Print

Print


----  Original message from:  Rex May ----
> It sure can.  Question is, does this form make more logical sense
> than the opposite would?  Does anybody know of a language that
> works the opposite way?  I'm reasonably sure that Chinese is similar
> to English in this sense.  My instinct tells me that this is the right
> direction to go, but I'd love to hear other ideas about it.
>
> To elaborate, here's a set of Ceqli sentences.
>
> Go ten xyen.  I have a dog
> Go ten kom karn de xyen.  I have a eat meat type dog.
> Go ten karnkom de xyen.  I have a meat-eating dog.
> Gode xyen bi karnkomdi.   My dog is a meat-eat-animal. (carnivore)
>
> Actually, English behaves exactly this way, except that it doesn't have
> the front-modifier sentence possibility shown in sentence number two.
> That's a Mandarin form.  Ceqli also has a back-mod form that means
> the same thing, with 'hu'.
>
> Go ten xyen hu kom karn.   I have a dog that eats meat.

Isn't it redundant to give in this case four options to say the same thing by putting the same words in different order?

1. Go ten kom karn de xyen.
2. Go ten karnkom de xyen.
3. Go ten de xyen kom karn.
4. Gode xyen kom karn.

The following two sentences also convey exactly the same meaning as the previous ones.

5. Go ten xyen hu kom karn.
6. Go ten xyen. Da kom karn.

In my opinion there is redundancy but, on the other hand, isn't it redundancy that makes a language and its poetry rich?

--
Risto Kupsala