Re: Nouns, verbs, adjectives... and why they're pointless
| From: | Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, December 9, 1998, 12:11 |
|---|
At 12:49 09/12/98 +0100, you wrote:
>> Most nouns are not easily definable. "Cat" can be defined as _felis
>> domesticus_, a quite precise term. Water can be defined as H2O, also a
>> precise term, but most cannot be so easily defined. What is "table",
>> for instance? How can you define it as opposed to "desk"? Both have
>> some sort of flat surface, suitable for various tasks, such as writing,
>> but what seperates them? On the other hand, verbs can usually be
>> defined quite precisely.
>
>I disagree completely. In Danoven there is no distinction, but those words
>which correspond best to verbs in English are not any simpler than those=
that
>correspond to nouns. Both are defined "minimalistically" based on other
>elements of the language. Silm ("to drink"), for instance, means simply
>"to ingest a liquid (down the esophagus, of course -- accidental inhalation
>of liquids is not silm!)", and is a concept included in oev (o"v) -- "to=
eat"
>-- to ingest, intentionally or unintentionally, regardless of material or
>any other considerations. You would "oev" soup, not "silm" it, unless it=
is
>all liquid. You would "silm" water, poison, or anything else nutritional=
or
>non, with whatever intention -- these are the pure forms of the words,
>clear and unambiguous; additional information may be added by way of
compounds
>or further explanation.
>The "desk-table" quandary is a typically natlang one; natlangs tend to=
avoid
>inclusions and hierarchial definitions -- there is a tendency to try to put
>every thing into just one categorical box, rather than taking nouns (since
>these are the natlang "things") to be simply descriptions, approximate or
>precise, of things, rather than mutually exclusive classifications.
>In a sensible language a desk is a table as well; there is no way in which
>the writing purpose of "a desk" compromises the table-ness of "a table".
>Now, if "table" were only an adjective, you wouldn't have even brought up
>this problem -- the seeming "boundary" between "table" and "desk" would
>disappear, and they might both be used to describe a given thing with no
>conflict, just as you might describe the table as both "wooden" and "black"
>without any conflict.
>
>I have yet to meet someone who could explain just what the distinction
between
>nouns, verbs, and adjectives is supposed to represent; the *evolution* of
these
>distinctions is clear, but their *purpose*, if there is one, is shrouded in
>mystery, at least for me. The distinction is absolutely fundamental to the
>grammar of any language which has it -- IMNSHO there must be some very
simple,
>fundamental and important conceptual distinction it stands in for,=
otherwise
>it would not seem worth all the problems it causes, would it?
>To me, the PoS seem far more traditional than rational, and this is an
opinion
>based not just on reasoning but also on experience; I fluently speak a
language
>without PoS and have never felt *any* need for them -- from an "outsider's
>viewpoint", PoS distinctions are artificial, sloppy, and entirely
unneccessary
>as well. Flame at will, it's the simple, verified truth ;-)
>
I totally agree with Josh. Parts of speech are only accidental and I think
a language with PoS can evolve into a language without PoS and the contrary
is true also. PoS are not mandatory, there is no "universal grammatical
feature" that forces people to make a distinction between nouns and verbs.
In fact, I know that at least one natlang, Nootka, that really has no parts
of speech. Nearly everything's possible in that natlang (I'll find an
example if you wish).
But on the other way, We're so used to our own natlangs that most of us
have difficulties to think of languages without PoS. Even if I don't
subscribe to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, There's something true in it. I
know it because I tried to design a conlang really without PoS, but it took
me a very long time to really abandon the prejudice of my own natlang (I
managed to do it however).
Christophe Grandsire
|Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.
"R=E9sister ou servir"
homepage : http://www.bde.espci.fr/homepage/Christophe.Grandsire/index.html