First of all, welcome to the list, Mat! I suppose you don't mind my jumping
in to the discussion.

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 06:16:51 +0000, Mat McVeagh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>From: Amanda Babcock <[log in to unmask]>
>>  I started a totally noun-based trigger language
>>last year;
>OK what is a trigger language? H.S. Teoh also mentioned that phrase.
>> now I'm trying to get a new one off the ground that has only two parts
>> of speech, noun and verb, which pingpong between each other with each
>> derivational affix :)
>What I thought would be cool is a system that totally did away with the
>conventional categories and created whole new parts of speech.

Yep. The catch is, you'd have to come up with a whole new set of terms,
which would have to be explained. For example, in some of my would-be
languages, most words can be used _syntactically_ as verb (head of clause),
coverb (adverb/adposition), adjective (qualifier), or noun (head of phrase)
with 2 or 3 cases, regardless of the word is _semantically_ a verb
(denoting an action), an adjective (denoting a quality), or a noun
(denoting a set of entities).

I'd like to see what you come up with for your language.

(snipping the rest, since all I have to add is of the AFMCL variety)

Jeff Jones