[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May <rmay@...> wrote: > > All kidding aside, if Tceqli nouns are defined as meaning "is a X" > just as adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions are defined as "is X", > will it screw anything up? > > go djin. I am a person Two things to think about: 1) "go to djin" = 'I am the person' still has to be okay, and I see no problem there. 2) I found it difficult going in Loglan once we got away from simple copulatory sentences, in part because of this verb-nature of "nouns". I think I'm okay with it now (I was only 17 at the time), but just to check: "djin sur ga" = lit. 'be_a_person be_on_top be_big' = a) a person on top is big b) a person is toppishly big c) person-like toppishly big As long as these three words stand as separate but intersecting claims about the universe rather than as modifiers to one another, then (a) is the proper interpretation. I remember now. I had a hard time seeing which Loglan words were subordinated as modifiers and which ones were providing the core structure of the sentence. Loglan has a way of showing this, but it wouldn't stick with me. Tceqli's modifier particle "sa" seems a more natural way of handling that. > > go sur. I am on top > > go ga. I am big > > It would, of course, have the same loglan effect as: > > go dja. I go, or, I am a goer. > > We would lose, of course, the ability to have "go fiq to hon" I > finger the book. But I think that's overrated anyway. Yeah. You could productively use the morpheme for 'to do' to create a compound for 'to apply fingers to; to finger'. These days, in English, if 'to finger' hadn't already been coined, it might well be coined as 'to fingerize'. > > One advantage to this is that with nouns becoming verblike, we would > be able to more honestly give them arguments: > > go pamo zi, helukozo. I am your father, Luke. But one thing to avoid here, and I know we talked about this a few years ago, is excessive predefinition of arguments. (Some Loglan predicates had _five_ places!) Nothing wrong with prepositions to clarify argument roles. > > ciba bayn go. This is my leg. > > Again, I'm mostly concerned about whether this will screw anything up > that we already have. > Seems okay to me, but let's wait for jimzo's reaction. > Now, Loglan has the feature of the word 'je' that has this effect, > translating to Tceqli: > > ciba bra go. This is my arm > To bra je go, da peyn. My arm hurts. > > And this would therefore be more specific than "gosa bra, da peyn" > because the latter could conceivably refer to an arm associated with > me in another way. Like a nurse would say that the patient's arm > she's dealing with hurts that way. A stretch in this case, but maybe > useful elsewhere. You lost me there. :-} > > Reactions? > > Oh, I'm looking for a good word for 'intelligent,' preferable > reversible. > "kina" [from 'keen'], reversing to "kani"? --krawnzo