rémimifa wrote:I was just blindly following Gayjewski's rule the passive. What sort of ambiguity do you think it would create?
Hmmm, I'm not coming up with a concrete example, but I was thinking along the lines of saying something like, "I want the washed rag" vs. "I want to the rag to wash (my car, for example)." Of course this latter example could be worded differently as "I want to wash my car with the rag," and in cases of ambiguity, I guess something like "mido" ("for") could be used. I'm sure there are better examples though...
rémimifa wrote:That wasn't clear to me either. I guess I tried to roughly follow French word order, guessing that is probably what Sudre would have intended?
Yeah, I do the same. I just use French grammar as a starting point. I guess we can start there and then see where Solresol goes.
rémimifa wrote:I agree about using misisimi or dosoldola in that last phrase - those prepositions again! Which do we use for languages?

I think this is where we can make a decision for neo-Solresol, because we really don't need both (Garrison, where are you?

). My preference is for "dosodola," but I have real reason for favoring it.

And then, besides that...prepositions are a big issue for me. With physical objects, we can come to some sort of consensus across linguistic backgrounds ("on a table," "next to a rock," etc.), but with abstract usage, finding consistency is harder. Why even say "in" a language? Why not "on"? Or "next to"? Or "by"? Where is language actually?

But I suppose I'm just opening up a can of worms with this, so feel free to ignore my musings.
rémimifa wrote:I looked in the forums and Sudre's book for how to deal with proper nouns and I gave up

what I thought was a short, easy translation turned out to be tricker than I expected!
Proper nouns are to be determined. I think for now, your method is fine (la solresol English). The only problem I foresee if we want to start employing the other methods of expressing Solresol (e.g. colors, numbers, etc.), then we need to fit proper names into the 7-syllable schema. Right now the best option, I think, would be to derive new names for proper names based on combinations of already-existing Solresol words.
Shido wrote:Maybe, this theme will become most popular theme in all forum!
Heh.

Yeah, activity on the board ebbs and flows. But here's to getting more activity in 2013!
Shido wrote:Unfortunately, full list of Solresol’s prepositions (even of such words, which is the most necessary) doesn’t exist. It is the matter of future.
We could probably make one up. You've done a pretty exhaustive list of words in the past, and I have my own list of high-frequency words for quick reference, so coming up with something for prepositions shouldn't be so bad.
Shido wrote:In this sentence Russian-speakers use equivalent of domifare in the beginning of the phrase

(like in Solresol’s translation of Remimifa!). Sometimes this verb is omitted or replaced by local adverbs or another adverbial modifiers of place.
Hurray! hehehe So, so far it looks like the three of us think "domifare" can be used for "there is/are" expressions. Anyone else want to jump in? (C'mon, guys

)
Shido wrote:I think, that correct word’s order is described by Gajewski: two-syllable adjectives precede nouns, adjectives with more than two syllable follow nouns. But this rule can't be rigid (so, we will have "informal Solresol" and "literary Solresol"; existence of different styles is very important for a language).
Okay, I can go with this, since Sudre doesn't say anything explicitly about this. I have a booklet in Esperanto called "Dore domilado Solresol," which talks about word order a bit, but I don't know on what basis...as it's a fairly new book. But I can check it again.
And what about adverbs? Maybe the best bet is to just start making some sentences in Solresol and seeing what problems arise in understanding, if any.
Have you written any more sentences, Shido? Rémimifa?
