On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Scott Hamilton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have some thoughts inspired by some of the word forms, though a few
> word forms might have to be modified.

Bee is aware that word forms coined early on might need to be modified
as our ideas about phonotactics and self-segregating morphology are
clarified.  Bee suggests that  any words already used in sentences be
preserved in the lexicon with an [archaic] tag.

> My ideas:
> * syllables in roots must be C(C)V except that the root end in a
> consonant (making the final one C(C)VC). That would delimit the root
> from suffixes (first coda in a word is the end of the root).

If clusters are allowed at the beginning of a syllable, and coda
consonants at the end, and some of the same consonants are allowed in
both positions, then for instance


could be parsed as one root of two syllables CCV.CCVC or as two roots
CCVC-CVC.  We would need to restrict coda consonants from occuring at
the beginning of a syllable.

If we keep fricative + nasal initial clusters, then we must restrict
fricatives from occurring at the ends of roots.  This would require
relexing words such as "znolsfe" and "zluv".

> * Non-inflecting particles have no specified forms.

If suffixes and particles have no restriction on their form, then they
could blur into the root and create ambiguous morpheme boundaries.
E.g., if some suffixes are VC, then adding them to a CVC root would
create a CVCVC word which could be parsed as all one root.  Or if a CV
suffix is followed by a CCV suffix, then it could look like a CVC root
followed by a CV suffix (if we don't fix the problem with fricatives
at the ends of syllables).

We have so many vowels that we might restrict some to occurring in
roots, others to only occur in suffixes and particles.  That would
solve this problem.

> This would require modifying the following proposed words: tah, myvu, ma

And "kizhul" and "tho-fe".

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Scott Hamilton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Verbs - Suggestions
> Marked on the verb (agglutinating suffixes)
> * aspect
> * valency changing operations (voice, applicatives) (optional)
> Template: root-aspect-(valency)
> Auxiliary verb (following the verb, as per the Spider's weave - i.e. syntax)
> * optional
> * root indicates mood
> * optional suffixes for tense
> Template: mood-(tense)
> So yeah, aspect markers for verbs are obligatory. If you want to
> explicitly mark tense, then you have to use a mood auxiliary
> Aspects:
> * durative (this includes instantaneous actions)
> * continuous
> * gnomic
> * habitual
> * perfective
> -fe would be durative

Looks good.

> Tenses:
> * remote past
> * mid past/indeterminate past
> * immediate past
> * non-past

What did you thinks of the swift feathered one's suggestions about
present/very recent past being marked for time of day?

> I am looking for suggestions on mood.

* indicative
* polite, diffident version of indicative (maybe "it seems that"?)
* interrogative
* imperative (mainly commands)
* optative (incl. suggestions, desires, polite requests)

> Also, how do people want to
> handle negation?

Perhaps with a negative auxiliary verb, i.e. a verb meaning "to not do"?
This might require a series of two or more auxiliary verbs when we
negate a mood other than indicative.  The tense marker would go on the
final auxiliary verb.

Jim Henry