Re: Telona grammar, part 1

reading attentively Jonathan's long Telona grammar. AllNoun, AllVerb and
NoVerbNoNoun conlanging is a genre of its own ;-) the last time the list
simmered about it the mess was fun! :-) i had a try for a few months, then
eventually read a book explaining entity, behaviour, predicate and argument--it
was about time--and never got back there. to me AllNoun isn't all noun, it's
AllNoTag! :-)

btw, i recently read an old article written in 1998 by a neurologue whose name
is Damasio reporting tomographic surveys showing that entities and behaviours
are not even processed in the same brain areas. a same word like "man" may refer
to one or more entities (human being, male person) as well as to one or more
behaviours (to man a ship, to be manly) but all these concepts are clearly a
priori either entities or behaviours stocked or processed in two different parts
of the brain albeit under the same word "man". the fact that you don't tag words
as entities ("nouns") or behaviours ("verbs") cannot change the fact that they
make different areas of your brain glow on tomographic images. btw verbs,
pronouns, conjunctions and syntax are apparently processed in a same area. this
article examplified all this with very impressive witnesses of aphasic people
who could not use verbs anymore or nouns or only certain categories of nouns
like instruments, body parts, etc. then i guess that an entity may be turned
into a predicate (with my favourite "copulae") and a behaviour may be turned
into an argument (with a "nominalizer" or you name it)--however copulae and
nominalizers are zero tag as in "to dream" vs. "a dream".

could you imagine the conlang invented by some aphasic conlanger? AllNounists
may pick good ideas there. or did they? or am i offtopic again? why can't i
refrain from writing loooooooooong posts? that's why i try not posting at all
anymore.

Mathias
www.geocities.com/kalatunu/index.htm

>>>
Chris Palmer <cecibean@...> a écrit:
On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 01:12 , Jim Grossmann wrote:
> 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?
For example, if a language had no copula, "apple" could be a verb meaning
"to be an apple". A previous conlang of mine, which never lasted long
enough to get a name, worked ("worked") like this:

     IS-A-GRANNY-SMITH IS-AN-APPLE TASTES IS-GOOD
     "The thing which granny-smiths, which apples, tastes good."
<<<

Reply