"Count to", wä and Sequential Genitive

Original question text:

> How do we say “Count from 3 to 8”? Would **tiam ta pxey vay vol** suffice? Somebody suggested **ne** as the adposition. Pamìrìk suggested, since most people start from **’aw** to just say **tiam vay**/**ne vol**.
> **Tsari pefya nga fpìl?**
>
>

 Original correspondence text:

> I like **vay** here. Ne implies motion towards something, and is used mainly with verbs of motion like **kä**, **za'u**, **tätxaw**, etc. But this brings up another question. What if it's not counting from 3 (up)to 8, but rather from 8 down to 3? Countdowns are certainly common! A similar situation occurs if, say, the temperature falls from 20 degrees to 15 degrees. What is "to"? **Vay** doesn't seem appropriate, since it implies "up to." I'm wondering if we need a new adposition meaning "down to" as the opposite of **vay**. […]
> BTW, I think **Tiam vay vol** is fine.
>
>

 Original question text:

> Could **wä** be used as the opposite of **ìlä** ‘according to (a person)’ in the sense of ‘contrary to (what somebody said)’ as in:
>
>
> > **Wä Feyral, muntxa ke soli Ralu sì Newey nìwan mesrram.**
> > “Contrary to what Peyral reported, Ralu and Newey were not secretly married the day before yesterday.”
> >
> >
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> I hadn't thought of that use of **wä**, but I like it. I don't see why it shouldn't be used in the way you've described. I also like **tì’efuwä oeyä**. It'd be used in sentences like, **Tì’efuwä oeyä, fpìl Peyralìl futa ke zene ayoeng kivä**. I.e., "I think we have to go, but Peyral doesn't."
>
>

Original question text:

> The last one concerns multiple genitives: By now we only ever saw 2 genitives in sequence, e.g. in your example **Pìlokä fìhapxìyä tìkan lu law***.* ‘The aim of this section of the blog is clear.’ The question arose whether there has to be a special sequence in order for it to make sense?
>
>
> Mako said to this:
>
>
>
> “I am willing to guarantee you that because the noun ending in -y/ä has to come next to the noun it is possessing […], the nouns have to be sequenced correctly in order for the sentence to make sense. Let me show it like this:
>
>
> > (1) **oeyä tsmukä tsko** = **oeyä** } **tsmukä** { **tsko** or **oeyä** { **tsmukä** { **tsko**
> > (2) **tsmukä oeyä tsko** = **tsmukä** } **oeyä** { **tsko** or **tsmukä** { **oeyä** { **tsko**
> >
> >
>
> Only one of these options means “My sibling’s bow”. The attribution can only go one way once the direction has been decided”
> Which I’m not so sure about. To me (2) logically also means “my sibling’s bow”. What do you think about that?
>
>

Original correspondence text:

> I agree with you. Both (1) and (2) seem fine to me, and I don't see how they could each be interpreted as other than "my sibling's bow."
>
>
> However, Mako has pointed to an issue that deserves some scrutiny. Let me throw this out for discussion.
>
>
> Here are the six possible arrangements of the words **'itanä**, **karyuä**, and **kelku**:
>
>
> 1. **kelku 'itanä karyuä**
>
>
> 2. **kelku karyuä 'itanä**
>
>
> 3. '**itanä kelku karyuä**
>
>
> 4. **karyuä kelku 'itanä**
>
>
> 5. '**itanä karyuä kelku**
>
>
> 6. **karyuä 'itanä kelku**
>
>
> And here are two possible meanings of these phrases:
>
>
> A. the home of the son's teacher
>
>
> B. the home of the teacher's son
>
>
> Here are some questions to consider:
>
>
> a. Are all six phrases grammatical and acceptable, or are some of them unacceptable?
>
>
> b. Of the acceptable phrases (which may be all of them), which ones have the A meaning and which have the B meaning?
>
>
> c. Are any of the acceptable phrases ambiguous--that is, allowing both the A and the B meaning?
>
>
> d. If there is ambiguity in any of these cases, how much of a problem is that--or should there be a rule that in a potentially ambiguous case, one meaning is to be preferred over the other?
>
>
>
> Please throw this out for discussion! I'll be interested in how people feel about these questions.
>
>

*Originally received on June 23rd, 2018*