On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>

> ​
> Seems to me these still involve more pat
> ​h/location info than is
> strictly necessary, if you're *really* trying to pare it down. The
> definition for "fo" is already nicely abstract, but it seems like
> "áda" and "da", and maybe even "wa", could all be collapsed into one
> word (since motion towards vs. motion away, vs. no motion at all can
> be encoded in different verbs).
> -l.

​That's a good point. That's the disadvantage of thinking in English while
working on conlang syntax. I was using the English verbs in my head, which
don't embody the motion direction I was imagining. On the other hand, there
is a limit to what you can encode into a verb. "He rode the train to
London." would need a verb like "He rode-to London by train (on the
train/via train)." (Or does it mean "He rode the to-London train."?) I
suppose you could have a verb "He trained-to London." That has a precedent
in "The students were bused to the football game."

And I still need to be able to distinguish between "A book _of_ poetry" and
"A book _about_ poetry."​

​and "A book _by_ H.G. Wells" and "A book _about_ H.G. Wells" and "A book
_of_ (belonging to) H.G. Wells." It seems to me that requires three
different prepositions right there: "by", "about", "belonging to".​

​In the past I've pretty much started out coining words right from the
beginning. This time I'm trying to be more systematic about the design
before I start chiseling my lexicon in stone., so that leaves me stuck
thinking about the syntax and grammar using English lexicon. I need to be
really careful to avoid the relex pitfall. (I suppose I could think about
it with Spanish lexicon, since I'm reasonably fluent in that language, but
that carries with it the same relex risk, just from a different direction.)