[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 15/09/2012 22:04:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:So I'd go for either assigning an unassigned C to interjections, e.g. q, or else partioning cV so that c + certain Vs are or begin interjections while c + the other Vs are or begin illocutionaries that have a complement.q would conflict with the use of q...q- for arbitraty form stems.
Yes. I think t & z are currently unused, tho if one of these is tentatively assigned to marking an implicit x3 argument and the other is used for intranstive illocutionaries, that's all the consonants used up, until some are released by the nVk method.
I agree with the definition of parenthetical, "any complete sentence inserted between any two words of another sentence", and I agree with the definition of "complete sentence". But I don't accept that illocutionaries would only be sentence-initial, so the presence of an illocutionary popping up mid-sentence is not itself indicative of a parenthetical beginning. I don't see this as a problem, mind you. It just means you can't tell that something is a parenthetical until the parenthetical is complete and you find it is not part of the containing sentence.But if c- doesn't necessarily begin a sentence, something like "la bcda na ca fgjo'e klma" would be ambiguous between "ca fgjo'e" inserted into "la bcda na () klma" and "na ca fgjo'e" inserted into "la bcda () klma".
I accept that parentheticals have to begin with an illocutionary -- if necessary with a parenthetical-marker illocutionary. --And.