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

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?)