Re: new sentences
Rob Zook 
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:47:29 -0600

At 12:26 PM 3/20/99 -0600, Saul Epstein wrote:
>(Quotes MDriest: Friday, March 19, 1999 8:57 AM)
<snip>
>>[How to translate the if-construction?]
>
>Rob suggested a method adapted from the original AND and OR
>structures, which consisted of marking a statement and its IF
>condition with <ek>. I only marked the IF condition in my translation,
>because I just realized that if both are marked the same, we depend on
>clause order to tell which is the statement and which the condition.
>Something to ponder...

Hmm..,maybe Those other two logical connectives should have a slightly
different
syntax to indicate which is the condition and which is the assertion. Like:

ke-ek

<shi madjutoi spok ishke shi s'krioi iw'at iplakhi ishek>


>>3. Spock'at u-plak krupat'oram.
>>Spock's blood is (precise shade of) green.
>>[Your example Spock'at krupat'oram u-plak simply
>>designates the substance (Spock's green blood). Our
>>sentence follows the X=Y construction]
>
>In the words of Landru, "Do you ask a question?" I think you're partly
>right, though. If anything, <spokat krupat'oram uplak> looks to mean
>"blood whose color is Spock's Green." "Spock's green blood" should
>probably be <krupat'oram spokat uplak>.

In this case with the inflections, I don't see how the word order matters.


>>5. s'th'rIanDZHA Sharien'ti!
>>I will not kill you with the Sharien.
>>alternative: s'hi th'rIanDZHA Sharien'ti.
>>[Which sentence is (more) correct?]
>
>killing-Negative-Intention you-Patient Sharien-Instrument I-Agent
>
><th'riadjan s'hi sharienti>

Hmmm..,that reminds me, we need to establish an order of application to the
existing
suffixes.


Rob Z.