@FireHeartSong
I see where you're coming from, but think about the construction of language. "The" in English actually has nothing to do with the words "they" and "them" meaning-wise, other than spelling. Thus, logically, other languages have developed separate ways of expressing these concepts.
For example, in Spanish, there are actually something like five forms of "the" dependent on gender and pluralization (el, la, las, los, lo). On the other hand, when talking about "they" and "them" in spanish, it's all dependent on the ending of the word. So to say "they eat" is comen compared to "I eat" which is como.
I hope this example has been informative and not too confusing! I'm by no means an expert in Spanish, I just felt using it as a comparison was an apt way to show differences in language.
It's all about syntax vs inflection when comparing Spanish and English, too, whereas Ursegal is more of a syntax language, like English. But because it's not just a pure translation from English to Ursegal--Ursegal is like Quenya or Sindarin in Tolkein's works, a made up or constructed language (conlang for short)--but rather meant to be a free standing language with its own syntax and inflections... I think I lost my train of thought. Sorry for going on a ramble on you!
I see where you're coming from, but think about the construction of language. "The" in English actually has nothing to do with the words "they" and "them" meaning-wise, other than spelling. Thus, logically, other languages have developed separate ways of expressing these concepts.
For example, in Spanish, there are actually something like five forms of "the" dependent on gender and pluralization (el, la, las, los, lo). On the other hand, when talking about "they" and "them" in spanish, it's all dependent on the ending of the word. So to say "they eat" is comen compared to "I eat" which is como.
I hope this example has been informative and not too confusing! I'm by no means an expert in Spanish, I just felt using it as a comparison was an apt way to show differences in language.
It's all about syntax vs inflection when comparing Spanish and English, too, whereas Ursegal is more of a syntax language, like English. But because it's not just a pure translation from English to Ursegal--Ursegal is like Quenya or Sindarin in Tolkein's works, a made up or constructed language (conlang for short)--but rather meant to be a free standing language with its own syntax and inflections... I think I lost my train of thought. Sorry for going on a ramble on you!
