Print

Print


On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:27:23 -0200, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I received two interesting opinion besides yours. One was from Daniel Bowman
>and the other from Virgina Keys. The former proposes separating the
>subordinate clauses from the main clause by creating 2+ clauses, e.g., "I
>saw you hugging the girl", turning into "I saw you. You hugged the girl.".
>It is an interesting solution, the only problem is that the language will be
>quite repetitive and, probably, boring for one to speak complex sentences.
>The latter opinion, Virgina Key's, on the other hand, was a very synthetic
>one, making the object attached to the verb, e.g. "I saw you hugging the
>girl", turning into "saw hug-girl" (I think she had this idea based on the
>"one morpheme per word" sentence on the first e-mail. I think she didn't
>read the next e-mails of the thread :-( ). Anyway, the problem of this
>proposal is that I would have enormous words combining verbs and nouns
>("give sentences" would be worse... LOL). It's important to note that my
>phonotactics is very simple -- I wanted to create a language easily
>pronounceable, but not that easy to compose complex sentences.


I'm glad that you found my idea interesting, even if it doesn't work for
your lang. I did say it didn't have to be a compound tho. The idea wasn't
based on one morpheme per word, just on taking English (since I don't know
your lang) and dropping the undesired words then making the result
comprehensible. If I think of any other possibilities I'll let you know.