Re: Re : Using numberless substantives

From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:

> et Charles a =E9crit :
> >  The same roots can then be used to modify verbs or other things,
> >  or simply left out when not needed.
> well, i think you need sometime to attach some of them to meanings "hid=
den
> inside" the words.
Cannibal words, indeed ... my Atlanteans prefer to break down words
into little particles, which is probably how they extincted themselves.

> for instance, if you want to derive "to learn" as the
> temptative/inceptive of "to know", or reversely, then you must take int=
o
> account that "to start knowing" is different from "to learn", and "to h=
ave
> learned" is different from "to know". of course, if you have plain diff=
erent
> words for each then these lines are needless.
We take "knowing" as the primitive verb, and add "try" and "become"
as adverbs to get "try become knowing" as a phrase for "learning".
So simple-minded; or perhaps Neanderthal, I just realized ...

> >  And for gender, I'd want either none (just use "fem" and "mal/mach"
> >  and maybe "bis"? as optional modifiers) or many more,
> >  an expanded gender/class system ala Bantu/Swahili or Ro.
> gender ? what for ? aren't compound female/male words enough ?
Classes: vegetables, animals, people, objects, substances, tools, ...
I would take the 18 or so consonants and relex vocab so every word
of a given class starts with the same consonant. If verbs and statives
constitute classes, then I can trash the part-of-speech vowels.