I've made one of my sporadic returns to composing in Elkar?l. The riddle below is only new to Elkar?l; if you like riddles already you'll probably recognize it. But I was surprised how I managed to create a grammatical parallelism similar to the original's, even while consistently using the action-experiencer-causer-purpose-intender structure.
cheng phimqebat t?t-?ap rij.
mox rijojat t?t-gg?t?t.
gg?t rijoxat t?t-shob?t.
Zomp: you write "Giving is expressed with mox 'receive', plus a purpose element specifying the type of exchange (e.g. bor 'exchange', ddut 'buy', q?lt?m 'steal') or its purpose." Can the type and the purpose both be stated? The second sentence would be clearer if it were mox rijojat ddut t?t-gg?t?t.
(The Lexicon says ddut is 'sell', contradicting the syntax. Which is right?
A new kh?sh
A new kh?sh
So voy sur so?n otr?n cot?n ci-min?i e fsiy.
You can express both type and purpose by concatenation-- e.g. q?lt?met b-ddut 'E's purpose was to steal and sell'. However, you're using gg?t 'use' as a purpose when it's only an action. I'd suggest an alternative, but I haven't guessed the riddle yet. 
ddut is 'sell'; ddit is 'buy'.
rijojat confuses me a bit, since an anaphor attached to a noun indicates possession. If you mean 'someone else receives A' you would want moxat rijoj.
Nice work, though! It's fun to come back to Elkar?l, which is actually not hard to read. Wait till you see Old Skourene.
ddut is 'sell'; ddit is 'buy'.
rijojat confuses me a bit, since an anaphor attached to a noun indicates possession. If you mean 'someone else receives A' you would want moxat rijoj.
Nice work, though! It's fun to come back to Elkar?l, which is actually not hard to read. Wait till you see Old Skourene.
Ah, so that overrides the experiencer-before-causer order? In that case, I'll edit it to:zompist wrote:rijojat confuses me a bit, since an anaphor attached to a noun indicates possession. If you mean 'someone else receives A' you would want moxat rijoj.
cheng phimqebat t?t-?ap rij.
moxat rijoj ddit b-t?t-gg?t?t.
gg?tat rijox t?t-shob?t.
I haven't thought of something to replace gg?t yet: for now, think of it as a foreigner's attempt to say "in order to".
So voy sur so?n otr?n cot?n ci-min?i e fsiy.
