[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 24/08/2012 23:40:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Mike S.<maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: a'a implicitly bound by la'a mslfa'a e'e implicitly bound by le'e rslfe'e o'e implicitly bound by lo'e smo'e a'e implicitly bound by la'e je mna'aka'e mne'eka'e V'i implicitly bound by lV'i csna'ekV'i
Note that that csn- is outside the scope of anything else in the sentence.
E.g. "I hereby ask whether she believes it is black"
is
"la'i csna'eka'i I-hereby-ask-whether sa jnvo'ika xkrafa'i"
Maybe the {l} quantifier always has this maximally wide scope.
Are there going to be any rules on where they will be inserted in the "standard" dialect and how they will be written, metalinguistically if not otherwise? FWIW I prefer /m�lt-/ to /ml�t-/ for "cat".or even /m�l�t-/. The schwa is not meant to be phonemic, so wherever the speaker chooses.
I think the schwa is phonemic. [m@l] forms minimal pairs with [mal] etc. --And.