Print

Print


--- Trebor Jung <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ah yes, this is something I've been wondering about!
>
> Latenkwa (Rick Morneau's MT IL) has two prefixes for
> 'absence' and 'opposite'.
> My loglang Kel uses no for absence and na for
> opposites. Look at this excerpt
> from the grammar of my loglang:
>
> "... Binary opposites are those opposites where
> anything that is 'not X'
> is 'the opposite of X'; binary opposites are formed
> with the modifier
> na 'opposite of'. The modifier no means 'not X but
> not necessarily Y': no
> maye 'not good' does not necessarily mean 'bad'."
>
> Thus: maye 'good' -> na maye 'bad'.
>
> But how do you express things like the following...?
> stove -> non-stove (= absence of stove)
> refrigerator (= opposite-stove) -> non-refrigerator
> (= absence opposite-stove)
>

Except that in this case (the infant conlang Lepayu)
the prefixes are meant only to apply to verbs, not to
nouns.  The absence of stove is "stove not-exist in
this place"

> Should I say no na - combining "absence of" and
> "opposite of" - to say 'non-
> refrigerator'?
>
> --Trebor
>
> LOL, Andreas. Good one :)