And that's why I say if Itlani does it it can't be wrong, because Itlani
works as a language. You can communicate in it with others (like Tony).
It's a good language.

I am fairly comfortable in saying that all natlangs break some rules
somewhere (even if it is only this one :-) and mostly because Linguistics
is still a young enough science that we don't know what all the rules
really are and if some undocumented language out there somewhere breaks
them), so I wasn't too worried about my demonstratives, but it is still
very comforting to get examples of natlangs and conlangs that do the same.
-S

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:56 AM, James Hopkins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Ubimiizhe, ta Itlanit shol idalán nesmidit karizhe ra-onyara! Sholnirdiór
> ra-onyaru idakín pashni ta kaalilu vey ta zakhishilu korunyaru (ishyaru u
> idá kulizhe ranirit onyara). Etikhyaru u chadit savansholú rafrelit onyaren
> veybá yagusizhe ta "odnokovó" ra-azburyaren. Djufi-bolo nobshetya makayaren
> idaova kiinova vutit eyparú harvolyaren. Bezyara u idá ta pureri resh ta
> Itlanit sholey onyara: "Kesh nobshetya makayara idaova kiinova ruvya
> vemyaru?" Kashá khay, iskemyara.
>
> Djurumyaru u ta arsoronit kavisuesea degilya ra-makayaru.
>
> So Itlani is not so weird after all! I am not a linguist so I do a lot on
> instinct and intuition alone (not at all scientific, I know). I suspect
> that many natlangs are deficient and/or break the "rules" in various ways
> and still manage to communicate what their speakers want to say. That seems
> to be my criterion for Itlani, "Can it communicate what I want to say?" If
> yes, it's working.
>
> I apologize for not being able to contribute to the more technical
> conversations. :0
>
> Itlani Jim
>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 5:42 AM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > This is also the case in Udmurt, which is still mostly SOV (there are
> > cases when nouns get moved to after the verb though).
> >
> > The Finno-Ugric languages were historically SOV, although the word order
> > of many modern languages has changed drastically. Nevertheless, we still
> > see demonstratives occurring before nouns in all the languages I’ve
> > studied, even those with suffixed definiteness markers.
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Feb 23, 2018, at 05:19, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Technically in Japanese you can also put demonstratives after any
> > > modifiers, though it sounds a bit more literary that way.
> > >
> > > Thus:
> > >
> > > kono takai yama
> > > this tall.ADNOM mountain
> > >
> > > Or
> > >
> > > takai kono yama
> > > tall.ADNOM this mountain
> > >
> > > Both are valid for 'this tall mountain'; the second is somewhat higher
> > > register.
> > >
> > > 2018/02/22 21:55 "David Peterson" <[log in to unmask]>:
> > >
> > >> It's the usual way, if the demonstratives function similar to
> modifiers:
> > >> the modifiers come first.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[log in to unmask]
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I have a question regarding word order and OV languages.
> > >>>
> > >>> The latest draft of the new language is mostly verb-final. The basic
> > word
> > >>> order is SOV. The structure of the verb phrase itself is
> > >> Subject-Proclitic
> > >>> - Verb - Inflection. The inflection part codes tense, evidentiality,
> > >> person
> > >>> of subject and person of object. While the subject proclitic marks
> > person
> > >>> and number, the inflection only marks person. Also, in some cases the
> > >> forms
> > >>> of the inflections have fallen together, so that without a subject
> > >>> proclitic you have no idea if the inflection -ñe means non-past,
> second
> > >>> person subject, no object OR recent past, direct evidentiality, first
> > >>> person subject, no object OR recent past, direct evidentiality, third
> > >>> person subject with first person object. Since subject and to a
> certain
> > >>> extent object are marked in the verb phrase itself, the actual noun
> > >> phrases
> > >>> for S and O do not have to be expressed.
> > >>>
> > >>> The language also has copulas, and those come between the copula
> > subject
> > >>> and the copula complement.
> > >>>
> > >>> Within a typical noun phrase, the word order goes: (adjective) noun
> > >>> (generic noun) (postposition). I also have demonstratives. My
> > preference
> > >> is
> > >>> to put the demonstrative first: dem adj noun generic. I suspect this
> is
> > >> not
> > >>> the usual OV language word order. But I like it. Especially when I
> have
> > >>> something like demonstrative relative-clause relative-pronoun noun
> > >>> generic-noun resumptive-demonstrative COPULA noun.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, the question: how unnatural is it to have a demonstrative at the
> > >>> beginning of a noun phrase in an OV language? And should I care?
> > >>>
> > >>> (OK, that last is a rhetorical question).
> > >>>
> > >>> -S
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Sylvia Sotomayor
> > >>>
> > >>> The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>



--
Sylvia Sotomayor

The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.