Re: Nouns, verbs, adjectives... and why they're p

Charles wrote :

Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
>
> > I don't think that anyone can at the same time deny something
> > and try to understand it. I doubt that you be the first one
> > to ponder over that problem in the past two millenaries
> > and the schoolboy's answer *permanence, immanence, remanence*
> > is a hint that I humbly feel worth meditation. Your question is
> > a flat one, whereas it raises many different aspects of language
>
> I see all-the-time cases where thinking is unconsciously
> shaped by language structure or metaphor.
yes. this is the crux (to me and my old shool teachers) : *verb vs. noun* is a
concept like other concepts, but it's the concept that allows you to express
one concept negating all other ones (and yourself). Of course, if you think
that expression is an organ to make yourself ex-ist from yourself and be
unconsciously human, then you're right and I won't argue.

 So I would be
> an extreme Whorfist. Philosophy must be carefully
> separated from the carrier language to avoid confusion.
> So I would usually just avoid philosophy ...
>
The trouble is : I've experienced that saying *no master* means *only math* as
*only Truth*. That is : the tool takes stance over the master. I'm *no slave to
one realm* as Josh says means to me : not algebra more than philosophy.

> > Take my favourite example : *the nice dancer* = the agent
> > who dances well or the person who is nice. You choose either
> > the noun or the verb *hidden* inside the the noun.
>
> This problem is easily handled algebraically.
see ? ;-)

 If A is the
> agent, D is the dancing, and N is the niceness,
agent of what ?
danc-ing ?
nice-ness ? :-)
Hold on ! I'm teasing you. I get them as concepts. I let you proceed.


we need to
> decide between N + (D * A) which is the default precedence,
> and (N + D) * A which is somehow "marked"
in my simpistic words I would say : *we need a victim*. Whose turn ?
How do you define the brackets, the + and the * signs with equations ? They're
operators and *verbs* to me (as a concept, not as a morphem or as syntactic
tags). You can't keep one predicate alive if you don't have a verb : when you
say *the dog eats*, *dog* is no *dog* concept anymore, it's
*argument/subject/noun, etc* concept. To make a predicate you need to kill a
noun with a verb. Saying that *eat* is replaced with *food*, *eater*, *place
setting* does not make any difference. *Dog* has to be killed, and the weapon
is either of the three as a verb. In *barking dog eats*, dog is killed two
times but still ex-ists out of the *barking* field : that's the *permanence* of
nouns.

, as in Old New
> Jerseyan we would say, umm, I can't say that here.
>
:-)

*fly torturer* in French :-)

Mathias

>


-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=19163