Print

Print


Gary,

Sorry to go back to day one but I only just had the chance to really look
it over. In sentence 13( Ria wa gang ki juko se naga wa uro.) You separate
the definite article (wa) from it's noun (juko). Was this intentional? If
so what was your reasoning behind that decision?
On Jan 1, 2013 11:30 PM, "Ph. D." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 11:03 PM, Gary Shannon wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. Good question. I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens. It
>> may turn out that they conjugate for mood but not for tense or person.
>> That would be interesting. I also haven't yet discovered any of the
>> aux-verbs (beyond can; is able to; which sort of acts like the tense
>> aux verbs will.) Since the imperative moves the verb to the front it
>> probably doesn't need to be inflected, but that's the way it wanted to
>> be written, and so it shall be (until it isn't).
>>
>
> The language is looking good. I noticed that in sentences
> 27 and 28, the original McGuffy has auxiliary "may", yet
> you have translated "can".
>
> --Ph. D.
>