Re: Extra-planetary translation project MDriest Mon, 11 May 1998 18:09:29 -0400 >>Some questions... >>[...] >>en' is therefore alone in the >>sentence and is therefore automatically the subject. >Sort of. I meant to say something about this earlier, when you asked >why in my "quote" I say or "Surak he-saved." I've >been treating these pronoun particles, when attached to other words >this way, as person- and number-indicating prefixes, like the >suffixes in English and other Indo-European languages: > sav + e =3D 1st person singular > sav + est =3D 2nd person singular > sav + eth =3D 3rd person singular >The little pieces on the end, attached to the root, make the >resulting words mean, "I save, thou savest, she saveth," >respectively; but you can't leave the little pieces off just because >you happen to be naming the subject in the sentence rather than >relying on pronouns. = >>I really don't understand why this e[thing] is necessary? >That was my response to Rob's notice that without an explicit >subject, the sentence could be taken to ask about the bothersomeness >of an understood subject, rather than about the existance of some >subject which happens to be bothersome. And since I intended the >latter, I made the subject explicit. I agree that this is not >strictly speaking necessary, but I also think that it results in a >less ambiguous sentence. I agree. Vulcan should be an exact language without doubt as to what is meant. Leave the 'bits' in. >>BTW, why did an' change to en'? >Oh, you ARE paying close attention. I meant originally; was> >a typo. = I thought so. an' would have been illogical. Thanks for the compliment. Excerpt from another posting: >> Also, since we have the form, +<-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... = Did they? When and why exactly did Vulcan loose the long-short vowel distinction? Because no one used them anyway? Or should I ask 'no man'? Regarding the affirmative suffix, why not use a:? It means 'yes' already. = I would like to stress the need for a symmetrical system. We should be able to make male nouns from female nouns and the other way around. For example, what is the male form of T'Sai? Instead of disputing that with each and every word we come accross, we should have an algorithm for that. Preferably not too complicated. Do we have a male-female distinction yet? I've never seen it but we clearly need it. = The simplest way to do it is to loose the T'. Somehow that doesn't feel right. Anyone? >"Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi > suraketca'." I never commented on this in public but it is a wonderful quote. I of course still do not agree with you on the spelling but in other aspects, you're absolutely right. May all your lives be illuminated, Sorahl =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Logic is like food. = You cannot live without it but in the end it is not the answer.