Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: monovalence

From:Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>
Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2006, 12:42
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at  5:11 PM, Amanda Babcock Furrow wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:49:48AM -0500, Paul Bennett wrote: > > > Anyway, I'm having difficulty determining the core argument that makes > > up the essence of any given verb. You can dig without a tool, for > > instance, but you have to dig *something*, a hole, a grave or a > > fortification, or whatever. > > My approach to this (and I have given some thought to monovalent-verb-only > languages) would be to multiply the number of verbs. If necessary, you > could have separate dig-with and dig-a verbs, and when desired, say "He > dig-with shovel dig-a hole" or something. > > Or, go with "dig-a" and use "wield" when you need to reference the tool...
I'm going to go something like person-AGENT hole-dig shovel-TOOL Of course, word order would be pretty free. I think in this case all six orders would be allowable. I don't fully understand how I'm going to handle definiteness or gender. Gender is a prime target for a noun->noun suffix, I suppose, giving person=(epicene->male)-AGENT hole-dig shovel-TOOL Then there are various verb->verb promotion and demotion actions that could yield something like person=(epicene->male)-AGENT shovel-dig=(undergoer->tool) hole-UNDERGOER Marking the suffixes and their meanings correctly is going to be a big hairy monster, I suspect. In formatted text, I use smallcaps where I've got caps above, and superscript where I've got parentheses. That's subject to change at any time. Paul