Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Re : Re: Re : Case, Innateness, Almost Allnoun, NGL.

From:From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html <lassailly@...>
Date:Thursday, August 5, 1999, 20:46
Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 05/08/99 19:51:12  , Charles a =E9crit :

> Gerald Koenig wrote: > =20 > > Well, thanks to both of you for commenting. It's a big surprise to me > > how strongly you feel about it. I was just exploring. I must have > > crossed some border without a visa. > =20 > Yes, and there are some cannibals around.
> Partly this is due to a different linguistic school-of-thought > in France, apparently influenced by Prague. Refreshing change > from Chomsky, eh? Sorry. I like a wide diversity of opinions. > =20
so do i. inasmuch as "wide diversity of opinions" is a valid, attested expression among english speakers referring to a concept i would then feel entitled to share with them although i've never read Chomsky or Czech.
> > >> > xxxx an argument for a localist hypothesis of case roles and > > >> > clause structure as part of the genetic endowment of the human > > >> > species. > > >> > Scott DeLancy's words. > =20 > This is not as radical and controversial as it first seemed to me. > The "localist" views seem to be in the majority now, in one form > or another, across all the linguistic camps; at least, I don't > see any violent reactions against it. > =20
trees are clouds of atoms, my house is a bunch of bricks, my language is a file of diagrams. what next ? i wouldn't mind actually. i just feel like something's missing. ratio ? finality ? senses ? representation ? anybody here ? Condriac ?
> M.L: > > >> > > >> the NGL stuff is slightly simplistic. > > >> you may want to listen to your children and ponder : > =20 > So it could be made *more* simplistic?? OK. How? > =20
i don't think we can make anything more simplistic =20 than the idea that all roles are space & time concepts. it is just wrong. as wrong as saying that transitivity is merely causation. dream who may. however, if it works with a machine, then this should be so for a human being, right ? wrong. ever heard of Eurotra ?
> Aspect is more useful for word-building, right? > But I have seen vector-tense aproaches like G.K.'s > proposed by some linguistic theorists. > =20
i should learn less natlang grammars and vocabulary and learn more about computers, i guess. word-building is nothing. word-breaking-down is *something*. don't you agree ? =20
> A said P to D ... A told D about P ... P was told to D by A > A gave P to D ... A gave D the P ... D received P from A > A made P be S ... A S-ed the P ... S of P by A > =20 > So, one should-can systematically derive "a speaker/saying/hearer", > a "donor/gift/recipient", and a "destroyer/destruction/victim". > =20
not quite so. the range of aspects and roles of a process is limited. "being spoken to" doesn't mean you actually hear, but at least the "to" of "being spoken to" prospectively infers that you have the ability to do so ("addressee"). nothing like a localistic "speak goto you". this is not a minor point. "tell about something" is not equivalent to "tell something". in "receive from A" A is either an agent or a source. "make something be something else" is a causation, not a creation. these are no details either, but different roles pertaining to cognition, expression and status mappings. write in english is a faculty, write on paper is an application, write a=20 letter is a creation, and all this has nothing to do with space and time. recipient is no location, result is no extremal, pattern is no extent. ignoring this and other notional roles not pertaining to space & time realm is ignoring 90% of language ability. full stop.
> Probably one should also derive "telephone/checkbook/weapon" ... > but I don't know how. > =20
these are "instruments". telephone is a facility called medium to convey expression (not to express like signs). checkbook is facility to record information of check-in (not a faculty like memory is). weapon is a tool to harm, that is, an instrument performing a finis. these are old, basic semantic categories. of course, if you consider cognition or expression or finis as mere coordinates on a diagram and not as valid roles then all this is nonsense. there are plenty of instruments : path, access, vehicles, containers, clothes, covers, food, etc. and very un-locative ones indeed. but i think you know that by now, Charles, don't you ? mathias