Print

Print


1)
noun and pronouns have qualifiers: adjectives
adjectives have qualifiers: adverbs
verbs have qualifiers: adverbs
adverbs have qualifiers: other adverbs
sentences and clauses have qualifiers: adverbs

the above may be qualified differently in other nat/conlangs but the point is they
can be qualified, but what about conjunctions and prepositions? Can they be
qualified by other words? If so what part of speech would these be?

2)
prepositions can function as alternatives to noun/adjective case inflections.
what about freestanding particles that function as alternatives to verb conjugation,
mood, or participle affixes or internal changes? What part of speech would these be?

David Barrow

Harald Stoiber wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:18:31 EDT, David J. Peterson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >But, to address your basic concern, no, you don't have to be locked in to IE
> >classifications.   Polynesian languages have basically two categories, Semitic
> >three (well, Arabic, at least), and doesn't Lojban have only one?
> >Anything's possible, if you can imagine it.
> >
> >-David
> >
>
> Yes, and about simplifying an existing system much has been said.
> But: What if somebody wants to create an artlang just for himself,
> saying: I want more parts of speech! Many ways of minimizing and
> combining parts of speech have been pointed out. What, on the
> contrary, is the known, thought or perceived maximum for their
> number and diversity? Sounds like a stupid question? Maybe. But
> since its about artistic freedom of conlanging, this list
> should be the right place to discuss it. ;-)
>
> So what do you think?
>
> Who has already implement more parts of speech than a strictly
> "optimized" (whatever that means) or "standard" (whatever _that_
> means! *g*) grammar would have suggested - even more parts of
> speech than the respective type of grammar would typically have?
> Or another way round: Did you already split up a grammatical
> concept in two because you volunteered to have another part of
> speech?
>
> In curious patience awaiting your answers,
>
> Harald
> :-))