose this order, > > go kom zu spun. > > ...would be just as grammatical in ceqli? (And would > mean the same thing, not something odd like "I > eat the use-of-a-spoon"; I expect you would need some > special nominalizer to express something like that. > No sense in this case, but you might want it for Yes. As I conceive it, it means the same thing, with perhaps a shift in emphasis. Go kom zu spun. I use a spoon to eat. Go zu spun. I eat with a spoon. The first emphasizing the use of the spoon, the second emphasizing the eating. > > go dum <nominalizer> zu spun. > > because thinking about the use of spoons makes > more sense than thinking using a spoon (though not > by much). go dum zu spun would mean "I use a spoon to think." Maybe I use it like Captain Queeg used the little steel balls:) As for nominalizers, at this point I see the particle 'ke' as serving for that. It isolates the verb phrase so that the preceding verb can act on it. go dum ke zu spon. In answer to "zi zu kua kom jol?" "What will you eat the soup with?" would mean "With a spoon, I think." > >> 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." > > In the way you've described it in the glossary and the grammar, > it doesn't seem to be a preposition at all. It's a deictic particle, > that acts as a demonstrative adjective or as a demonstrative pronoun > or adverb. > >> Ci go dorm, Go dorm ci, go ci dorm, all mean the same thing. > > If they all mean "I sleep here" then it's a demonstrative adverb > in this use, I think. > >> 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. > > In the latter sentence it does seem to be used as a preposition, > though. I don't remember seeing any use like this in the grammar, > and it's not hinted at in the glossary. You have detected a flaw. Originally, ci/ca/cu could indeed double as prepositions, in Loglan fashion. But now, I see, they can't. They already have too much to do. In Loglan, the equivalent of ci, "vi", is used to mean both "here" and "this" and "at," but manages to do so by having a much more rigid grammar otherwise. In Ceqli this won't work. I hereby eliminate the prepositional function of ci/ca/cu. > > >> 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. > > From all the previous examples I would have thought that > "ci cer" meant "this chair", "ca cer" = "that chair", "cu cer" > = "yon chair". But maybe in certain contexts we can understand > these noun phrases as acting adverbially, so they mean > "at this chair", "at that chair" "at yon chair". > This would make sense in any context where > such a noun phrase beginning with "ci" could not > be the object or subject, either for pragmatic reasons > or because another object or subject is present. > > go kom ci stol. > Probably "I eat at this table", *not* "I eat this table". > > go kom baluqi ci stol. > > Must mean "I eat grapefruit at this table". > > go kom ci baluqi. > > Probably I eat this grapefruit, *not* I eat at this grapefruit. > > go kom stol ci baluqi. > > Must be "I eat a table near this grapefruit", weird > though that may seem. > > I wouldn't want gjax-zym-byn to act like that, but > it seems to fit the ethos of ceqli tolerably well. Yes, but it's too broad. You're right. As it stands, "ci" has now two meanings. Ci dom. This house, short for "ci sa dom." This house. Dom ci. House is here. Short for "dom sta ci." But, as you've shown, letting it have a prepositional meaning also really ambiguates things. Now, one problem here is that the Loglan paradigm is vi va vu, which mean at-near-far. A different paradigm than ci ca cu. Therefore, even if I continued to allow ci to be a preposition, ca and cu wouldn't have any logical meaning as prepositions. The Ceqli equivalent to vi va vu, then, would be sta, jilu, juli. So to fool around with it: Go kom ci baluqi. I eat this grapefruit. Go kom ci baluqi ci. I eat this grapefruit here. Go ci kom ci baluqi. Here, I eat this grapefruit. Expanding all three so as to eliminate all ambiguity: Go kom ci sa baluqi. Go kom ci sa baluqi sta ci. Go sta ci kom ci sa baluqi. All this input is really clarifying my thinking. go fala zi! -- 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