Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
> >The following examples explain why :
> >
> >'he rises'
> >
> >= undergoer-he pred-rise
>
> Ok so far, but:
>
> >'he raises'
> >
> >causative-he undergoer-he pred-rise
>
> What would happen if we removed undergoer-he? ("He causes to rise"?)
> And what if we removed causative-he? ("He is risen?")
> (It's no critic, just curiousity. Does it have any sense?)
>
I'm ok with any critics :-)
> Could we have a reflexive pronoun to avoid repeating
> one of the two "he" in the example above? And where would you put it?
> (causative-himself or undergoer-himself?, I know none of them make
> sense, but it could be elliptical or idiomatic).
>
I miswrote, I wanted to write :
'he raises the man'
= causative-he undergoer-man pred-rise
> Tell me if this is incorrect:
> To say "he is a man", do I say
>
> abs-[he] pred-[man]
>
> (i. e. he is (= acts as) a man)?
>
No, absolutive case is different from equative or identitive forms.
Anyway, you raise (:-) an interesting question :
Nouns have sometime a whole range of possible predicative meanings, from very to less 'obvious'.
Predicative meaning of 'chair' is obvious.
Predicative meaning of 'mouth' is less obvious.
Predicative of 'man' is less obvious.
>
>
> >You'll realize we don't need many adjectives anymore if we have these
> possibilities :
> >
> >apparent = mu-absolutive-image
> >
> >beautiful = mu-attributive-beauty
> >
>
> I don't recall us having adjectives :)
I meant : verbal modifiers. Sorry
Don't you want the words 'beautiful' and 'apparent' in the vocabulary ?
>
> How will we handle possessives? So far we'd been using modifier
> tags, so that mu-image would mean "related to the image", interpreted
> as "the image's". How would you say "the image's shape"?
>
If it's an action (the shape 'is seen') :
mu-absolutive-image zu-shape
If it's an attribute (the image's shape) :
mu-attributive-image zu-shape
>
> >> If a root is an action concept, those roots are verbal ones. The
> derived
> >> noun will be the action ("killing" from "to kill" or "biting" from "to
> >> bite").
> >
> >I derive 'to kill' from 'to die' via causative :
>
> In Drasele'q, I derived "to kill" enthrosim- from "to die" thros-
> by adding en- (a causative prefix) and -im (passive voice):
> "to cause to be dead".
Why not ? 'Death' is special you could consider 'death' as :
1. a state or process you cause one to undergo,
2. or as a result you cause one to be patient of,
3. or as an instrument you use on a patient.
With your own Drasele'q system you chose 2 with a direction from killer to killed
(you could go reversely) :
caus-he pred-death
'he kills'
caus-he patient-man pred-kill
'he kills the man'
> But I don't see it as a regular procedure,
> and indeed I did that as an exception.
> I'd prefer two distinct
> roots...
Of course ! With pleasure !
But why not have the possibily to speak with both roots to say 'to kill' ?
French :
dicider > occire
mourir // tuer
But the idea is good, until we have time to create
> synonyms.
>
>
> A question about the previous issues:
>
> dikjak- "to bite"
>
> absolutive-kjak- "a bite" ?
No obvious meaning because kjak is no instrument to me : it's a result of an action.
I'd like it even better : I'd use it very often to say 'this hurts as a bite' in a
metaphorical sense.
> causative-kjak- ???
No obvious meaning. Bite is not an instrument.
Nevertheless I would use it for
'to let your dog bite the postman'
if we don't have a factitive verbal form.
> agent-kjak- "a biter" ?
to me : kjak-ergative-o
and :
death-caus-o = a killer
> patient-kjak- "a bitten one" ?
death-undergoer-o = a dead person
bite-patient-o = someone bitten
This all depends on what death is to you. To me it's a natural state.
Bite is no state : it's always the result of an action.
>
>
> [God bless Carlos for this:]
Yes. Amen.
> >> A dictionary should hold all the meanings a root would have as different
> >> PoS.
>
> Yes! Oui! Si'! Da! Ja! Hai!
Oc ! Ba ! Nai ! etc.
(like in English)
>
> (Anybody, a word for "yes" in our conlang? _Zas_? _Ly_?)
>
I can't think of one
>
> >> Maybe proximity or deixis would be another non-compulsory part of the
> >> screeve. This allow us to take appart two individual things of the same
> >> gender.
> >
> >Yes.
>
> Yes. Obviative pronouns/inflections?
Yes.
>
> >>
> >> We should define which elements will form the screeve, which are
> compulsory
> >> and which not, and use the non-compulsory parts for disambiguishing:
> like
> >> for using for modifier-modified agreement or give extra information
> which
> >> could clarify the meaning.
> >>
> >
> >I don't get that one. More please.
>
> I think Carlos means: let's always mark some elements on words. Other
> elements
> can be marked optionally, and they will be, as long as it helps to solve an
> ambiguity.
>
> But, Carlos, I think agreement *should* be compulsory.
>
>
> Finally, something about subclauses:
>
> afraro ki [asi peki diwivul] aki pesi dikjakul.
> "The dog that I painted red bit me"
>
> ki = relative or resumptive? pronoun
> How's that?
Well : you nicely mixed resumptive and relative uses. I was pleasingly surprised.
Let's say it's a relative from now on.
afraro pe[ki asi diwivul] aki pesi dikjakul.
"The dog that I painted red bit me"
You don't need the first ki in the beginning, but I didn't think of it and now I
realize it could be handy as optional.
> (I used the wrong case markers -- it should be, I think,
>
> afraro ki [causative-si undergoer-ki diwivul] aki pesi dikjakul,
>
> right?
Well, yes if 'red' is a phenomenon (redness), but if it's an instrument 'red paint',
then you have :
afraro ki [ergative-si patientive-ki diwivul] aki pesi dikjakul,
It took me weeks to get that right with Sumerian.
I don't say I'm right.
I just know some people would think from red paint towards redden and others
from red towards red-painting.
>
>
> --Pablo Flores
>
Mathias
-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17205
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/