[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:There's no need to change it because the grammar already allows only
>
> ca'iko grko ce'iko mlto, sa prna zmddjcaka'i sa prna zmddjcake'i.
>
> ... adds five and removes three, adding two syllables total. But we lose
> the informational structure suggesting that a'i and e'i are co-topics.
> Another issue is that for reasons I will explain elsewhere, I think it would
> be preferable to change the grammar so that only one illocutionary marker
> occurs per sentence. But that's a side issue.
one illocutionary marker per sentence (ignoring parenthetical
sentences which get their own illocutionary marker).
What you have
there is actually four sentences:
(ca'iko grko) (ce'iko mlto), (sa prna zmddjcaka'i) (sa prna zmddjcake'i).
The current grammar will in fact parse each sentence as a
parenthetical to the previous one, which may be a good or a bad thing
depending on how you look at it.
> Here's one more interesting example with "e'e".I notice that you are already doing what I expected would happen soon
>
> co ptfe'e xe sme jnve'eke
> Father, what do you think? (vocative)
> = As far as you father, what do you think? (topic)
enough, which is to use an indirect question form without an explicit
question illocutionary to turn it into a direct question. The 'proper'
way to ask a question would be something like:
(co ptfe'e) (ca'u xe sme jnve'eke)
O Father, I wonder what it is that you think.
These are two sentences, each with it's own illocutionary force, even
if you don't include the "ca'u".