On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:18:08 -0800, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Well, for everyone's delectation and probable total confusion, I've put up
Prevli syntax  (minor format
corrections yet to be made, but the text is OK)

Ooh, very nice.  

>I've come to agree that ambiguity need not be totally resolved-- especially
in a language like Prevli, which is usually not written (I haven't explained
about that yet-- the only alphabet they know is the Kash alphabet (formerly
syllabary), it's ill-adapted to Prevli, they don't much like the Kash people
and their world, and the elders and shamans haven't seen much need to
introduce writing.)

Hm, how standardised is Prevli?  At a couple points you contrast widely used
constructions with other variants regarded as correct -- does this sort of
thing actually happen much in languages without a tradition of standardisation?