how about importing the sanskrt dvandva system ( where
bala|m=child + nara|s=man becomes balanarau=man and
child )

you could say 'i see dog-and-bird' ( which could be in
the dual if you have one )

this way you only have one object word, but you have
two entities referred to.

 --- Marcus Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Wed,
24 Jul 2002, JS Bangs wrote:
> > > There is to be ONE verb ONE subject and ONE
> object per sentence, when these
> > > requirements are met, a new sentence is needed,
> even if it describes the same
> > > object/subject/verb.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'm deeply
> suspicious of it. All
> > languages have ways of coordinating subjects
> ("John and Bob left") or
> > verbs ("John sang and danced") or objects ("John
> likes wine and cheese").
> > You seem to be disallowing such things, which is
> not only unnatural, but
> > counterproductive. No one's going to go around
> repeating whole sentences
> > when they could just invent a word "and" and get
> rid of most of the extra.
> Don't be so sure on this. I am in the preliminary
> stages of work on a
> Mixtec language in which it does not seem to be
> possible to coordinate
> objects. When I tried to get a translation of "I see
> and a dog and a bird"
> (which we could at the moment), I got something more
> like "I see a dog and
> I see a bird." I have never been able to get objects
> coordinated without
> repetition of the entire sentence. Of course, I
> still have to do more work
> on this language, and there may be some semantic or
> pragmatic effect at
> play here.
> Marcus

Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts