Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Telona grammar, part 1

From:Jonathan Knibb <jonathan_knibb@...>
Date:Tuesday, February 5, 2002, 2:31
Wow - thanks to all for your comments - there are so many things I want to
say, but I'll have to keep it brief for today as I've just got in after a
long day and need to sleep :(

Jim Grossmann wrote:
<<<
1)    Even if every root in your language can fill any slot in a
clause--from verb to argument to modifier to connective--have you really
eliminated word classes?   Even if a given word can't be identified as
belonging to a certain class when considered apart from the sentence,
wouldn't the syntax of a given sentence specify what class that word belongs
to in that sentence?
>>>
Absolutely not! <sorry ... calms down> That's effectively a circular argument - if Telona syntax behaved like that of languages that do have distinct parts of speech, then you would be right; but it doesn't. Telona syntax is particularly simple, in part because it doesn't need to take account of parts of speech. I haven't told you the most important aspects of it yet - see part 2, posted yesterday, for more details, but I'm afraid it would take too long to explain properly now - watch this space for part 3! <<< a) Remains poison water. b) Water poison remains. c) Poison water remains. d) Water remains poison.
>>>
I love this example (and might add that (b) and (c) can also be read as imperative-verb + attributive-noun + noun). But to me, it relies on relationships of homonymity between words, the semantic relationships between which are incidental - compare (a) and (d) with 'Bears poison water.' and 'Water bears poison.' respectively. To translate these sentences into Telona, one would effectively proceed via intermediate sentences such as: a) Things that are left over cause water to become poisonous. b) A poisonous thing intended for water is left over. c) Poisonous water is left over. d) Water continues to be poisonous. The point is that Telona would not use the individual translations of 'remains', 'poison' and 'water' in the translations of the sentences, because the exmaple depends on carefully exploring the semantic spaces of the English words, which are not necessarily congruent with those of the Telona words. Once semantic fields are defined which fit naturally with the Telona syntactic rules, the problem disappears. Perhaps it would be clearer with a real Telona example. Bearing in mind the binary branching structure of the Telona phrase, there are (by coincidence!) four legal permutations of the phrase 'man eats apple': T: Týha lome enechini. Ti: týha lome + cechini Ei: ((man) (eat + apple)) E: The man is eating an apple. T: Lome týha enechini. Ti: lome týha + cechini Ei: ((eat mán) + apple) E: Of the eaters, the one who is a man is eating an apple. T: Lome enéchini tyha. Ti: lome + céchini tyha Ei: ((eat + apple) man) E: The eater of the apple is a man. T: Céchinos lome tyha. Ti: céchini - lome tyha Ei: ((apple) - (eat man)) E: The apple is being eaten by a man. Each of these sentences refers to the same situation, and so this example is not really analogous to 'remains poison water'. Indeed, there is a very good reason why it couldn't be - <<< I'm skeptical about the prospects of eliminating all distinctions between word classes even when words are considered apart from sentences, because I think that semantic constraints would prevent some words from having the potential to play any grammatical role in a sentence.
>>>
- oh, you got there first! Yes, this is true, but only insofar as not all words can meaningfully take +objects. In the example above, only 'lome' (eat) can really take a +object, while 'tyha' and 'cechini' will not usually do so. However, this is emphatically *not* a syntactic constraint - 'tyha' and 'cechini' are free to take +objects in metaphorical or poetic language (cf. the occasional poetic English use of nouns as transitive verbs: 'man enough to man a woman' is an example (genuine - from the libretto to Tippett's 'King Priam'), although I'm struggling with 'apple'). So, OK, there is one constraint on the syntactic equivalence of Telona words - but it is a semantic, almost a pragmatic constraint. It would be perfectly possible to design a closer Telona equivalent to the 'poison water remains' example, where each word could take a +object and was therefore truly free to take any syntactic role. Erm, let me see: love = 'nala' ; hate = 'core' ; intolerant (of) = 'besaro' T: Bésaro core naula. Ti: bésaro core + nala Ei: intolerant hate + love E: Intolerant people hate lovers. T: Córe nala efasaro. Ti: córe nala + besaro Ei: háte love + intolerant E: Those who hate love the intolerant. T: Nála besaro anire. Ti: nála besaro + core Ei: love intolerant + hate E: Lovers are intolerant of those who hate. There are really only three syntactically distinct roles in Telona, corresponding to the three roles in the above example, and any word which can take a +object can fill any of them. <<< But how can a univocal word meaning "apple" function as anything other than a noun or an adjective/attributive noun? Conversely, how can univocal words meaning "in," "because of," or "and" refer to entities?
>>>
The first question I've already answered. As for the second: 'in X' translates as 'thing contained by' + X, and 'because of X' as 'event whose occurrence is due to' + X. 'And' is quite interesting. A couple of examples: T: se-chèibe s'anèlipi sa-nóimice Ti: se + chèbe se + càlipi se + nómice Ei: ((and + lion) ((and + tiger) (and + bear))) E: lions and tigers and bears T: s'elùhal da sáucha Ti: se + tyha - da + sácha Ei: ((and + man) - (remainder + woman)) E: a man and a woman In the first example, the possibility is open that there may be other members of the group, while in the second, it is explicit that the whole group is described. The word 'se' (and) refers to the entire group, and takes as its +object a part of that group. So, 'se-cheibe' literally means 'a group of entities, one of which is a lion or a number of lions'. Then, another similar 'se-' phrase is made to co-refer with the first, so that 'se-chèibe s'anélipi' means 'a group including a lion, which is also a group including a tiger'. In the second example, 'da' (remainder) operates on 'se', so that: T: da seilúha Ti: da + se + týha Ei: (remainder + (and + man)) ...means 'the remainder of a group which includes a man'. Thus, 's'elùhal da sáucha' means 'a group including a man, of which the remainder is a woman'. Yeah, I was quite pleased with 'and'. :) <<< 3) If the semantic relationships among your words, like coferentiality, are all implicit, all specified by context, how can you avoid rampant ambiguity in utterances of three or more terms?
>>>
Oh, but they're not - as you've probably noticed in the above examples. One of the best things about Telona grammar, IMHO, is the way it indicates with (potentially) absolute unambiguity the precise binary branching structure of a sentence and the place of each word within it. <<< TALL-ONE WOMAN EATER JUMPER Which interpretation does this utterance have? a) The tall woman, who is eating, is jumping. b) The tall one and the woman, who are eating, are jumping. c) The tall woman is eating the one who jumps. d) The tall one and the woman are eating the one who jumps.
>>>
Well, the examples involving 'and' will be dealt with by the and- construction I just mentioned. As for the others, they could be translated while keeping the words in the same order, as follows: T: Tewe sàcha lóme nerula. Ti: tewe sàcha lóme nerula Ei: (((tall woman) eat) jump) E: (a) The tall woman, who is eating, is jumping. T: Tewe sácha lome neurula. Ti: tewe sácha lome + nerula Ei: ((tall woman) (eat + jump)) E: (c) The tall woman is eating the one who jumps. These translations are not necessarily particularly idiomatic, but I think I've made my point. :) I'll go into detail about the way that the word accents show the sentence structure in my next 'official' Telona grammar post ... but it's half past two in the morning now and I have a ward full of sick people to cure tomorrow. :)) If anyone's got this far - I hope it helped! More soon if you wish, Jonathan. 'O dear white children casual as birds, Playing among the ruined languages...' W. H. Auden, 'Hymn to St. Cecilia' CMD v1.1 !l cN:R:S:H a++ y n2d:1d B? A-- E-- L++ N3 Is/v !k ia+++:++ p++ s++ m-- o--- P S---- Telona