Print

Print


On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:28:04 +0900, MacLeod Dave <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>It's not hard. When you understand what's going on through word order
>you don't need the -n. When it's not obvious then you do.
>I like eating bread.
>Me prizas manjar pano.
>Now let's say that I'm thinking about bread first and then I decide to
>say that I like it.
>Pano...n, me prizas manjar.
>
>> Je 04.56 atm 2006.06.26, Dave MacLEOD skribis
>> >Whenever you feel like the word order-n changing.

What I find interesting is that the original sentence need no -n, so far as 
I can tell. If you out it into Ido, you wouldn't have a direct object in 
subject or ambiguous territory, since there's no way "the word order" could 
be the subject of "changing," so the -n shouldn't be there at all.

Actually, if Couturat had been as clever a monkey as he thought, he 
would've let the default orders be SVO, VSO, and OSV. That way it would be 
possible in all normal Euro-style senteces to avoid marking the accusative, 
since OSV is common not only for topicalizing/emphasizing (as in your bread 
example) but also for relative constructions:

la homo, qua[n] me vidis   vs
la homo, qua vidis me

Under an OSV default, the first would be be unmarked, as would

Quo[n] vu facas?  (Not to be confused with

Quo facas vu?)

This would relegate the marked accusative to the work of poets and 
especially convoluted writers. Run it past Idolisto; I'm sure they'll be 
delighted.

Steve