Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Paul Bennett <paulnkathy@...>
Date:Monday, February 7, 2000, 12:47
On 7 Feb 00, at 12:09, Dan Sulani wrote:

> My conlang, rtemmu, does not have a "to be" copula. > To say that A "is" B, one first describes A and then asserts > that one's focus should be expanded to aslo include B. > In the rtemmu worldview, one focuses on the ongoing flux that > is the universe and then considers the change, in one's thoughts and > observations. Existence is a given. One may stop focussing: sort > of opting out of the game for a while; but the assumption is that one > can always resume. What to do with non-existence in a rtemmu > framework has bothered me from day one, and I haven't gotten > any closer to a solution since then. > In my first posting to this list, back in Jan 1999, I was already > wondering about the concept of "nothing". To quote my post: > > <snip introduction to rtemmu> > > What, however, does one do with "nothing"? > In rtemmu there are separate words for zero and nothing: > > puhg = zero ("uh" = open mid back unrounded vowel or > schwa, depending on the stress) > g~amshye = nothing ("sh" = voiceless postalveolar > fricative) > > Saying "ikehszuv puhg" could be understood when making a measurement > that at this time is zero, but can change. But what does "ikehszuv > g~amshye" mean? > Maybe that there is an observed lack of existence that doesn't seem to > change, but given time, something might? Sort of a pregnant pause? > But if something unique and irreplaceable were to be destroyed, one > could describe the destruction as a change, but how could one describe > the lack, since the phenomenon will never exist again, and thus the > lack is _unchanging_! > > 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. > (BTW, I love the new archives! <really _big_ smile> I was able to find > my old posting from a year ago in a few seconds. > va'i belo`gygiha! (= What a joy to use! ) A pity it wasn't in place > long ago!) >
Phew! I keep being surprised by rtemmu! I hope I haven't misunderstood it *too* horrendously in the following suggestion. I've gone to the archive and read your intro to rtemmu, so I hope I'm on track. Unfortunately, I'm not up on the physics and/or math that would allow me to describe it very much more clearly :-( Possibly, g~am needs some "sister" morphemes (also bound prefixes?), to function as markers of how soon a change in the rate of change (ie an "acceleration" or "decceleration") is expected. I know rtemmu already has words for (subjective and objective) rates of change (which I see as more analogous to verbs than any other POS in rtemmu), {g~am} and sisters would function as (*big* terminological kludge coming up...) something like adrates [*]. {g~am} would then function as the "rate of approach [**] of a change of rate of change is too slow to observe" end of the adrate spectrum. The opposite end of this spectrum encompasses things changing unexpectedly or unstably? [*] kludged on analogy with "adverb", appologies if the word already exists. [**] I think "approach" is possibly an unsuitable word for rtemmu, but it's the best I could come up with having agonised over that sentance for about 40 minutes! --- Pb izuvnu rtem! (or is that too strong a statement?)