On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 00:27:40 -0500, Andrew Nowicki <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Rex May wrote: > >>One thing I’ve considered is allowing a single phoneme to be >>used only in grammaticals and always in them. My first thought >>is “L”. Depending on the word-shape rules, this could produce >>sufficient grammaticals, I think. If you used Ceqli phonology, >>prohibiting L in lexicals, and requiring that L be now regarded >>as a consonant, you could have nCnV for lexicals and >>“L”nV for grammaticals. Thus, a plenitude of grammaticals >>would be available. La, lunu, liqwanoru, etc. And if these >>grammaticals were to operate as suffixes, they’d always be >>pronouncable. > >Andrew Nowicki wrote: > >>I doubt anyone understands what you mean. >>If you have a good idea, explain it in >>simple terms that a five year old child >>can understand. > >Rex May wrote: > >>Maybe it's the notation that's the problem: >> >>nCnV means one or more consonants followed by one >>or more vowels. >> >>"L"nV means the letter "L" followed by one or more >>vowels. >> >>Does that clear it up? > >It helps, but it is not clear if you define >grammaticals as prepositions and pronouns. Pronouns, probably. Prepositions, mostly not. > >Here is an example of the morphemes you are proposing: >gkdtaeaoae. No, that would be prohibited by lack of pronounceability. Just check Ceqli out and you'll see what I'm referring to.