Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 in.
> > > 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 realm... It's
> 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. snip 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*) :-) Mathias ----- See the original message at