&.
we scream because we know why the caged bird sings
Roxy (she/her) — Laiqbun, Conlanging — 16/02/21 19:38 GMT-5
kke is a fun particle predicate. We know what it does in argument form in a content clause, but how it interacts with other forms and in other places is not documented. This is me musing about the repercussions of Laiqbun being Laiqbun.
Knowing that kke refers back to the root of its clause, we can assume that using it as a content clause will refer back to the predicate of the main clause, such that sheo kki sha dy would be just another way to say sheo shio sha dy. This is not that interesting, but I’m sure its fun to play with for artistic purposes.
Similarly, using it as an argument in the main clause would be the same as using the main clause’s predicate, so that sheo sha kka dy is just another way to write sheo sha shao dy.
Using it as a serial argument is. Fun. I guess. sha kke is the same as sha she, which I would mean “the me that is me”.
Just for fun: Using it as the predicate of the main clause is recursive, the predicate refers back to itself, despite being devoid of meaning. This is very fun to use if you want to write recursive and meaningless poems or songs.
The first two use become significant when the root of a head is a serial predicate.
sheo teq feiaq sha kka is the same as sheo teq feiaq sha shao teq feiaq: “I want to say I think what I want to say I think”, yes, it’s a limited usage, but it’s very interesting, and for short sentences such as this one it shouldn’t be hard to use them naturally, either.
Finally, we get to kko.
kko is amusing because it lets you fill an argument’s arguments. To do this, though, it a note has to have the first argument cut out, meaning that kko is not a friend of monadic arguments (or rather, it’s the same as kke when it modifies monadic arguments).
teq sha raq ne laeiq kko qau dy would be translated as “I say things pertaining to this to those who like it”. Which I think is very cool.