[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 25/08/2012 00:41:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
Mike S., On 24/08/2012 03:13:
>
> There would be relatively little homonymy and no need for a kludge if
> there were a way to transliterate names from the vast array of
> natural languages with relatively little change. I gather that
> transliteration is not a primary aim of the language, but
> nevertheless I believe it would be useful and convenient for Xorban
> speakers to have a relatively faithful and easy method of
> transliteration. Using a designated phoneme like the glottal stop
> (properly spelled) {'} would allow that. That way, recognizable words
> like {'spageti'-}, {'betxoven'-}, {'joxanezberx'-}, {'kimono'-},
> {'tiranosawrus'-} are possible that cause little need for fussing or
> guessing. To xorbanize, simply drop/alter the vowels and drop
> glottals -> spgt-, btxvn-, jxnzbrx-, kmn-, trnsrs- and
> modify/compound if there is a collision with an existing predicate.
>
> Or, maybe the first {'} could be a CV as you suggested, and the
> second {'} always preceded by a vowel. That would be a little longer,
> but easier to pronounce.
If <'> is an allograph of <q> (if <q> is /?/), that would indeed be a nice way of marking quotatives (i.e. mentioned linguistic material), and one function of quotatives could be, as you suggested, in a construction meaning "X is name of Y".
Yes, <'> is /?/. I would say that name quotatives enclosing a name X
produce a two-place name predicate expressible in metalanguage as
"x"(y, z) which means "Y (is known as X to) Z".
OK. Let it also be the stem of a one-place-predicate such that "x"(y) means "y is the linguistic object x". Since argument suffixes can't be omitted, the number of argument suffixes serve to disambiguate the stem.
> > The only question is about using the commonly used variables of shape
> > "V" - if we are also doing things like using free variables to create
> > the passive voice so to speak, we have to be careful about that. The
> > sentence "na la xrja nlceka" intended as "pigs aren't liked", under a
> > certain context might mean "the woman with the red hat doesn't like
> > pigs". So maybe we should set aside or some "V'V" or "Vy"or "aw" for
> > the purpose of an explicitly unbound variable indicating something
> > like "zo'e".
>
> {zo'e} is a terrible idea, because it's so unhelpfully vague. But a V'V for "le co'e" -- "him/her/it/them" might be a good idea. Maybe the rule would be that V'a is interpreted as a definite reference unless explicitly bound.
I saw you and Xorxe working on csna'e-type bindings last night, but I
haven't figured it all out, but "what we're discussing" seems to
match my idea for a set of assignable discourse topics.
Strictly speaking, definites needn't have already been directly discussed; rather, the hearer can identify which referent the speaker has in mind. --And.