In a message dated 9/10/01 11:05:35 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< I might expect "pa" to be an affix, but otherwise this is fine.  You

might want to consider that when a certain part of the verb is projected

outside, then the affix is dropped from the verb itself, too. >>

    Yeah, I realized this; I'm now working with affixes, not adpositions.  If
the affix is dropped in the verb, I want it to leave something behind, so
that there's agreement.  For instance, you have to say "usted quiere" and
not, say, "usted querer", even though the "usted" clearly indicates the third
person singular by itself.  But hey, wouldn't that be interesting...?

(P.S.: I'm replying to both e-mails here from Thomas and Jesse.  Oh no, wait!
 Was it Thomas who was leaving...?  I should really pay more attention to
these things...)

<<  G|arituo    sunesnā  a   hneirgwanten                 ather

  son.DAT  bill.PL.ABE  give.REL.3SgPfRe.Qu  father.ABS

  'The father who, they say, gave his son some money'>>

    So this here is a relative clause.  What would it look like if it were a
part of a sentence, e.g., "The father, who, they say, gave his son some
money, walked across the street" or "I saw the father who, they say, gave his
son some money"?

<<This is the only thing that seems unreasonable to me.  Relative clauses

are, by their nature, infinitely embeddable, and so if you include them

in the verb you will wind up with infinitely long words.  Of course

they'll never occur, but even a twice-embedded clause would be very

unweildy, and those aren't uncommon at all.  (What I mean by

"twice-embedded" is something like this: "I like the man who brought me

the food I ate", which is [I like the man [who brought me the food

[(that) I ate.]]])>>

    As for realism, I think you're definitely right, and probably won't end
up doing it.  Nevertheless, I'm going to try it out and see what it would
look like.  Man, these words could go on for days!