Print

Print


I wrote an article 
<http://fiatlingua.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/fl-000053-00.pdf> that 
you may find relevant for this question (^^)

On 2019/05/18 13:47, Gary Shannon wrote:
> Another small choice to be made. I noticed that in different places in the
> translation of Alice use different combinations of verb+adverb or
> "comprehensive" verb to express certain ideas. Should I pick a single
> consistent way and stick with it, or is it, would you think, OK to keep it
> mixed.
>
> Obviously we can do it several ways in English:
>
> He walked past me.  OR He passed me walking.
> He ran out of the house. OR He left the house running. OR He fled the house.
>
> My first impulse is to wrap the adverb/preposition and verb together in a
> single comprehensive verb that expresses both. That makes the text shorter,
> but at the cost of a much larger vocabulary. since instead of a single verb
> with a bajillion adverbs and prepositions (go away (leave), go on
> (continue), go down (descend), go up (ascend), go through (??), go under
> (??), go into (enter), go out of (exit)...,stroll away, walk away, run
> away, ...) there would need to be a separate verb for each possible
> combination of verb+adverb[+preposition], and that's liable to be a lot of
> verbs. And then there's the matter of avoiding the "Basic English"
> so-called 850-words cheat, not to mention avoiding the "coincidental" use
> of the same verb-adverb-preposition combinations as English. (Do you
> "glance into a book", do you "throw your eyes upon a book", or do you
> "brush the book with you eyes"? I tend to think first of the English, and
> second, of the Spanish way of expressing such things, and I'm trying to
> force myself to be more original and "unexpected" in my design choices.
>
> Then there's the possibility of combining the verb with adverb+preposition
> affixes into a single compound word that could then be parsed into its
> components. That would mean fewer verbs, and a simple set of compounding
> rules.
>
> There could be affixes meaning:
> toward the speaker
> away from the speaker
> toward the spoken to
> away from the spoken to
> toward a third party
> away from a third party
> traversing some object noun (across the field) toward or away from me, you,
> him...
> entering some object noun (into the room) toward or away from me, you,
> him...
> ...
>
> Then the various verbs could be go-to-me, go-from-me, go-to-you,
> go-from-you, go-to-him, go-from-her,... go-from-me-across (the street)
> go-to-him-inside (the house),...
>
> But then, if the affixes could be parsed into their component adverbs and
> prepositions, wouldn't writing such compound verbs as single words, really
> just be an orthographic convention?
>
> How do other conlangs handle path, manner, and prepositional arguments?
>
> --gary