Re: NGL:spatial adverbs and vectors

ii>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sodit.zereau.com id GAA32094
>Status: R
>
>Jerry!  Nice to see someone's finally added morphemes to motion-vector!
>As always, I'll be the critic.  Remember, I *like* your system.
>
>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Gerald Koenig wrote:
>
>>
>>                  SPACE VECTOR MORPHEMES SUMMARY
>First, basic objections where you have more morphemes than nessicary.
>There's this really usefull morpheme in NGL, {in`-} which basicly cuts the
>number of morphemes one needs in half.  Specificly, these ones are rife
>for invhrse forms:
>
>> DEXTRO: de LEVO: le
>This could be replaced with {le, inlh} (Levo form chosen since, IIRC,
>dextro is the default and thus will need a word less often)
>Alternitively, both could be derived from Ogden words {dekci} {levoci}
Ok. Levo in nilenga is VO. LE is the word for length of the vector.
The default coordinate system is a right-handed (dextro) person-centered
(wos) frame.
>
>> ANTHRO: wos MATH: mas PHYSICS: pis
>This could be done with a plain/invhrse/double inverse construct: {mas,
>inm`s, ninm`s} though I have no objection to keeping them seperate.
>However, calculate the number of 1-sylable words available in the
>phonology before you jump to coining monosylabic words.
Concerning the words, wos, mas, pis, your criticism is right on. There
is no need to waste precious monosylables with these, because they are
not much used. I want to reserve the monosylables in nilenga for
frequently used concepts and above all for use in contractions which are
at the heart of the system. I'll be coining some long words for these.
These are not really inverses. I think what you had in mind was the left
and right handed distinction. Each of these has a left and right handed
version for a total of six systems. That's why ij, ju, ko, vary in sense
from system to system. But as a practical matter, we are only using one
system, Anthropomorphic and right-handed.

>
>> nail/naju/nako
>These are invhrse relations pure-and-simple.  No reason not to use the
>more regular {(i)nll, injy, inkr} ({nll} coined on analogy to {n`zdu},
>{inll} would be the form in formal or carefull speach)
[I have some difficulty reading your post due to system
incompatibilities. I am on a pure unix shell with "mail" until the
fiberoptic and browser are installed soon. So I'm not sure what the
above paragraph says.]

If the inverse operator "[in`-]" is monosylabic I think it's a good
idea with il, ju, ko. If, for example, paznail would become pazinil, or
pasinil, (z change unnecessary without the doulble consonant), that
would be cool with me. However if it became pasin'il, that would be
anathema to me because it's sylable expansion without any increase in
semantic load. The tradeoff for derivational and modular consistency
and would not be worth it to me.


>
>> ---------------------
>Other objections: @ makes much more sense as a shorthand for {dis} than
>the other.
It's unclear from my formatting, but I meant @ to mean "set" the origin
of a coordinates system.  Like, set the origin as a person  named
"Tewksberry": @Tewksberry. It puts the origin of the default
anthropomorphic system in her body and the Point of View camera in her
head. The @ sign I also use for set membership in the Time vector, ie a
happening vector. It is conventionally used on the net for set
membership. I simply need more logographs.

>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> SPATIAL RELATIONS ADVERBS
>No objection.  Stephen, perhaps you could coin derivational implications
>off of these?  That'd save us some morphemes...
Steven's comments have already contributed a lot to vector tense and I
hope he continues.

>
>> The path or motion vector contains within itself the idea of motion. A
>> verb of motion is not necessary.
>However, it should be clarified that, for purposes of modularity, one is
>allowed.  {tibe} or {est`n} should be used if any.
>
>Also, could you clarify wheather, when used *as* combined
>prepositions/verbs of motion, they may be inflected as NGL verbs in
>whatever system?
I'm not sure I entirely understand, but you could jettison VTT (Vector
Time Tense) completely and use yours or Stephens's system  with VST
(Vector Space Tense). Just use any "pazil" type of expression with the
verb:

pazil tibeom. To the right he (?) goes.
sesinko tibeom. Faster and faster down she goes.

You can put any tense or person affixes you want on your verbs.
Sorry I still am not clear about tib- and tibe; which is the root, and
whether there is an equivalent of the infinitive without a subject.
Thanks much for your insightful comments.

Jerry
>
>
>Sincerely,
>       Jack Durst
>Spynx@sierra.net
>[this posting written in Net English]
>
>
>
>