Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: Esperanto and Discourse features
Message-ID: <D5MoBB.CEq@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950314135003.10714E-100000@suma3.reading.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 08:45:09 GMT
Lines: 28


In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950314135003.10714E-100000@suma3.reading.ac.uk> Monika Limmer <llulimer@reading.ac.uk> writes:
>How are things like focus and topicalization marked in Esperanto?
>Is there a regular rule, or are there exceptions?
>I do not know how clear I made my request, but I was just interested how 
>things like that were expressed in a 'created' language, and how regular 
>any such rules are.

Can rules governing discourse structure be irregular?  Do you have
anything particular in mind?

How things like that are expressed in a created language would depend,
I imagine, on whether the creator has thought of formulating any rules
or not.  Lojban, for example, has a set of overt markers.  (Perhaps
Bob LeChevalier or John Cowan will post an example or two.)

Talking of which, does anyone share my impression that Marc Okrand has
got his discourse functions backwards?  In _The Klingon Dictionary_ it
says that _-'e'_ (noun suffix of order 5) is a topic marker, but the
examples which follow make it look like a focus marker.  It looks as
though that section was written at a time when he and Maltz were not
communicating very well.

-- 
`"Na, na ... ah mean, *no wey*, wi aw due respect, ma lady," stammers Joe.'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk)    (J Stuart, _Auld Testament Tales_)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
