Print

Print


Also people on CWS have asked me to eliminate the nonstandard parenthetical notation that I use in glosses... How would I notate the actual positions of the consonants without reducing glossing efficiency too much?

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Callum Cooper Nissen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> All of your guesses are correct... What I meant by that sentence was that... if one were to say "I like something", (the sequences for like and I are l,r,m and g respectively) you would insert g into the second "argument slot" of l,r,m, forming l,r(g)m... replace ,s with i (s with a and )s with u.
> 
> I did mean argument slot but case sounded more standard... what standard term would i use... i generally try to avoid custom usage... do you have suggestions for any of the other terms that i use?
> 
>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> On 10 April 2017 at 16:10, Callum Cooper Nissen
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I tried to post a PDF but it didnt work... Heres my newly completed grammar
>>> 
>>> http://conworkshop.info/view_article.php?ns=905b30e58c83ed534908b082c7185c03
>> 
>> That first paragraph is exceptionally dense. It sounds like you are
>> describing a templatic morphology system which uses vowel patterns
>> exclusively for inflection rather than for derivation, which is cool,
>> but I find it very difficult to understand what all of those infixes
>> are actually for. Like, what does
>> 
>> "Occupants of cases are infixed thereto, prefixed by "a" [AI], and
>> suffixed by "u" [AF]."
>> 
>> mean? I don't have anywhere near enough context that close to the
>> beginning of the document to unpack all that.
>> 
>> It feels like you are using "case" in a non-standard manner as well,
>> which is confusing. I *think* that what you mean by "case" is actually
>> "argument slot"?
>> 
>> Reading further, it looks like subjects and objects are directly
>> incorporates inside the controlling predicate, correct? If that
>> embedding can go arbitrarily deep, I hope this isn't supposed to be a
>> human language!
>> 
>> Your determiner system is pretty neat. I don't think I've seen
>> anything like that before.
>> 
>> -l.
>