[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
The more I think about it, I like the notion of the 'second object', in the third argument place, being marked by 'ko' when out of place. Would it be too Loglany to have: go ja xikagozo Parizo. I go to Chicago from Paris. Where the second object has the 'from' sense? And I'm still thinking about relative clauses. to pa ja xikagozo sa jino sta ci. The man who went to Chicago is here. fine to zi pa don go sa hon sta ci. This one's a problem. "go" is in the wrong place. I supposed that's easily solved with a "ko": to zi pa don ko go sa hon sta ci. However, what about "The man I gave the book to is here"? to go pa don hon sa jino sta ci. Any ambiguity in that? The rule that's forming here seems to be that the modified noun occupies the last argument place in the relative clause. Which is a good reason to limit things to a maximum of two objects, I think. Well, that's for objects in the relative clause. If they're subjects, it works this way: to pa kan to hon sa jino sta ci. The man who read the book is here. Which is perfectly straightforward. I'm still wondering, tho, about: I have the pencil John wrote the letter with. How the heck do we say that? We can say: go ten to kreyon hu bezu janzo por skri to pwey. I have the pencil John used to write the letter. but if we really want to use the preposition setup as is in the relative clause, can we? He sang the song for me. da ben go pa ziq to ziqka. I am the person he sang the song for. go bi to jin hu...? Any ideas?