[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
> It is true that they both alone can be a simple-tense-modal; that
> isn't relevant though, since KI alone is also a simple-tense-modal,
> and it certainly isn't analagous.
Let's see. BAI, PU, ZI, ZEhA, TAhE, ZAhO, FAhA, VA, VEhA, VIhA, CAhA,
CUhE and KI all share one property: their members can act as tags by
themselves. No other selma'o has that property. That is a meaningful
category.
Now, many of these selma'o are nai-able. It is not unreasonable to
expect them all to be nai-able. If some are not, it is not unreasonable
to expect there to be a reason for why they are not nai-able. "Just
because" is not a satisfactory answer for everybody.
(As an aside, {kinai} would be much better to cancel stickiness than
what CLL proposes.)
> A lot of things make sense that aren't worth allowing.
If allowing them simplifies the grammar, it is not a cost, you'd
have to eplain why they are worth complicating the grammar to
disallow them.
> Like I was saying though; I think the burden is on the positive
> claim that it should be allowed. "There's not reason not to" doesn't
> count as a reason for it.
To me, there can't be a better reason than that.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com