Re: Tlvn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 14/09/99 16:40:36  , Tom a =E9crit :

> > But AFAIK there are no natlangs lacking fairly obvious verbs and
>  > nouns,
> =20
>  Josh Roth, inter alia, has already well addressed this topic.
> =20
he didn't.=20
of course a noun can be used to express a predicate :
"he mans a ship"
but this implies that the noun combines with a non-expressed
verb ("to provide X with human team").

there is a very sloppy trend among english speakers to obliviate
that making nouns into verbs is known as "integration process"
on the remaining part of the planet.
the very strange fact is that noone seems interested in listing the
integrating predicates.
=20
>  > or excluding "valency" 3, the more-or-less indirect object.
> =20
>  See Comrie, "Language Universals and Linguistic Typology" p.59-61,
>  for some discussion on why English syntax may not warrant a separate
>  category for "indirect object".
> =20
not warranting expression doesn't mean making concept not exist.
verbs are little theater plays. some plays need 3 actors and
it is not possible to make them into 2 plays with 2 actors without
debilitating the original meaning.

we all know that some people are desperate to find a way to
make language into 0&1 sequences and many authors are thus
eager to prove it is so.
but ANY human being who speaks and can reflect on what he speaks
and is able to make a conlang knows what the truth is.

a few fairy tales to have nice dreams tonight :

- transitive =3D factitive
- ditransitive =3D 2 x transitive
- X =B0 Y compound =3D X + Y

and other ones i'll tell you if you're a good boy/girl.

mathias