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

To Josh :
(sorry, I don't have time to paste and snip all the posts)
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 - at least in
philosophy and I deeply regret this doesn't count for you - I'm *sincere*. To
make the world outside your head ex-ist, you need ex-tract concepts from each
others or relate them - that's equal - and doing so, you create a temporal
relief. Your Danove"n's operators are not so benign you pretend. They pick the
right concept in two words to concord. They are the fields of common experience
of these words. 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. You can't say that *dancer* is!
 e!
!
!
ither a verb or a noun, or both, or none. The two concepts share the same morphem.
It's obvious because *dancer* is derived word, but all words are alternatively
an actor of an experience or the field of that experience where the other
actors may appear. *corn* is a noun but it's also the possible patient of *to
eat*, agent of *to grow*, etc. There is no verb *to corn* simply because this
word is not recorded *as a morphem* as a field for an experiences whereas
*fruit* is. You need a field to express experience. So you need the concept as
a verb. And you need two actors. *I run* is the field *run* with me on it, and
I know that I run in contrast to any other related concepts as fields or
actors. When I toe outside the field (but I'm still in), I start *ex-isting*,
and the verb becomes my *attribute*, that is, I'm on it (immanence) and at the
same time I'm somewhere else, as actor of another verb, on another field
(remanence). But still I'm the same person (permanence). Two n!
ou!
!
!
ns may have a relation of attribution, but always in reference to a common field
(possession, participation, etc). Even intransitive verbs have two actors, the
second being all other possible actors. So you need the concept as a noun. And
it may be embodied in the same *word*. Don't be angry when you realize that
English does not make the difference between *agent*, *patient*, etc.-
genitives like in *my lesson*. In most languages, *nouns* have the specified
role of being actors, not fields of experience. Danove"n and my language Shan
make the distinction so as to extract either one from one word. But you need
them. Between exclusive field and exclusive noun, there are gradations and
that's where adjectives, subclause, etc lie. That's an issue about identifying
speech itself as actor and field. Difference between *state* and *action* is an
issue of actance, not aspectivation. But that's philosophy, so I guess don't
care either ;-)
You're fellow conlanger.
Mathias

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=19137