Shouldn't each mapword either precede or follow the wordproviding semantic content?This would have precedent (to a degree) in various human languages.~~ Anything below this line is NOT from me ===> Ted Saratoga ~~--- On Mon 07/21, Peter Bleackley < [log in to unmask] > wrote:From: Peter Bleackley [mailto: [log in to unmask]]To: [log in to unmask]: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:53:30 +0100Subject: MapwordsThe recent discussion of parts of speech has inspired this idea for a veryweird one.A mapword is a word whose entire purpose is to define the grammaticalstructure of a sentence. It is a polysynthetic compound of particles, eachmorpheme corresponding to the function, role and gramatical relations ofthe words following it. Each sentence begins with such a monstrosity, therest of the sentence consisting of isolating semantic words which are itsarguments. Here's an example (in English gloss).n-pat.adj-attrib-pat-sup.vb-pt.adj-attrib-agt-comp.n-agt dog big buy small boyThe smaller boy bought the biggest dog.Word order is simply mapword : everything else.Of course, when you start using subclauses things can get seriouslycomplicated.Any thoughts? _______________________________________________ Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails! Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.