Posted by Kazper at 1:57pm Dec 30 '08The reason for secondary, simultaneous verbs and their events which are done by the [[A]] of the primary event may be because they ARE used to narrow down the primary event. They do not equal seperate events though but are encompassed by the primary and so the reason for the conveyance of the primary event is essentially their main reason as well.
The reason why these secondary, simultaneous events can narrow down the primary is because they are simultaneous with the primary and their [[A]] is the same as the primary's.
The reason for the lack of conjunction between main verb and coverb is to indicate that the coverb has the same [[A]] as the main verb and happens simultaneously with it and is being conveyed, along with any additional arguements it may have, to narrow down the main verb and the event in which it is part.
The last part is important because one could be doing two seperate events simultaneously but an observer may want to treat them both as primaries. So, the same [[A]] and simultaneity are not enough to make a verb a coverb.
In my language compound words will be phrases (one or more relative clauses) that will always be only part of the meaning. Compounds that represent the whole meaning should be pulled apart and expressed... [[periphrastically]].
Highlighted = predicate or arguement that is functioning as that that is highlighted.
Unhighlighted = arguements or predicate and arguements that are functioning as that that is unhighlighted.
~Predicate = that that describes a relationship or that that comments on A, AP or P.
I think the main reason I put tense in front of the [[predicate]] and not at the end of a sentence is because relative clauses, if they're finite, can have tenses. If the last arguement before the tense arguement had a relative clause with a tense then I would end the sentence with two tenses back to back.
There would have to be closers for the relative clauses and phrases too because the tense of the [[predicate]] could be mistaken for the tense of a relative clause in the phrase tail of the arguement preceding it if it doesn't already have a tense.
Phrase = phrase head and phrase tail
Phrase head = that that is relativized
Phrase tail = one or more relative clauses
Since there can be more than one relative clause and each could need to be closed having them encompassed in a phrase tail that has an opener and closer... helps identify the phrase head and so the entire phrase.
A colloquial translation is a translation in which the meaning of an expression in the source language is expressed in the commonest way it is expressed in the target language. The target expression may be... a [[plain]] expression or metaphorical or idiomatic (whatever an idiom exactly is. Some seem to use it as a synonym of colloquial. Others, of metaphor, for example, how is "spill the beans" an idiom and not a metaphor? Perhaps idioms are particular types of metaphors...)
A kinda cool idea is my take on Richard Morneau's classification scheme. He adds modifiers to classifiers. The modifiers have a few related meanings and the classifiers have one meaning that represents a category. The modifiers are added to the classifier to hint at the meaning (the modifier with one of its meanings being "two" added to the classifer for "vehicle" hints, pretty well, at the actual meaning: bike).
My idea is meaningless modifiers that add to classifiers only to distinguish between particulars in the category. These modifiers could be part of a fairly large set in a numerical order and used with an unlimited number of classifiers.
The classifier would just be terms (general name for morpheme, word, etc.) representing categories.
This method could be used as a quick way to make some words when desired, so particular categories could have "irregular" terms (there's an order of unorder so nothing should really be irregular).
Example: classifier = colour, modifier = hok and modifier = hog
colour
colourhok (blue)
colourhog (green)
red (an "irregular")
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
The reason why these secondary, simultaneous events can narrow down the primary is because they are simultaneous with the primary and their [[A]] is the same as the primary's.
The reason for the lack of conjunction between main verb and coverb is to indicate that the coverb has the same [[A]] as the main verb and happens simultaneously with it and is being conveyed, along with any additional arguements it may have, to narrow down the main verb and the event in which it is part.
The last part is important because one could be doing two seperate events simultaneously but an observer may want to treat them both as primaries. So, the same [[A]] and simultaneity are not enough to make a verb a coverb.
In my language compound words will be phrases (one or more relative clauses) that will always be only part of the meaning. Compounds that represent the whole meaning should be pulled apart and expressed... [[periphrastically]].
Highlighted = predicate or arguement that is functioning as that that is highlighted.
Unhighlighted = arguements or predicate and arguements that are functioning as that that is unhighlighted.
~Predicate = that that describes a relationship or that that comments on A, AP or P.
I think the main reason I put tense in front of the [[predicate]] and not at the end of a sentence is because relative clauses, if they're finite, can have tenses. If the last arguement before the tense arguement had a relative clause with a tense then I would end the sentence with two tenses back to back.
There would have to be closers for the relative clauses and phrases too because the tense of the [[predicate]] could be mistaken for the tense of a relative clause in the phrase tail of the arguement preceding it if it doesn't already have a tense.
Phrase = phrase head and phrase tail
Phrase head = that that is relativized
Phrase tail = one or more relative clauses
Since there can be more than one relative clause and each could need to be closed having them encompassed in a phrase tail that has an opener and closer... helps identify the phrase head and so the entire phrase.
A colloquial translation is a translation in which the meaning of an expression in the source language is expressed in the commonest way it is expressed in the target language. The target expression may be... a [[plain]] expression or metaphorical or idiomatic (whatever an idiom exactly is. Some seem to use it as a synonym of colloquial. Others, of metaphor, for example, how is "spill the beans" an idiom and not a metaphor? Perhaps idioms are particular types of metaphors...)
A kinda cool idea is my take on Richard Morneau's classification scheme. He adds modifiers to classifiers. The modifiers have a few related meanings and the classifiers have one meaning that represents a category. The modifiers are added to the classifier to hint at the meaning (the modifier with one of its meanings being "two" added to the classifer for "vehicle" hints, pretty well, at the actual meaning: bike).
My idea is meaningless modifiers that add to classifiers only to distinguish between particulars in the category. These modifiers could be part of a fairly large set in a numerical order and used with an unlimited number of classifiers.
The classifier would just be terms (general name for morpheme, word, etc.) representing categories.
This method could be used as a quick way to make some words when desired, so particular categories could have "irregular" terms (there's an order of unorder so nothing should really be irregular).
Example: classifier = colour, modifier = hok and modifier = hog
colour
colourhok (blue)
colourhog (green)
red (an "irregular")
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~