Re: Simple sentences and how difficult they can be.

On 12/4/06, veritosproject@gmail.com <veritosproject@...> wrote:
> Wow...you are confusing me :)
>
> I would probably use SE, but that gives the impression of "swimming
> from one point to another point" instead of just "swimming where the
> points don't matter."
I am never very good at explaining these things. To flesh out SE and NI:

SE has as an object something with a source and/or a goal. So, in
saying, the utterance is the object, the speaker is the source and the
listener (if there is one) is the goal. I experiencing (sensing,
seeing, hearing, etc), the thing experienced is the object and the
experiencer is the goal. There is no reason that the object of SE need
to be bounded in space (one point to another) but it is necessarily
bounded in time (with a beginning and an end).

NI has as an object something that has changed its state. Such as the
rain, when starting or stopping, or something breaking, or something
being created. It is also used to express change in location.  So,
swimming from here to there would be:

ñi sāen rū þō rā xō il jahārme
She [went] from here to there during a swimming-session

Does that help?

One could argue that the rain starting and stopping should be SE as
rain is rain, but I think I will leave it as NI. That implies that
each rain shower is its own unique entity.

-S

> On 12/4/06, Sylvia Sotomayor <terjemar@...> wrote:
> > As many of you know, Kēlen is a language without verbs. And for the
> > most part I can translate almost any English sentence into it without
> > too much awkwardness. The one class of exceptions has been action
> > verbs, like run, or swim. But today I think I finally figured that one
> > out, too.
> >
> > I have four verb-like objects called relationals. LA expresses
> > existence, PA expresses a whole-part relationship, SE expresses
> > existence with a source and/or a goal, and NI expresses a change in
> > state.
> >
> > So, LA is good for 'there is' or 'there was', PA is more or less
> > 'have', and NI is more or less 'become'. SE is a little trickier, but
> > I use it for saying, giving, and experiencing.
> >
> > My problem with basic intransitive action verbs like run or swim is
> > that I am never sure how to turn them into nominals and then express
> > the relationship they would have with other nominals. Since NI feels
> > more action-y to me than the others, I keep trying to fit them into a
> > NI clause and it never seems right. So, today it occurred to me while
> > skimming through a linguistics book, that SE is essentially NI without
> > a change in state to its object.
> >
> > ñamma jasāla
> > 'He made a song'
> >
> > means that a song has been composed, has come into existence, a change
> > in state.
> >
> > tamma jasāla
> > 'He expressed a song'
> >
> > means that he sang it, but the song itself hasn't changed. (tamma is
> > SE plus a past marker plus a 3p sg source)
> >
> > So, it occured to me that running and swimming could be nominalized to
> > 'a session of running' and 'a session of swimming' and then SE would
> > be the correct relational because there is no real change in state. NI
> > would imply the invention of running or swimming. So,
> >
> > tamma jahārme
> > 'She swam'.
> >
> > (I don't have a satisfactory word for 'run'. Yet.) And,
> >
> > āl samma jahārme
> > 'She is swimming'
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -S
> > --
> > Sylvia Sotomayor
> > terjemar@gmail.com
> > www.terjemar.net
> >
>

--
Sylvia Sotomayor
terjemar@gmail.com
www.terjemar.net