[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 14/09/2012 02:00:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: We have all the V'i defined as lV'i csna'eko'i, so maybe i'o instead: i'o := li'o csko'eki'o
I presume we're not currently seeking consensus on eventual phonological forms, since it makes sense to leave that until the phonology has been decided on and until the morpheme inventory has been decided on. So I take it that you're suggesting interim forms (which may happen to coincide with your longterm preferences too).
I think we should drop "prsckj-" in favour of "ck-", defined as: cka: A is a property/relationship ckake: A is a property of E ckakeki: A is a relationship between E and I and so on. So: A: ca'i xa sma le ldre pnxake B: la mlta cki'oka I think we may also need a predicate version of x-, which could be xx-: A: ca'i la mlta xxa B: le ldre pnxake
xx is an abbreviation for x + ck, I take it: ca'i xa sma li mlti ckika ca'i li mlti xxi ca'l xa sma li pi mlti ldri ckika ca'i li mlti lu ldru xxiku --And.