[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 02/10/2012 18:34:
If the inventory of unary operators should be kept to a bare minimum, why are we seeing suggestions nonchalantly floated that we should delegate three whole consonants for "fV" without any serious attempt to explain why?
I'm saying we should keep the inventory of unary operators to a bare minimum, not that we should keep discussion of candidate unary operators to a bare minimum. The point about "three whole consonants" is orthogonal to the question of the size of the inventory of unary operators. My more general point is that decisions about abbreviatory devices (that gain but a couple of syllables or so) should wait until the expressive capability of the language is more complete and completely understood.
Why has "d" been proposed when it seems plain & obvious to me that a predicate similar to "skicu" (with places rearranged) would suffice?
It's not plain and obvious to me that a predicate similar to "skicu" would suffice. However, in another message I've noted that a (dyadic) predicate similar to "co'e" would suffice. Of the current unary operators, I would keep "na" and "mV" and "vV"/"niukV" as useful even if inessential (tho vV is so useful it is effectively essential), and "fV" as essential. For the time being, I'd nix ni, nu, bV, dV, with the proviso that they might be restored at a later stage.
These consonants don't grow on trees.
We seem to have enough.
Mind you, technically speaking I proposed exactly _zero_ unary operators in the language for tense (as far as I can tell, <h> is not in the language and won't be). I suggested the stem "hik-" for this concept which is grammaticized in languages spoken by hundreds of millions of people around the world so that we can see what it might look like. That's all.
I think the language should contain /h/, <h>, but I acknowledge both that we haven't reached any consensus on phonology, or really tried to yet, and that you intended the use of h- to signal that the forms are put forward for discussion as something the language might adopt (with probably different forms). It's in exactly that spirit that I responded. --And.