[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I'm thinking about a tad bit of loglanization for Tceqli, specifically Loglan's use of the devices po, pu, and zo, described here: http://www.loglan.org/Loglan1/chap3.html#sec3.10 Now, it seems to me that Tceqli 'ke' already operates very much like Loglan 'po'. So starting with the Loglan examples: (1) Da po mrenu X is a manhood. ciba ke djino. This is a state of being a man. (I'm using ciba,'this thing' instead of 'da') (2) Da po de mrenu X is Y's manhood (i.e., the state of Y's being a man). Ciba ke djanzo djino. This is a state of John's being a man. Moving on to the 'pu' idea, which up to now has called for suffixes in Tceqli. I tentatively coin 'jo' as equivalent to Loglan 'pu': (3) Da pu gudbi X is a goodness (i.e., a property of something's being good). ciba jo haw. This is a goodness. (4) Da pu de gudbi di X is a/the property of Y's being better than Z. ciba jo djanzo haw cem bilzo. This is a/the property of John being better than Bill. [I insert cem here because the haw doesn't have the 'comparative' sense of the Loglan gudbi -- should it?] And so to 'amount': Here I coin 'ji' (5) Da zo blanu X is an amount of blue. ciba ji blu. This is an amount of blue. (6) Da zo de blanu X is the amount of blue in Y (i.e., the amount of Y's being blue). ciba ji blu hu caba. This is the amount of blue in that. Then with event-ahstraction we have a contrast between: djanzo dorm. John sleeps. ciba ke dorm. This is an event of sleeping. ciba ke djanzo dorm. This is an event of John sleeping. ................ I -think- this makes for a more clarified logic structure. It won't, given the notion of minimalist Tceqli, lengthen anything much, but it provides for expansion into unambiguity, thus. go vol dorm > go vol ke go dorm. So, at least, I think I've clarified that 'ke' can do all the Loglan 'po' things. And I like the idea of the 'jo' abstraction, and using the same mechanism to arrive at it may or may not be a good idea. I need input on that. Is it better to say to jo haw or to have a -ness type suffix for the abstraction? We definitely need one or the other, because 'haw' in a noun sense means 'good thing' or 'good-be-er', so it really can't bear the burden of also meaning 'goodness.' And the 'amount' thing, 'ji' -- I don't know if it makes sense or not.