Nouns, verbs, adjectives... and why they're point
|From:||Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, December 9, 1998, 14:19|
JOSHUAH WROTE :
> Now, if "table" were only an adjective, you wouldn't have even brought up
> this problem -- the seeming "boundary" between "table" and "desk" would
> disappear, and they might both be used to describe a given thing with no
> conflict, just as you might describe the table as both "wooden" and "black"
> without any conflict.
>that's how I deeply feel too.
> I have yet to meet someone who could explain just what the distinction betw=
> nouns, verbs, and adjectives is supposed to represent;
I feel that you answered yourself to your own question : PoS is mainly based on
aspectivation, that is : on degree of integration. So if you flatten that
vector you don't have any distinction anymore in PoS. in English i feel there
are roughly from least to most integrated : verb, participle, subclause,
adjective, compound. in japanese : verb/verb adjective, subclause, noun. In
Khmer : verb/adjective, noun.
in Danove"n I reckon : word, operator. Nouns you cannot be opposed because there
is no process (not *progress*) so everything is *frozen*, no reversive is
implied. That's why *TABLE* cannot be opposed to *DESK*. You may oppose *BLACK*
to *WHITE* but that's no reversive process, only vague *psycho* or pseudo
*scientific* or *logic* opposition. Politicians love nominal phrases :-) I also
feel japanese giongo as unaspective speech :-) But it's not because
aspectivation is unmarked that it does not operate. It has to. And when it's
marked, the gradation is not uniform in all languages : i want to say :
japanese *verb-adjective* matches english pos from verb to participle and
japanese *subclause* matches english PoS from subclause to compound. Khmer is
messier : verb matches from verb to compound. Danove"n : noun matches from verb
to noun :-) But you still have the operators needed, see ? My tunu language
works like danove"n : only verbs and operators, but still it has pos marke!
with pronouns like *the latter clause*, *the former predicate* or *the former
noun*, etc, because i can feel that anyway the pos works by itself, no need to
> To me, the PoS seem far more traditional than rational, and this is an opin=
> based not just on reasoning but also on experience; I fluently speak a lang=
> without PoS and have never felt *any* need for them -- from an "outsider's
> viewpoint", PoS distinctions are artificial, sloppy, and entirely unneccess=
> as well. Flame at will, it's the simple, verified truth ;-)
> Josh Shinavier
>yeah ! blood ! kill !
i think garrett wrote that relation between words beside PoS is not important...
Come on garrett, it's your turn :-)))
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=19066