Re: [glosalist] roberti3 (P.P.)

At 12:46 PM 7/27/03 -0700, Nicck Heempshall wrote:

— Robin Gaskell <drought-breaker@…> wrote:

….. ***“Qe, tu gene ge-nati in un agri?”

           ['Did you get born in a field?']  

This ~gene ge-X~ not the correct form in Glosa. The standard form would be ~Qe tu pa gene nati in un agri?~

** Mi vide ke na, a-nu, habe u problema ko u No-akti Voka. EG [I see that we still have a problem with the Passive Voice.]

   Akti Voka                         No-akti Voka

U feli pa sed epi u tegu. U tegu pa gene ge-sed epi, ex u feli. 1.
[The cat sat on the mat.] [The mat was sitt-ed upon by the cat. “ “ “ sat “ “ “ “ ]

                       ALO   Epi u tegu, u feli pa sedi.+
                            [Upon the mat, the cat sat.]

                       ALO   U tegu pa gene sedi epi, ex u feli. 2. 
                         -> the mat did get sit upon by the cat
                   
                           [The mat   was   sat upon by the cat.]  

                       ALO   U tegu pa gene sedi ex u feli.*
                         -> the mat did get sit by the cat
                           [The mat did get sat by the cat.]  
                          [[The mat was sat by the cat.]]

E-co, 1. Habe u xeno forma ex England-lingua: u Pa Participla. U-ci Glosa uti pa gene (ge-)introduce ex Ron Clark, kron an detekti u generali nece pro un alterno forma anti u norma Akti Voka. An pa proposi un uti de “ge-“ ante un Akti-verbi, te muta id in u Pa Participla pro Glosa. [Has a strange form from English: the Past Participle. This Glosa usage was introduced by Ron Clark when he found a general need for an alternative form to the normal Active Voice. He proposed the use of “GE-“ in front of the Verb to change it into a Past Participle for Glosa.]

     +  U-ci frasa ne eqa u korekti No-akti Voka, ka id habe u 
        (O)SV ne OV(S) ordina.  Anti-co, de u tetra alterna-ra, id
        habe u maxi boni soni.
       [This sentence is not proper Passive Voice, because it has 
        (O)SV not OV(S) order.  However, of the four alternatives, 
        it sounds best.]

     2. De u bi sintaxi korekti forma, u-ci ma boni veni ex u
        glosa, e probabili eqa u ma populari uti.  Sed il ne es ali
        Pa Participla.  Posi il ne es u loka intra Glosa pro u-ci 
        England-lingua forma, sed mi vo have u flexi de expresi; qi
        u Pa Participla dona.
       [Of the two syntactically correct forms, this rolls off the
        tongue better, and probably is the more popular usage. But
        there is no Past Participle.  Possibly there is no place in
        Glosa for this English-language form, but I wish to have
        the flexibility of expression that the Past Participle
        gives.]

      * Na pote probabili dice u-ci es no-korekti.  Ko un England-
        lingua versio, uno-ra per defini es ab: mi kredi id plus es
        ab ex u Glosa versio.  Anti-co, mi habe asura, ke intra
        poli lingua, te dice ~U feli sed u tegu,~ es bi norma e
        korekti.  Mi habe un este; id ne es sufici boni pro Glosa.
       [We can probably say this is incorrect.  With the English 
        version, something is definitely missing: I believe it is
        also missing from the Glosa version.  However, I am sure 
        that in many languages, to say "The cat sat the mat," is
        both normal and correct.  I have the feeling it is not
        good enough for Glosa.]

Ko apologi, mi pa kausa konfusi ko u-ci exempla: un ‘EPI’ de ~epi u tegu,~ ne eqa u mero de u fini Nomina-verbi Minor-grega; reali id eqa u mero de un Akti-verbi Minor-grega, ~pa sed epi.~ IE sedi = to sit sed epi = to sit upon. [With apology, I caused confusion with this example: the ‘EPI’ of ~epi u tegu,~ is not part of the final Noun Phrase; really, it is part of the Verb Phrase, “sat upon.”]

U ma simpli exempla habe nuli kompositi Akti-verbi! EG

U ju-an fago u pani. –> U pani gene fago ex u ju-an.

                    ALO  -->    U pani gene ge-fago ex u ju-an.

 S   -  V  -   O                   O   -     V     -  (S)

[The boy eats the bread.] [The bread gets eat(en) by the boy.]

%%%%%%%% Nu mi puta de id, mi pa gene u formula:- Uti un idea de elide [= elision], mi sugere ke pro norma uti, u No- akti Voka ne involve u Pa Partikula forma, sed pro exakti textu, id pote gene uti. U concepa de elide, per defini, permiti na omiti plu struktura de lingua; qi na ne nece uti - tem tenu u semani. Si na ne muta u semani, sed simplifi u frasa, plura verbi pote es elimina sine lose. Kron na vo don u fo exakti semani, plu-ci ge-elide verbi pote es ge-adi.

[Now I think of it, I get a formula:- Using the idea of elision (~elide~ = to elide, elision), I suggest that for normal use, the Passive Voice does not involve the Past Participle form, but for exact text, it can be used. The concept of elision, by definition, allows us to structures of language, which we needn’t use - while maintaining the meaning. If we do not change the meaning, but simplify the sentence, several words can be eliminated without loss. When we wish to give a very exact meaning, these elided words can be added.]

Saluta,

Robin