Why I wrote "pronouns" in the second paragraph is beyond me.

That should read "postpositions".


----- Original Message -----
From: C. Brickner <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, 18 May 2019 16:26:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: to flee, to leave running, or to run away

Adpositions are a bitch, aren't they?

In Senjecas I decided to go the route of many postpositions.

The use of the tones allows me to do that. For example, from the verb

"þa̋la", honor, award, is derived the postposition "þála", in honor of.

From the noun "nőmo", home, is derived the postposition "nóma",

at the home of (the French 'chez'). There are "original" postpositions

also like "pósa", after, behind. In the grammar I name these derived

and non-derived postpositions. Senjecas has at present 88 postpositions.

Now I'm working on a new conlang for a very primitive culture. I want there

to be only some basic pronouns. It's rather tedious work. Anyone know

of a list of basic pronouns? When I finish the grammar and start translating,

I'll have to use the 'as-a-result-of' type of postpositional phrase.


----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, 18 May 2019 14:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: to flee, to leave running, or to run away

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

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

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,
entering some object noun (into the room) toward or away from me, you,

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?