Print

Print


Shouldn't each mapword either precede or follow the word
providing 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]
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:53:30 +0100
Subject: Mapwords

The recent discussion of parts of speech has inspired this idea for a very
weird one.

A mapword is a word whose entire purpose is to define the grammatical
structure of a sentence. It is a polysynthetic compound of particles, each
morp heme corresponding to the function, role and gramatical relations of
the words following it. Each sentence begins with such a monstrosity, the
rest of the sentence consisting of isolating semantic words which are its
arguments. 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 boy

The smaller boy bought the biggest dog.

Word order is simply mapword : everything else.

Of course, when you start using subclauses things can get seriously
complicated.

Any thoughts?



Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Em ails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.