Print

Print


From:    Jeff Goguen <[log in to unmask]>

In response to this (which is a fantastic question, by the way) euko
actually refers to the preceding subclause. To show you how to translate
"John who writes the book is a great author." let me explain it this way.
"The book that John wrote became a bestseller."
-This is most smoothly translated from Kioshu as: "John wrote the book and
it became a bestseller."
So, for "John who writes the book is a great author." translated from Kioshu
most smoothly would be: "John wrote the book and he is a great author."
Kioshu: "John nik useshunk in tereu euko kikoitereuin tivosh."

>>>

sorry, i'm completely lost now. the last example on your website is definitely:

John nik in tereu useshunk euko ubichuvi tivosh.
"The book that John wrote is a bestseller."

Now you say that there should be "and" stuck somewhere. Is euko that "and"? If
so let's compare your examples:

John nik useshunk in tereu euko ubichuvi tivosh.
John wrote the book and (John? the book?) is a bestseller.
John nik useshunk in tereu euko kikoitereuin tivosh.
John wrote the book and (John? the book?) is a great author.

How do you tell whether euko refers to John or the book? Do you rely on context?
And if euko refers back to either John or the book, then it refers to the head
of the subclause, not to the subclause itself. Although from what i can see now
your lang would not feature subclauses but only one resuming conjunction euko
meaning "...and the subject (= John) or object (= book) precedent is/does...".
The grammar part of others' conlangs is my favorite and i hate not understanding
it.

Mathias
www.geocities.com/kalatunu/index.htm