User talk:Brefic

Hi, welcome to Conlang! Thanks for your edit to the Brefic page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Uberfuzzy (Talk) 15:10, 22 March 2009

Hello
hello, i would like to talk with you as i noticed some error that is unnatural for languages in your language =3 EmperorZelos 09:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to talk. What is the error? Brefic 23:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * you should look at these:
 * http://angli02.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel02/
 * http://angli02.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel02/Appendix3.html
 * and more precicly Universal 7. If in a language with dominant SOV order, there is no alternative basic order, or only OSV as the alternative, then all adverbial modifiers of the verb likewise precede the verb. (This is the "rigid" subtype of III.)
 * these shows grammatical things about normal languages taht is universal or very common in languages and i noticed your language is SOV but subtype is SVO, it need to be OSV as subtype since that is how we humans do itEmperorZelos 09:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the SVO sentences essentially use the object as the "verb", with the S-V phrase as a modifier (it can be analyzed as a Noun-Postposition-Verb sentence, but these categories hardly mean anything in Brefic to begin with.) The meanings of SVO and SOV sentences aren't identical, and I warn about the differences in the section about SVO without particles.

And OSV is perfectly acceptable in Brefic as long as the case is either marked with a postposition or obvious from the kinds of things that the nouns are. Brefic 19:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * again having SVO with standard SOV is unnatural as you can readEmperorZelos 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no logical reason to forbid the construction "There is which is by " and it just so happens that the Brefic equivalent of this construction "looks like" an SVO sentence. There are important differences from a true SVO structure, as I explain with examples in the section about this construction.


 * Furthermore, I think you might be misreading Universal 7 to begin with. It's worded in a confusing manner, but if you look closely, it's just an if-then statement about where adverbs can appear in rigid SOV/OSV languages, not a statement that all SOV-dominant languages can only allow OSV as an alternative. Brefic 00:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * it seems pretty clear to me, dominant SOV order means no other order option except for maybe OSV, and the logical reason would be, we humans dont like it apperently
 * If that's what you think it means, then you're reading it wrong. There is no "then" before the phrase "there is no alternative basic order," but there is a "then" before "all adverbial modifiers...".  Just look at the sentence again.  You'll see how this affects the meaning.Brefic 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)