Paul O. Bartlett | Re: [LFN] La gramatica completa

• Autor: Paul O. Bartlett (“bartlett22183”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] La gramatica completa
• Data: 2005-05-14 21:07
• Mesaje: 1191 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

On Sat, 14 May 2005, George Boeree wrote:

> On May 13, 2005, at 7:36 PM, Paul O. Bartlett wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> Sometimes derivational affixes look a lot like grammatical ones.  But
> "dansante" is an adjective derived from the verb "dansa" [...]

     Which is precisely what a present participle is, and participles are
considered inflected forms in any grammatical discussion I have ever
encountered.

>                                                     The -nte and -da
> suffixes are no different than the -able suffix.

     Nor any different from the inflectional ending -(e)s for nouns or
the -ing and -(e)d inflectional endings for English verbs.  There is no
doubt in my mind that -r, -nte, and -da are inflections.  We will just
have to agree to disagree on this point.  However, I think we can and do
agree that the language works regardless of what term we use.

> > [...]
>
> "She is dancing" is not a grammatical structure.  It is no different
> from a sentence like "She is beautiful."

     Nor again from the progressive tense in English, which *is* a
grammatical structure, consisting of a copulative verb and the
(inflectional) present participle.

>                                           It merely conveys a sense of
> the continuative

     Which in fact is an imperfective aspect, formed with the inflection
-nte.  Again, we will have to agree to disagree and say that the
language functions (although users of languages without such grammatical
structures may find them strange to use).

> [...]                                                      As I have
> said, the grammar of LFN is almost entirely isolating, like creoles and
> pidgins (and languages like Indonesian, Hawaiian, etc.).  [...]

     With four residual inflections, just as English, which is mostly
isolating, retains a few residual inflections.  Again, the language
works.

> > [...]

> That's the thing I don't understand about your critique:  LFN is not
> weighted strongly towards the wensa languages, except in vocabulary.

     Its grammar heavily corresponds with Indo-European, and especially
WENSA, grammars.  LFN reminds me of nothing so much as an odd Spanish.

> It may seem so in that all our members at this point are in fact
> westerners and so use LFN in ways that are influenced by their native
> languages.

     Of course, this is natural and common.  Nothing wrong with it as
such, as long as we recognize that other people from non-I-E language
families may bring other linguistic habits to the table.  It will be
interesting to see how the language will be used if it spreads to some
non-I-E speakers.

> [...]      But LFN does not have a grammatical perfect/imperfect
> distinction, nor a subjunctive, conditional, continuative, accusative,
> etc. etc. etc.

     I simply disagree in part.  But again, the language works.

--
Paul O. Bartlett