[YG Conlang Archives] > [katanda group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
> > LS 6.0 has: > > We can also create the true generic word "teava". By default, > this will be an AP/F-d action verb with the meaning 'to try', as > in "He tried to open the door" or "He tried the door". > > Since "-va" has no default semantics of its own, mightn't it be better > to simply not give this verb a default structure and require that it > always have a CCM and POS ending? Then it would be "teavanja", and > there would be no doubt as to its argument structure and part of > speech. > I decided a long time ago that, in any prefix-plus-va construction, the prefix would determine the default argument structure and dynamics. Changing it now would require lots of pain for no gain. Keep in mind that my only interest is MT, and that a computer has no problem remembering the default argument structure associated with "tea-". > > Can "no-" be added to the conjunctions "ne" and "nane", for example, > forming "none" and "nonane"? Does the first mean "not-and"? I don't > know what "nonane" would mean. > I don't even know what "not-and" means. If it's the same as "and not ...", then we don't need it. > > Are the possessives inherently definite, as the demonstratives are? > Yes. All deictic roots (including "-kwa" and "-mbe") are inherently definite. Regards, Rick Morneau http://www.srv.net/~ram http://www.eskimo.com/~ram