[sketchbook] derivation goals and grammar
|From:||Joe Mondello <rugpretzel@...>|
|Date:||Monday, July 17, 2000, 6:20|
I've derived "dream", and it goes something like this:
(asti pa ilan)
sleep at thought
(empa obi so empa osti) pa (osti isku)
(close* eye and close* brain) at (brain contents)
[contents of the brain when eyes/brain are closed*.
* the word "empa" (close/d) has a very large semantic field, and can be used
in the following senses:
close (door, jar, window, eye)
turn off (television, radio, any machine).
finish (eating, walking, sitting, thinking)
stop using (car, chair)
I've also decided that having a single word goal at a time is somewhat
inadequite, so a friend and I brainstormed a list of word derivation goals
distinction between "think that" and "think about"
to appear as/seem/look like
If anyone has any they think are more challenging (excluding such things as
"bald eagle" and "scalloped potatoes") please do tell.
Another issue I have with the language is its grammar. I was unable to
anticipate it, but it seems that every sentence is a large head-final noun
phrase, and there's nothing very "verby" about the verb. for example:
usa pala spin nel
[the] open door-ly sleeping she
(she dreams about an open door)
nu tan kelu lo
fishes-ly speaking I
(I talk about fish)
[de ne] nu tan kelu lo
you-receiving-ly fishes-ly speaking I
I talk to you about fish.
de [oma no?] mal pa pinta
you-ly seen questionably house at cat
(do you see the cat in the house?)
("no" is similar to mandarin "ma", but follows the questionable word) I'm
aware there are other ways of analyzing such sentences, but I consistently
find that the first word can be lopped off of most (if not all) sentences and
the remainder is always has sense. the major exceptions are bracketed
phrases [X ne] (roughly "X gets".) and [X no?] (questions X), 'ne' and 'no'
can't exist without their antecedents. straightforward sentences such as "he
sees a cat" can omit either subject or object:
he sees something.
something sees the cat.
words can change meaning when a word is placed in front of it:
the dog is dead
tan laspo staba
fish die dog
a fish kills the dog
the boat is big
nu eski toma kisna
PL person big boat
some people **enlarge** the boat
which can also be expressed with the word "aki" (cause):
toma kisna aki nu eski
big boat cause PL person
the boat is (has become) big because of some people.
I have trouble telling what the subjects of some of my sentences are, yet I
have absolutely no trouble understanding them and extending the grammar used
in existing sentences to new sentences. This, combined with the lack of
natlang reference is making the project fascinating and challenging