Nouns, verbs, adjectives... and why they're p
|From:||Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, December 9, 1998, 14:53|
Nik wrote :
Joshua Shinavier wrote:
> > I disagree completely. In Danoven there is no distinction,
> But Danoven is intended to be a "logical" language, thus it is invalid
> in discussions of problems with natural languages. In *natural*
> languages, verbs are easier to define precisely than nouns, with a few
> exceptions like _felis domesticus_.
*easier* ? i thought : *more logical* ? what is *easier* ? for whom ? sorry, i'm not
flaming, i just wonder whether you equate logics and easyness, i would not be
> > I have yet to meet someone who could explain just what the distinction between
> > nouns, verbs, and adjectives is supposed to represent;
> Nouns are objects, adjectives are properties, verbs are actions.
Or : permanence, immanence, remanence. with wild and endless landscapes
inbetween. syntax as road signs. thanks for your reminder, Nik. why replace
philosophy with math ? and expression with logics ? To each sovereign his
> as simple as that, at least as far as prototypes go.
> There are certain concepts that don't fit into any of these prototypes
> perfectly, these are the ones that may differ from language to language,
> being forced into one or another catagory.
yes. but i think you 3 agree on that point : degrees of integration exists in
speech but their marking is not the same in all languages and some of us don't
even feel it necessary to mark them.
Just because a language can exist
> without these catagories, as you claim for Danoven (altho I'm skeptical
> that there's *no* distinction, including syntactic), doesn't mean that
> they're unnecessary
they operate before you can shoot at them.
, or even possible in reality (if people other than
> yourself were to speak Danoven as a first language, would those
> distinctions evolve? No one knows, but I'd guess that they probably
> would). Quite probably, the presence of these catagories in every human
> language known points to something fundamental in the human psyche,
> especially when it comes to distinguishing objects from actions.
i would rather say degree of aspectivation (i'm sure some would now feel
frustrated if they could not read this word at least once in all of my posts :
next word i want to use : *bermuda short*) :-)
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=19072