Look, Ma... verbs or no verbs?

Gary:  Your verbless language brings up the fascinating question of how w=
e
define the "verb" as such, without reference to any particular language. =
 Can
it be done?

The only theorist I know of who has been able to do so in an even vaguely=

satisfactory manner is Ronald Langacker, and his definition requires one =
to
accept a way of talking about language and cognition that many linguists =
would
not be comfortable with.  (It involves the way that the meanings of langu=
age
are mentally processed; details on request.)

To illustrate the problem:

I claim that all of your adjectives are actually finite verbs!  It's not =
john
thrower ball object-thrown, it's john is-throwing ball is-being-thrown.  =
Each
sentence of your verbless language is actually a coordination of a bunch =
of
two-word microsentences, each with a subject and a verb.  It's not verble=
ss,
it's 50% verbs!

How can we decide who's right, you (saying they are adjectives) or me (sa=
ying
they are verbs)?  This illustrates the dirty secret of linguistics: virtu=
ally
nobody has a good definition of these terms.

Ed


---------------------------------------------------------
Edward Heil .......................... edwardheil@usa.net
---------------------------------------------------------

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D=
1