[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@g...> wrote: > > On 12/8/05, Rex May <rmay@m...> wrote: > > > > On Dec 8, 2005, at 7:10 AM, Jim Henry wrote: > > > > Maybe these problems are evidence you should > > > reconsider the wholen notion of reversing > > > the faloba phonemes for oppositeness. > > > It's nifty, but it seems it would make > .... > > > Or keep the reversal-pairs for a few of > > > the most frequent words, but use an > > > oppositeness affix for most others, > > > and make it clear that reversal-oppositeness > > > is not a productive process > > > I quite agree. I'm just in the process of looking at the vocabulary > > as it is, and seeing if some more reversals are indeed possible and > > desirable. I think I'm going too far with fooling with 'ten,' > > actually, it's just too handy a word. > > As far as I can tell you haven't really documented the > reversal process (or the use of "po-") much on the Ceqli > grammar pages yet. When you get around to it, > you might say something like this: > > "Some frequently occurring words for opposite qualities > are related to each other by reversing the order of the > faloba phonemes (leaving the cuaba consonants > as they are) .........give examples.......... > This process is not productive, however; these > pairs are made this way to give a mnemonic > relationship to some of the most common opposite > terms without adding an extra syllable. The normal > way to form an opposite is with the affix "po". ......... > .....more explanation and examples with po....... How's this look so far? http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/gramintro4.html > > > BTW -- this is from a while ago, but I don't recall > seeing it mentioned in the group archives. > Apologies if you've already seen it. > > http://blog.ravenblack.net/cgi-bin/comment.pl?stamp=1045202638 > Thanks! I'd seen it awhile back. That's definitely Ur-Ceqli!