And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> > Two: agent and patient.
> >
> > Further, S7 will add adjuncts and use serial-verb constructions.
> I wonder why two cases will not suffice, then. There are infinitely
> many semantic roles -- as many semantic roles as there are arguments
> of different predicates -- but there is no need to mark them, as far
> as I can see.

Hmm, again, good point, especially because I want the cases resemble
stems in the lexicon.  I will think about that.  Thanks!

> > Is there a webpage describing what Livagian does?
> No, but hopefully there will be within the next decade.

I'm curious to read that. :-)

> > As to right-dislocating the V-part / fronting A or P, I havn't yet
> > decided anything.
> I'll be interested to know what you decide.

I'll let you know then.

> > Do you have a good name for it?  'Stripped stem that cannot be
> > used in isolation' in one word.
> My suggestion would have been "root", but you explain in another
> message that that term is already in use. You can't really expect to
> have readymade terms to cover the particular peculiarities of your
> language.

Sure.  On the other hand, I should avoid the use of already
well-defined terms for things that are different.

I use 'core' for the reduced thingy now and 'affixed core/stem' for
the attached thing.  That seems reasonable.

> freely make up English terms, with the eventual aim of replacing
> them by Livagian terminology.

Before that, I should perhaps make up a good name for the language.
'People's language' I could call it, so that it has the same name as
some 99% of all conlangs (I know this is an exageration). :-)

> > > Why should evidence be mandatory?
> >
> > Because I like it. :-)
> >
> > I should have noted that the primary design goal is personal
> > taste.  This includes violation of all other design goals...
> Personal taste is not to my personal taste... (At least not in
> nonnaturalistic conlangs.)

HAHA! :-) That's the difference in design goals of S2 and S7.

Did you like Tyl-Sjok's structure?  It seems to match many of your
preferences: it only has two cases, everything else by SVC (or
something like that), it does not violate design goals because of
personal taste, it has no affixes, but only function words, it has no
derivational morphology, only syntax.  But no means of shifting.

> I don't think that compositionality in wordforms is needless.

Ok.  Agreement there.

> But I don't think one needs rules of derivational morphology that
> productively yield new words with fully compositional or transparent
> meanings.

No, one does not need them.  But I want them. :-)

> My inclination is to allow compounds, blends, portmanteaus, and
> suchlike, but to treat these as essentially etymological -- the
> products of diachrony rather than synchrony.

I do not like this way, because the lexicon needs more entries.  This
converts grammar complexity to lexicon size.  I like a simple rule
better than ten new lexicon entries.

And going your way, I'd probably introduce more personal taste than I
want, because I'd be inconsistent in composing words for sure.  Of
course, inconsistent would not be defined then, since there would not
be rules.

As to tense affixes: I don't know how to further clarify my point,
really.  It's the same as with morphology: idiomatic vs. generic.  I'd
like tense affixes to be more idiomatic than the underlying stem.