Re: Let's get this party started...
Saul Epstein 
Sat, 9 May 1998 23:15:40 -0500

Quotes from: Rob Zook <lalaith*unicom,net>
Date: Saturday, May 9, 1998 8:53 PM
 
> At 09:55 AM 5/9/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote:
>
> >G: Is something bothering you, Barf?
> >   qa en'[bo]xe[ther]       e[thing]  s'hi           lahe    barfa
> >   ?  it-bother-PROGRESSIVE something you-ACCUSATIVE PRESENT
> >Barf-VOCATIVE
> 
> Two more bits of pickiness. [something] needs to get some kind of
> suffix to specify it as the the object doing the bothering to
barfa.
> Or, the object of barfa's bothering feelings. Otherwise it looks a 
> little confusing as to which is the subject.

OK. That's what the vocative suffix is doing. In addition to saying
"this entity is the addressee of the sentence" it implies, "this
entity is not the subject." A superformal morphology would translate
my e[thing] as "(some)thing-NOMINATIVE," where -NOMINATIVE is a
"zero" morph meaning "this entity is the subject."
 
> Also, since we have the form, <ni->+<-a> "not-A yes-B", and -a as a

> vocative suffix, should we not figure out some way of
differentiating
> the two?

That's been nagging me since the collapse of the "long-short" vowel
distinctions... 

> I suggest: -a vocative suffix, -ah, affirming suffix.

That works for me, though we'll need to make clear that you have to
really pronounce that h. -a' might work well also...

> If you want something like "I'm Klingon of course", how about this:

> the middle premise in an argument gets represented by <its>, and
the
> conclusion with <ahz>. Let's use those and the self-identification
> suffix in ST:III <-wimic>, and say:
> 
> its klingoffwimic ahzahz s'[foofool]a
> 
> its             klingoff-wimic                 
> [minor premise] klingoff-[I identify myself as]
> 
> ahzahz                  s' -[foofool]      -a
> [conclusion][intensive] you-fool[intensive]-[vocative]
> 
> "(premise) I am klingon (and the rest is obvious), you fool!"
> 
> <its> identifies <klingoffwimic> as the minor premise in an
argument,
> and the intensive reduplication of the conclusion marker, makes
> the ironical statement, "and the conclusion is obvious".

I like it. A sophisticated "duh!"

> >And the missing words:
> >
> >     bother/trouble
> >     thing
> >     ask
> >     forehead
> >     fool
> >
> >If anyone has candidate forms for these, speak up. Otherwise we'll
> >have Rob press some for us with his mystery machine.
> 
> How about if no one answers before Monday morning, I'll go ahead
and
> generate these words?

Sounds good.

--
from Saul Epstein
locus*planetkc,com
www,jccc,net/~sepstein
"Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi
     suraketca'."
                                        -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at