Vazâkatâvtiî - Wally Toxic

[nmn]

saála - to be able to
sáala - inferior

[Batailleur]

éteza - 1-year-old horse

[rickardspaghetti]

vazák - yellowish green. (keep in mind when you make color-words that horses have dichromatic vision, Xing.)

[Click]

etéza - frog

[rickardspaghetti]

Are you still doing this, Xing?

[Xing]

Yes.

I'll write something together during the holidays. In the meanwhile, could someone come up with a cool mood system?

[rickardspaghetti]

Yes.

I'll write something together during the holidays. In the meanwhile, could someone come up with a cool mood system?

Anything specific you're looking for?
And BTW, did we decide on what tense system to use?

[Xing]

And BTW, did we decide on what tense system to use?

Don't remember... But what about having past and present tense, and use the irrealis for future tense?

[rickardspaghetti]

And BTW, did we decide on what tense system to use?

Don't remember... But what about having past and present tense, and use the irrealis for future tense?

I was thinking commissive as future.

[Creyeditor]

And BTW, did we decide on what tense system to use?

Q#31
When it comes to verbal aspect, should the perfective or the imperfective be overtly marked?
a) The perfective.
b) The imperfective.
c) There shouldn't be any distinction between perfective and imperfective.

Q#41
Should there be a perfect?
a) Yes, and it should be used both resultatively and experientially.
b) No. It's enough with all the tenses and aspects that already exist.
c) Sort of; there should be a kind of perfect that may be used resultatively, but not experientially.

Q#33
What about tense?
a) There should be no tense inflection.
b) There should be separate future, present and past tenses.
c) There should be a distinction between future and non-future.
d) There should be a distinction between past and non-past.
(If we opt for one of b-d, there could be more than one future or past tenses - that might be decided later.)

Seems we have diverging preferences. The vote can continue 'til tomorrow. Remember that the vote continues for Q#33!

If I counted right d) has won.

[Xing]

The endonym of the language shall be vazákatavtií - "Language of the yellowish green horses"

[Xing]

Here is a pdf-draft of what we've got so far:

https://www.box.com/s/gyzvpjwv876yjtpgzei0

New question:

Q#42
Should the irrealis mood be used for indirect speech?
a) Yes.
b) No.

[rickardspaghetti]

Here is a pdf-draft of what we've got so far:

https://www.box.com/s/gyzvpjwv876yjtpgzei0

New question:

Q#42
Should the irrealis mood be used for indirect speech?
a) Yes.
b) No.

You mean renarrative?

[Creyeditor]

Q#42: a)

[Keenir]

New question:

Q#42
Should the irrealis mood be used for indirect speech?
a) Yes.
b) No.

such as this?..."i think it would be a good idea to do so, while positively skirting the matter at hand in this good discussion, and think highly of approving such an action to vote" ?

A.

[Xing]

such as this?..."i think it would be a good idea to do so, while positively skirting the matter at hand in this good discussion, and think highly of approving such an action to vote" ?

I don't really understand what your example is meant to show.

The question was about whether the content in indirect speech should be in the irrealis ("Peter said that John VERB.IRR") or not ("Peter said that John VERB").

[rickardspaghetti]

such as this?..."i think it would be a good idea to do so, while positively skirting the matter at hand in this good discussion, and think highly of approving such an action to vote" ?

I don't really understand what your example is meant to show.

The question was about whether the content in indirect speech should be in the irrealis ("Peter said that John VERB.IRR") or not ("Peter said that John VERB").

So it's hearsay evidential? In that case I'd suggest you use both. Use the realis if the source is trusted, use irrealis if the source is not trusted.
E.g. Peter said that John VERB(Peter is a trusted source)
Peter said that John VERB.IRR(Peter is not a trusted source)

[Xing]

It's not an evidential. It's plain indirect speech. AFAIK all languages have some means of expressing indirect speech, whether or not they have grammaticalised evidentiality. Some languages (Icelandic, German) regularly use some form of irrealis/subjunctive/conjunctive mood for indirect speech. Others do not.

One could of course have some middle way, and use different moods depending of various things, such as the trustworthiness of the report: "Peter said that John VERB.REALIS" vs "Peter said that John VERB.IRREALIS" (in which case we may doubt whether Peter really VERB or not).

[Ollock]

I don't really understand what your example is meant to show.

The question was about whether the content in indirect speech should be in the irrealis ("Peter said that John VERB.IRR") or not ("Peter said that John VERB").

So it's hearsay evidential? In that case I'd suggest you use both. Use the realis if the source is trusted, use irrealis if the source is not trusted.
E.g. Peter said that John VERB(Peter is a trusted source)
Peter said that John VERB.IRR(Peter is not a trusted source)[/quote]

I would steer away from this for the same reason I don't like the "untrustworthy source" evidential in Láadan. Grammaticalizing your trust in a source can create a socially awkward situation, and that might lead to a feature that does such being depricated fairly quickly.

[rickardspaghetti]

I don't really understand what your example is meant to show.

The question was about whether the content in indirect speech should be in the irrealis ("Peter said that John VERB.IRR") or not ("Peter said that John VERB").

So it's hearsay evidential? In that case I'd suggest you use both. Use the realis if the source is trusted, use irrealis if the source is not trusted.
E.g. Peter said that John VERB(Peter is a trusted source)
Peter said that John VERB.IRR(Peter is not a trusted source)

I would steer away from this for the same reason I don't like the "untrustworthy source" evidential in Láadan. Grammaticalizing your trust in a source can create a socially awkward situation, and that might lead to a feature that does such being depricated fairly quickly.[/quote]
Dude, grammaticalized back talking! What's not to like?