Brandon, you have instilled in me a fervent desire to learn ASL - what you've described is just incredibly fascinating to me.
Now, you say that you could communicate that complex tale about the perils of driving in New England (as a native Bostonian, I know such points are important to communicate). And you say you could communicate it without using a sign. I don't want to quibble over how ASL denotes its various components, but I want to be sure I understand - the classifiers are communicated via signed language, right? Is there such a clear distinction between them and the actual signs?
In the very clever and clear Brandonese example you've given, the suffixes seem as if they'd be meaningless without the base word (that is "li" wouldn't really communicate anything, but "kololi" presents a clear image). But in ASL, it seems that the suffixes can stand alone. How is it that the suffixes (i.e. the classifiers) can communicate concepts like "car" and "road," which seem like they'd be the base words to which suffixes would attach?
Finally, at the risk of seeming over-literal - please tell me that there is not a classifier for "New England," and that that part of your example was meant more figuratively. If it existed, would it be a koloNE? (not since the Revolution, I guess)
Post-finally - the only thing that comes to mind that even vaguely resembles a classifier comes from Spanish. When one wishes to emphasize a particular quality about something, one adds the prefix "re-" to the adjective, so something that is really bueno is rebueno, and beans that have been cooked a long time are refritos (not refried, as it's typically translated). But this simply adds emphasis to the base word, it doesn't change its nature or provide more information about it.
