Re: "To be" or not "to be"? (was Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep)

On 8 Feb, Paul Bennett wrote:

<snip>

"It's not
noticably changing at the moment (zuv), and I can't beleive that it ever
has changed nor ever will change (g~am)", i.e. not only do I lack evidence
of its changing significantly, but I also lack belief in the possibility of
significant change.


    This is completely against the grain of the rtemmu worldview.
There can be no grammatical way to express it. According to this
view, change, at the most, can be so slow as to be not noticible
(geological change, galactic evolution, etc.). But, nevertheless,
the change exists and continues. "zuv" is meant to express this
extremely slow change (objectively observed. If it is subjectively
considered or remembered as so slow as to be seemingly
unchanging, then "nu" would be the particle of choice.)
    "g~am" doesn't mean no change. It means "negation".
How to interpret the development of something that isn't, is the problem.

<snip>

/*
Erm, I thought {g~amshye} was "nothing":
(On Mon 7, Feb you wrote:)
- Essentially, I ignored the philosophy and muscled in a word
- meaning  "none",  g~am  (g~=[N] ). Existence, or "shye" is less
- of a problem, since that is simply what one observes or thinks about.
- But what  indeed would "g~amshye" mean in a rtemmu framework?
- I still don't really know.
*/

    Uhhh --- you're right, of course. (Late night is definitely _not_
a good time to respond to e-mail!  :-(  ) The word is "g~am" , it cannot
be broken down or analyzed further, and it more precisely means
"negation". Thus, from the words "tis" (=time), "ris" (=location),
"rtun" (=person), one can form: "g~amtis" (=never), "g~amris" (=nowhere),
and "g~amrtun" (=nobody). Used with the emotion indicator "va'i",
you can say "va'i g~am" (= no!) Thus, "shye" (=existence) gives
"g~amshye" , or the negation of existence,  nothing.

<snip; a quote from me>

Why can't "a lack of something" (with the new definition of {g~am} as "a
lack of" and {shye} as "something") stand for "nothing" in the same way
that "a lack of grapes" might stand for "no grapes"?

    Paul, I  _do_ believe you have just solved my year-long problem!
<GGG>
The key is the word "lack"! Of course! <hits self mighty whack on head>
"Nothings" cannot be observed (or really conceived of?)!
Can you measure the hole without the doughnut? But "_lacks_"
can most certainly be sensed by paying attention to the boundaries
of that which exists! The hole is known by observing the doughnut!
    But in the rtemmu framework, I can already see the need for
being able to express 3 types of "lack":

    1. objective, observable lack ( the observed at its boundaries);
    2. subjective lack ( at the boundaries of thought or memory);
    3. subjective-objective lack (I can concieve of it; it could be there
         in principle; but I can't observe it objectively: it isn't there.
          [thought-doughnut, real hole ] )

"g~amshye" would fit type 1, I think. I'd need new terms for lacks
2 and 3.


>> izuvnu rtem! (or is that too strong a statement?)
<snip discussion of this sentence>

I meant something more translatable to english as "I'm always/constantly
thinking about language", with overtones of "... and I can't help it

I might say it this way:

"inana brir` no rtemmu auag nu r`kotis."

The first change marker merely relates the speaker's
internal condition in a general way. In order to say anything
more specific, (unless one was deleting known, shared
information that needn't be repeated) you would need to use
the specific word for what you wanted to describe.
In this case, "brir`" (=thinking")  [2 syllables: bri with a trilled "r"
and r`, syllabic [R]  ]. Thus, in my above example, the 1st "na"
indicates that the speaker's interior processes are running
smoothly at normal speed; the 2nd "na" states that the thinking
is at usual speed: not fast or slow. "no rtemmu" modifies
"inana brir`". Why "no" and not "nu" (or indeed any other marker?)?
Merely personal preference about how I regarded "language"
when I composed the sentence. Other markers are perfectly valid:
each would describe a different aspect of "language".
"r`kotis" = r`ko (=every), "tis" (=time) = always (not: "every time
I look", but rather, "every unit of time, whether I look or not", i.e.
"always".) "auag" asserts that "r`kotis" should be added to the
developing picture. It's stronger than saying "rtemmuhe nu r`kotis"
with "-he" meaning "with respect to".


I'm slightly confused by the various rates of change.

Only _slightly_ confused? That's doing _good_!
It's _my_ lang and I'm usually greatly confused!  :-)
Seriously, it _is_ very difficult to think in terms of multiple rates
of change!

 For example, what's
the difference between:

zuv - changing too slowly to be noticed, and
nu - no noticeable rate of change

To me they both imply "(apparently) not changing".


Correct. It's just that, again, "zuv" refers to objective change
(i.e. the information comes to you via your external senses),
while "nu" refers to subjective change (i.e. thoughts,
memories, internal feelings)
For example, take the difference between
                "zuv g~guhk"   and
                "nu  g~guhk".

"g~guhk"  means "rock".  "zuv g~guhk" means the hard stuff that
you stand on and if it hits you, it can hurt. It's out there and you
can sense it. It will also change over geologic time, but right now
it doen't seem to be doing much of anything. "nu g~guhk", on the
other hand, means that you hold an extremely stubborn opinion
about rock and no matter what you have been exposed to or
who you've talked with, your thoughts/memories don't seem to have
been influenced in the slightest; i.e. closed-minded on the topic,
to extremes. You probably _are_ continuing to develop your opinion
in one way or another, but you won't admit to it.

Any chance of a nice lengthy posting on the various rate of change markers,
and their various idiosyncracies? <G>

As of now, the complete set of rate of change markers is as follows:


Objectively observed change:
        zuv                too slow to observe directly
        vuzduz          extremely slow
        vuz                slow
        kehs             "normal"  rate of change
        fis                 fast
        fistis             extremely fast
        sif                 too fast to observe directly

Subjectively conceived or remembered or felt:
        ni                 too fast to follow
        ne                fast
        na                "normal" rate of change
        no                slow
        nu                too slow to notice any change

Also there is:
        wuh             assume that change is happening, but one is
                            unable to judge the rate (as in talking about
                            other people's subjective states)


    As for their various uses and idiosyncracies, perhaps someday I'll
write that "lengthy posting" or even find the time to put it up on the web.
Meantime, they'll probably come out in any translation exercises I
attempt. Stay tuned. :-)
    Anyhow, it's time to return to the ol' drawing board. I've got to figure
out exactly how to handle the acceleration/deceleration issue and
what to do about the various "lacks". Thanks again for opening my eyes
(or whatever subjective equivalent one would use. :-)  )


Dan Sulani


--------------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.

A word is an awesome thing.