Re: Relational language

Been working hard on rechanging the root structure as it gave complex
structures for compounding... which I rather avoided. While still
maintaining a very low number, however it all came more to 'relations', as
it went a bit off the mainstream.

Im still figuring out how i'm going to do 'opposite' which is an important
part of the morphology for reducing the amount of roots. As with the recent
change it kinda disappeared and became hard to implement.

as the structure stands now:

(LG)RNC(TVS)
(VC)CVC(VCV)
(Relationclass-group)-root-derivation-complementation-('through'-valence)

L: Relationclass - the type of relation the word is effecting. (read below)
G: Group - for the different groups the derivation might have. A row of
books for example.
R: Root - 22 roots so far, the idea is to create all the words by only 22
'words'.
N: Derivation - this gives direct 'meanings' to the whole object. For
example a person, object, place, event, action, etc.
C: Complementation - how the word is complemeted, compounded, Ending,
Starting, finishing, partial, fullfilling, amalgamate, immediate, etc.
T: Through - this is mostly a verb part, in combination with the valence it
makes the word a more descriptive verb. However it may also be used for
'odd' compounding. For example using the root 'interacting' in combination
with the derivation through 'light', would make it seeing.
V: Valence - makes the word a descriptive verb, for example you might fight
against each other, or next to each other something else, or after each
other, or in response to, or no valence at all actually.
S: Suffix - special suffix for grammatical suffixes, description,
proprietive, if it's required that is.

At the moment there are 6 types of relations:

Base relations:
Normal relations between object and object, for example object creates
object. This is normally the type of verb you use in English. The other
relation types make things more clear/descriptive/meaningfull.

Innerrelations:
A relation between a property of an object and a property of another object.
In this case it's all about the property which handles the action to act
with another property act. For example, a hand (which is a property of an
object, a person) touches a surface at a certain point. Or a person says
somebody gotta change the text and makes himself clear that it's only the
sentence he just appointed instead of changing the whole text.

Selfrelated relations:
A relation between the object and it's own property. For example a feet
supports, but what? its object: a person. In other cases it would have been,
the feet supports, or the feet supports different object. In this case it
makes clear thats it about the object who is receiving this property. The
sentence 'a feet supports' in this class entails that the feet is of the
same object and says it supports that object.

Pointing relations:
Object and a different object it's property.
Like as with Innerrelations, however in this case it's not the hand that
acts but the person. It is all to make things more clearly for when the
recipient-object is a group. This to make clear that a person or part of
that group is being involved. For example a person has to complete a certain
object by filling up a spot. With this relation type it makes clear it was a
certain part to be filled up.

Reversedpointing relations:
The reversed of pointing relation, it is about a property of an object
interacts with a different whole object. Example: the feet kicks the ball.
With this relation the word for 'pushing' effects the whole object, so the
ball moves as one. This is different if you use the relation:
innerrelations, using the word push in that case would mean you pushed a
certain part of the object, as like it would have created a hole.

Reflexive relations:
Object points to itself. This is different from Selfrelated relation.
Example: the feet supports (itself). It means that the feet is supporting
itself. (if the feet is an object of course.) Different example: The man
creates (himself).


At the moment I'm really busy with different things, but in the future I
hope to finish off the spatial part of the language, as it should be
'Sapir-Whorfis theory' challenging. I already have some ideas for it.