Heterodox (re: Kevin)

Kevin wrote:

I think I like the rigid SVO order of Glosa. Is there a strong reason to allow other patterns? SVO seems simple. As long as there is a clear marker between S and V, and another between V and O, it is easy to understand. I think allowing other orders would make it harder to read.

I gut your thoughts, but I would advance certain reasons and remarks.

1. SVO seems simple, but it is not a pattern. It is an priority order.

SVO is an order of phrases in a sentence, OVS is another order. But what is a pattern? It is not an order of world or phrase. The pattern is an certain elision of phrase markers.

For example:

‘The cow eats’ is a pattern, cause a verb phrase marker is omitted.

Also the phrase “What is it?” is another English pattern, because it has not a verb

phrase marker and it has not a subject marker, and it has not an object marker too. It

has no marker at all. But… draw your attention to the fact, that this phrase has the

OVS-order (!!)

You ask: ‘Is there a strong reason to allow other patterns?’

But other orders (orders as patterns) are allowed in fact in all languages (in English

and Glosa too). For example, there is other pattern in your sentence above ;) The sentence ‘Is there a strong reason to allow other patterns?’ has VSO+O+O order!

Let’s place ~S~, ~V~ and ~O~ markers in’[]’: ‘[~V~] Is [~S~] there [a = ~O~] strong reason [to = ~O~] allow [~O~] other patterns?’

No one europian language has rigid order indeed. The rigid order is an illusion, cause usually people gut mix up an order with elision

in patterns and they can’t distinguish articles as homonyms of markers.

1. Posibility of free order is not a cancellation of the priority order. Let it be the SVO-order, as it was and as it is in many Europian languages. Other orders must be seldom in use and optional. I guess that subject marker should be omitted, if it was a first word in sentence. As a result we might use mainly the SVO-sentence, you wrote: ‘as there is a clear marker between S and V, and another between V and O, it is easy to understand’ .

2. If we wish to ponder over any ‘SYNTAX-BASED’ language, we should think with

categories of syntax, but not with categories of parts of speech.

The categories of sintax are: subject phrase, verb phrase (better: action clause), object phrase, and some other clauses (in detail).

The categories of parts of speech are: noun, verb, adjective, adverb and others.

Therefore the idea of NOUN MARKER of Ashby is contrary to his idea of SYNTAX-BASED

language! It is an conceptual demerit.