Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Group Conlang

From:Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>
Date:Monday, October 12, 1998, 20:22
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/