Re: Group Conlang

I posted a reply to Pablo whereby I disagreed on predicate roots, but reading
Carlos' post, I withdraw my disagreement provided we make two new cases, namely
the genuine ABSOLUTIVE and CAUSATIVE cases to use with predicates derived from
instruments.

I explain why herebelow :

Carlos wrote :

>Some considerations:
>
> Roots
> The roots are concepts which could be material concepts, such roots will be
> some how nominal and the derived verb could mean: using the thing in the
> propper way ("to hammer" from "a hammer" or "to sit" from "a chair"), making
> the thing, being the thing, et cetera.
Yes. You're right and so was Pablo. My apologies. I didn't see that we agree in fact. :-(

But then I need 2 more cases : CAUSATIVE and ABSOLUTIVE :

I propose :

'to hammer'

= absolutive+noun  pred-hammer

= to work as a hammer

'to hammer'

= erg+noun pred-hammer

= 'to use as a hammer'

'to be hammered'

= patient+noun pred-hammer

You wonder why I use CAUSATIVE and not ERGATIVE,

and why I use ABSOLUTIVE and not UNDERGOER

The following examples explain why :

'he rises'

= undergoer-he pred-rise

'he raises'

causative-he undergoer-he pred-rise

It's different from 'to hammer'. Look at that :

'he hammers'

= erg-he pred-hammer

'he's hammered'

= patientive-he pred-hammer

'he has her hammer the dog'

= caus-he erg-she pat-dog pred-hammer

'he has her hammered by the man with a stick'

= caus-he erg-man pat-she abs-stick pred-hammer


Well I'd like two more cases : ABSOLUTIVE to refer to the one acting as a hammer
(not the one using it) and CAUSATIVE to tag the agent who makes someone else
raise.

You will notice that these are the cases needed to make the
mieru/miru/miseru/misaseru distinction without any verbal suffixes /

'the man appears'

= absolutive-man pred-image

= 'it is like an image'

'the man sees'

= undergoer-man pred-image

'the man shows something'

= erg-man pred-image

= 'he uses as an image'

'the man shows to someone'

caus-man pred-image

= 'the man makes someone see'

You'll realize we don't need many adjectives anymore if we have these possibilities :

apparent =  mu-absolutive-image

beautiful = mu-absolutive/attributive-beauty


> 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 :

undergoer-he pred-death

'he dies'

caus-he undergoer-she pred-death

'he kills her'


> If a root is an attribute, it is an adjectival root.  The noun will mean the
> name of the atribute ("red color" from "red") and the verb would mean having
> the attribute or putting the attribute on something.  The disctiontion would
> be by concept:  _UNDERGOER-Noun1 PREDICATE-Attrib_ will mean Noun1 is/has
> Atrib, but _AGENT-Noun2 PATIENT-Noun1 PREDICATE-Attrib_ will mean Noun2
> makes/holds Attrib to Noun1.
>
> In converting roots into attributes the followin schemes could be used:
> from nominal roots: the modified root is or has a propperty if the modifying
> root.
> from verbal roots: the modified root is modified by the action or acts.
> Some aditional derivation would be needed... maybe by voice.
>
> A dictionary should hold all the meanings a root would have as different
> PoS.
>
> Case/PoS tags:
> Will be as small as possible for most common concepts.
> I would like no case tag for Theme/Topic.
> I would like one letter case tag for patient, agent and predicate.
> I wouldn't complain for flexing case tags, examples:
> roots:  rum,  kal,  og
> case1: prum, ukal, pog
> case2: orum, okal, wog
>
Ok.

> I don't mean extrem cases like those above, but some flexibility could rise.
>
> Agreeement:
> I vote for agreement between modified and modifier not by case but by other
> element of the screeve, like the tense, dinamism, voice, aspect, number,
> evidence or gender.
>
Would it be that you do speak Spanish ? :-)

> 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.

>
> 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.


> -- Carlos Th
>
>
Mathias



-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17190
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/