Rex May wrote:
> Z was one smart cookie.  I think some of us (especially me) tend to obsess on the trees 
> (or the leaves on the trees) and forget the forest.
> 
> Anyhow, this whole question has currently been front and center in the Ceqli adventure.  
> I've decided that there will be only two-place verbs in Ceqli, to break the Loglan 
> paradigm, hence, no verbs have two objects.
> 
> And Ceqli uses coverbs like Mandarin, that is to say, it may act like a preposition, but in 
> form it's a verb.
> 
> go don hon.   I give a book.
> go sila ze don hon.   I arrive-you give book.
> 
That looks a little confusing to me because it's the book that arrives, 
not I. I would prefer:

     go don hon sila ze.   I give book arrive you.

although it may not be clear whether the subject of "arrive" is the main 
subject "I" or the preceding noun "book".

> It might be worthwhile to consider what I've done with Ceqli, in that a lot of verbs are 
> going to be transitive that aren't transitive in most Western languages.  
> 
> go voy Xikagozo.   I go-to Chicago.
> go vyo Denverzo.   I come-from Denver.
> 
> So voy means go to, and vyo means come from.   This eliminates the need for extra 
> prepositions and/or coverbs.
> 
> And Ceqli has two extremes — unambiguous and terse.  In the former:
> 
> go sila zi sa don te hon.
> 
> I arrive you (separator-particle for modifiers before modifieds) give (indefinite noun) 
> book.
> 
I'm not sure how easy that is to parse. I would read "go sila zi" and 
then "sa", so I would think that "go sila zi" qualifies what follows. 
Then I would read "don" and need to parse that again as "go", followed 
by "sila zi" qualifying "don". I think ...

Maybe it's just unfamiliar.

> In the latter:
> 
> go don hon zi.
> 
> I give book you.
> 
> My thinking being that tho the 'zi' is an indirect object, what else could the sentence 
> possibly mean?   For talking to people.  For talking to computers, use the unambiguous 
> form.
>