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=
=20
understand it. I doubt that you be the first one to ponder over that proble=
m in=20
the past two millenaries and the schoolboy's answer *permanence, immanence,=
=20
remanence* is a hint that I humbly feel worth meditation. Your question is =
a=20
flat one, whereas it raises many different aspects of language - at least i=
n=20
philosophy and I deeply regret this doesn't count for you - I'm *sincere*.

Ha!  Me not philosophical?  I think you're barking up the wrong conlanger.
Even on my web page you'll find as much philosophy as grammar, sincere as
I ever am about anything (there are in fact things I take seriously :).
There is nothing in Danoven which is not a representation of an earnest pat=
tern
of thought.  PoS are not in my thought, and so are not part of the language=
.


 To make the world outside your head ex-ist, you need ex-tract concepts fro=
m=20
each others or relate them - that's equal - and doing so, you create a temp=
oral=20
relief.
=20
"Temporal relief"?
=20
  Your Danove"n's operators are not so benign you pretend. They pick the ri=
ght=20
concept in two words to concord.

In general they do not.  There is such a thing as an "internal" operator, w=
hich
relies on the internal structure of a semantic concept, but most operators =
are
"external", meaning their function is independent of the concepts they bind
together.

 =20
They are the fields of common experience of these words. Take my favourite=
=20
example : *the nice dancer* =3D the agent who dances well or the person who=
 is=20
nice. You choose either the noun or the verb *hidden* inside the the noun. =
You=20
can't say that *dancer* is e!
> !
> ither a verb or a noun, or both, or none.
And there you have the Danoven internal/external distinction, and a fine
example at that -- I don't like the ambiguity of the word "nice" so let's
define it: it indicates something I find pleasing.  Now, I can either find =
the
dancing of the dancer pleasing or the dancer herself.  If the adjective is
external, as most are, then this expression means that I find the dancer
pleasing, independently of her dancing.  I may, however, use an internal fo=
rm
which connects to the root word of "dancer" -- "dance" and describe the
dancer's dancing as nice.  There is no ambiguity, there is no need to allow
any.  There are elements of language which it is best to leave ambiguous,
but internal/external syntax is not one of them.  Read all about it in the
"intro to Danoven's network grammar".


> *corn* is a noun but it's also the possible patient of *to eat*, agent of=
 *to=20
grow*, etc.

So it is.  Corn is edible, and therefore compatible with "to eat".  It is a
possible patient.  But this alters neither the definition of "corn" nor
of "to eat"; remember what I wrote to you [not through Conlang] about
minimalistic definitions -- nothing should be included in a definition exce=
pt
the barest minimum, like a sketch as opposed to a finished portrait, allowi=
ng
the greatest possible flexibility -- the fact that corn is associated with
"to eat" is part of your worldview and personal knowledge, not part of the
language.


> There is no verb *to corn* simply because this word is not recorded *as a=
=20
morphem* as a field for an experiences whereas *fruit* is. You need a field=
 to=20
express experience. So you need the concept as a verb. And you need two act=
ors.=20
*I run* is the field *run* with me on it, and I know that I run in contrast=
 to=20
any other related concepts as fields or actors. When I toe outside the fiel=
d=20
(but I'm still in), I start *ex-isting*, and the verb becomes my *attribute=
*,=20
that is, I'm on it (immanence) and at the same time I'm somewhere else, as =
actor=20
of another verb, on another field (remanence). But still I'm the same perso=
n=20
(permanence). Two nou!
> !
> ns may have a relation of attribution, but always in reference to a commo=
n=20
field (possession, participation, etc). Even intransitive verbs have two ac=
tors,=20
the second being all other possible actors. So you need the concept as a no=
un.=20
And it may be embodied in the same *word*. Don't be angry when you realize =
that=20
English does not make the difference between *agent*, *patient*, etc.- geni=
tives=20
like in *my lesson*. In most languages, *nouns* have the specified role of =
being=20
actors, not fields of experience. Danove"n and my language Shan make the=20
distinction so as to extract either one from one word. But you need them.=
=20
Between exclusive field and exclusive noun, there are gradations and that's=
=20
where adjectives, subclause, etc lie. That's an issue about identifying spe=
ech=20
itself as actor and field. Difference between *state* and *action* is an is=
sue=20
of actance, not aspectivation. But that's philosophy, so I guess don't care=
=20
either ;-)

Of course you need actors ("nodes") and relations ("links") -- that's how t=
he
human mind works; thinking is an act of establishing new connections betwee=
n
conceptual elements.  But relations are thoughts as well -- they too may be
the subject of thought and may be bound together with other elements via st=
ill
other relations.  Think for a moment about "thought" -- is it a thing?  Is =
it
an action?  Is it an attribute of a person?  What are these words, and why =
do
they matter?  Thought is not physical, so it is not an object (meaning, aft=
er
Nik's definition that it is not a noun), it involves change so you could ca=
ll
it an action, it characterizes people so you might want to use it as an
"attribute".  Personally I don't care what you call it; "that which we call=
 a
rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -- it is independent of its la=
bel
and I don't regard that label as anything fundamental enough to compromise =
the
clarity of a language for; but that's philosophy, not convention, so I gues=
s
you would't be interested  @;-)


        _/_/      _/_/  _/_/_/_/   Joshua Shinavier            =20
         _/        _/  _/         Loorenstrasse 74, Zimmer B321=20
        _/        _/  _/_/_/_/   CH-8053 Z=FCrich              =20
 _/    _/  _/    _/        _/   Switzerland                 =20
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   http://members.tripod.com/~Paradox5

Danoven/Aroven: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/5555/ven.htm