Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Nouns, verbs, adjectives... and why they're point

From:Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>
Date:Wednesday, December 9, 1998, 14:19


> 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= > een > 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! d ! ! ! 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 deny it. Mathias
> To me, the PoS seem far more traditional than rational, and this is an opin= > ion > based not just on reasoning but also on experience; I fluently speak a lang= > uage > without PoS and have never felt *any* need for them -- from an "outsider's > viewpoint", PoS distinctions are artificial, sloppy, and entirely unneccess= > ary > 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 :-))) Mathias
> > _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ Joshua Shinavier =20 > _/ _/ _/ Loorenstrasse 74, Zimmer B321=20 > _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ CH-8053 Z=FCrich =20 > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Switzerland =20 > _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ > > Danoven/Aroven: > >
----- See the original message at