Re: THEORY nouns and cases (was: Verbs derived from noun cases)

Once more, I was talking about making a logical
conlang, as for ex Lojban. I know about many examples
similar to the ones you mention, in natlangs. My point
is that natlangs are only partly logical, which is
quite understandable, since they are human.

My idea to figure logically an idea like "Rex is a
dog" would be something like:

Rex ---- RELATION ---- dog

(which is exactly the case in English or in French,
only the relation expressed is a very vague one: "to
be", which can mean a hundred different things; while
in Russian, the copula wouldn't be expressed at all,
or only typographically: Rex - sobaka).

So the point would be: what kind of conceptual
relation is this ?

And my answer is: the relation is "is-an-instance-of",
which is exactly the same as when you say "Tony Blair
is a man", or "Saturn is a planet"; but NOT, for ex,
"A rose is a flower", and yet much less, "Rex is
brown", "Rex is dead", "Rex is Lassie's son", or
whatever. It just happens that English will use "is"
is all these cases, just like when you have no
screw-driver at hand, you might use a Swiss knife, or
a usual knife, or your teeth. But it would be better
to use the right tool if we had it.

If you want to build an automatic translator between,
say, English and Tagalog, or Hungarian and Cherokee,
so you have to proceed more or less like this:
1/ Convert the source speech into an inner conceptual
representation, using a particular set of rules
2/ Convert the inner conceptual representation into
the target language, using another particular set of
rules.

So, if the rules are well conceived, you might come to
final forms like "Rex absents", which would be quite
OK in the target language (for ex: Latin), even if
they are not in the source language (for ex: English).

If you try to shunt the inner conceptual stage, so you
just come to Google-style translations. I don't know
about you, but I usually don't find them satisfactory,
except for very basic sentences (and close-related
languages).

Now having a verb like, say "to cat" (since "to dog"
exists in English) doesn't seem to help much, since it
doesn't say anything about the type of conceptual
relation this should be:
- to be an instance of a cat ?
- to be a sort of a cat ?
- to be equivalent to a cat ?
- to behave like a cat ?
- to generate kitties ?
- to become a cat ?
- to feel or look like a cat ?
- to eat cats ?
- (others ?)


--- "Mark P. Line" <mark@...> wrote:
> Philippe Caquant said:
> > I find the idea of a verb meaning for ex "to be a
> dog"
> > unsatisfactory.
>
> Perhaps, but a great many languages have words that
> work just like that.
>
>
> > But what I mean is that, if you have a verb
> meaning
> > "to be a dog", first this can mean several things:
> > - A chinchilla is a dog (a kind-of a dog)
> > - Rex is a dog (an instance of a dog)
> > - He is a dog (he behaves like a dog)
> > - (probably more)
>
> You see the following kind of thing all over the
> world's languages:
>
> rekusu bauvau
> Rex    Dog
> "Rex is a dog."
>
> rekusu tSamp@
> Rex    Eat
> "Rex is eating."
>
> rekusu bauvauno:p
> Rex    Dog-NEG
> "Rex is not a dog."
>
> rekusu tSamp@no:p
> Rex    Eat-NEG
> "Rex is not eating."
>
> rekusu mEbibauvau
> Rex    POS-Dog
> "Rex might be a dog."
>
> rekusu mEbitSamp@
> Rex    POS-Eat
> "Rex might be eating."
>
> rekusu dEnbauvau
> Rex    PAST-Dog
> "Rex was a dog."
>
> rekusu dEntSamp@
> Rex    PAST-Eat
> "Rex was eating."
>
> rekusu dEnbauvauno:p
> Rex    PAST-Dog-NEG
> "Rex was not a dog."
>
> rekusu dEntSamp@no:p
> Rex    PAST-Eat-NEG
> "Rex was not eating."
>
>
> > Then why wouldn't we have verbs like:
> > - to be black (Rex has an external colour property
> of
> > black: Rex blacks ?)
> > - to be tired (Rex is tired, he is in a temporary
> > physical state of tireness: Rex tires ?)
> > - to be happy (Rex is in a temporary mental state
> of
> > happiness: Rex happies ?)
> > - to be dead (Rex is in a definite [irreversible]
> > state of being-dead: Rex deads ?)
> > - to be playful (Rex had a playful behaviour: Rex
> > playfuls ?)
>
> These are called "stative verbs" when they're being
> described as verbs,
> and a great many languages (including all the
> varieties of Chinese I've
> seen) have them in great number.
>
> There are "adjectives" that work this way in
> Japanese that could be
> described as stative verbs with a little extra
> willpower.
>
>
> > - to be in another place (spatial concept: Rex
> absents
> > ?)
>
> rekusu dIsplesno:p
> Rex    PROX-LOC-NEG
> "Rex is not here."
>
>
> > - to be the son of (Rex was Lassie's son: Rex
> sonned
> > Lassie ?)
>
> I've seen a bivalent stative verb that means "father
> of"; don't recall
> seeing "son" anywhere, but it wouldn't surprise me
> at all.
>
> > - to be married (Rex's master is in a particular
> > social relation with somebody: Rex's master
> marrieds
> > ?)
>
> I wouldn't be suprised to find a verb with that
> meaning.
>
>
> > So in the end, nearly everything could be a verb,
> but
> > what is it good ? (sorry: everything verbables,
> but
> > what goods it ?)
>
> Who cares what good it is? In the world's languages,
> nearly everything
> *can* be a verb, and that's that. It's something you
> learn to live with.
> :)
>
> > (Imagine for ex you have a verb meaning: to come
> on
> > the next day [to nextdaycome]...)
>
> That wouldn't surprise me in the least, although I
> don't recall
> encountering a lexical form with that meaning
> anywhere.
>
> Lots of languages have ways of putting that meaning
> into a multi-morpheme
> word, though.
>
>
> -- Mark
>
>
>
>
> Polymathix
> San Antonio, TX

=====
Philippe Caquant

"High thoughts must have high language." (Aristophanes, Frogs)


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Replies