NPIV ( says: kuno
1 Kuneco: la tagoj feliĉaj de nia kun’.
2 Tuto de homoj kunaj: en ŝaŭmantan ĝojon fandiĝis nia kuno (W).


> Absolutely. I've focused mainly on the two-category language because it's
very interesting, and because FL is defined in terms of it. Can I call the
two-category language Hodor? :)

There's already a language called Hodor so let's call it something else. For lack of a better name we could talk about FL1 and FL2 where the digit indicates the number of formal lexical categories ‒ so here we'd be talking about FL2.

> The topic isn't a seeing, since below you argue the acc isn't a house.
Rather, the seeing has a topic, like the house has an acc (which has that
same topic).

Right, so to be precise, house is an object, not an accusative. This distinction somehow seems to fade in FL1. I wasn't thinking about it, but you're right, seeing is not the topic, but seeing has a topic, and that's basically what we happen to be talking about. Someone suggested 'clause' and that could actually be possible as well.

The conjunction 'topic' is semantically pretty neutral; you could also say 'apropos'. And the apropos or topic doesn't have to be the action. Hence the O/S/V order is free, but I'm not sure I should mess with the word order at this point…

In any case if you use 'action' (or possibly even 'verb') as a conjunction, the functional word class of 'see' will be verb. A kinda similar thing occurs in English when you use different particles for a word that could be a verb or a noun, e.g. to hit vs. a hit; the particle indicates the functional or contextual POS. But formally they are only nouns, or as Logan said, there's no distinction between noun and verb.

The difference is though that all particles are supposed to work the same way semantically. If not, there's been a mistake, but it's normally just a question of the dictionary semantics.

> "The with is what's with the dog"... Isn't it more like, the dog has a
with, which can have other things? I don't see how the with could "be"
other nouns mentioned.

I think both definitions should work fine. Compare the following:

The in (interior) of the house is what's in the house.
The above of the house is what's above the house.


The house has an in (an interior) that can have other things, e.g. people, furniture.
The house has an above that can have other things, e.g. birds, clouds, airplanes.

> I think where I stand right now is, I like Hodor but I'm not sure I
undesrtand it; and I think I understand FL but I'm not sure I like it. But
I'll let you know what I really think once I really think something.

OK so you like FL2, and you probably understand FL1? That's pretty much what I've been hoping for a lot because so far I've been the only crazy one, and it hasn't always been easy. Now that there are two nutcases, maybe it'll prove to be contagious :)

I didn't think FL2 would be a speakable language, but when I saw it, I was surprised how tolerable it turned out. I also think that it could work as a kind of mind twister that could perhaps improve your thinking skills. As mentioned before, it may be wise to keep the structures shallow so that the language can actually be usable. However…

English and French have such intricate orthographies that schools arrange spelling contests. How about a parsing contest in FL2? How deep structures would you be able to handle without a pen and paper? (Count me out, though!)

The truth is that anyone could use FL2 better than me. There are just three or four rules, and it's up to the user to work out what's right. Anyone can prove me wrong about anything I've told and propose a better wording according to the given rules. What I like about the whole series of FL languages is that there's no other authority than their built-in logic, and that logic is based on how the logical mechanisms work in minimalistic structures. So it's all about discovery.