Re: Performative verbs (was: Re: here is some stuff i want all of ya'll to look at)

En réponse à David Peterson :


>Honestly, though, what *is* a performative verb but a magic
>spell?  Provided you have the authority (i.e., you're some kind
>of magician), your word becomes deed--like Milton said, with
>his interpretation of "be fruitful and multiply".  So if when a
>judge of some kind says "You're married", or "You're guilty"
>you *become* married or guilty, then when a Maggelian magician
>says "You're dead", man, you be dead!
LOL! A use in insults (or true spells?! ;) ) would make sense indeed :) . 
But I'll find others ;) .
________________________________________________________________________________
En réponse à Andreas Johansson :


>This surprises me; surely the performatives would be less common than the
>non-preformatives, and thus, by the principle of maximizing the learner's
>memory load, ought be the more complexly conjugated? Having the more common
>forms more difficult seems way to sensible for Maggel.
I don't know. What is more against common sense:
1. the majority of forms using a simple conjugation (even though with many 
irregularities) while the minoritary rest uses very complex ones, or
2. the minority of forms using a simple conjugation, while the majority 
uses very complex, convoluted, and irregular ones?

Most natlangs do commonly 1. So it makes sense for Maggel to do 2. 
Especially since having most verbs in their most common use use very 
complex and irregular conjugations seems a bit more of memory load to the 
learner than having the complex forms in little use... Don't forget the 
irregularities are so common the learner cannot build patterns, whatever 
the amount of use of the forms.

>Or do you intend to craft Maggelian pragmatics so that most verbs actually are
>preformatives?
Nope :) .

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang. 

Reply