Re: CHAT: Re : Re: Tlvn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html w=
rote:

> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 14/09/99 20:12:55  , Tom a =E9crit :
>=20
> >  Nouns and verbs are abstract grammatical categories that only
> >  exist if there is reason to posit they exist in the syntax of a langua=
ge.
>=20
> no. wrong. XXL-wrong.
Well, I'd say that grammatic categories exist to encode a precise meaning,
so I'd have to agree with Mathias. Ed has promised me that once I delve
deeper into cognitive grammar (I've ordered Lakoff's Women, Fire and
Dangerous Things, and am reading van Valin's and LaPolla's Syntax), I'll
get closed to knowing what exactly the semantic definitions of 'noun'
and 'verb' are - other than 'a thingie you can get, see or think of',
and 'an action you can perform, or get performed to you' ;-). I don't
see much use in separating grammar from semantics - I've never had that
enlighten me about a language.

<...>

>=20
> > =20
> >  And please -- don't dismiss Comrie unless you've read what
> >  he has to say. :)
>=20
> are you to say he's/you're right unless someone dies out of bore reading
> that genius's enlighed/ning prosa ?
>=20
Oh, come on! Comrie is a good and industrious linguist - his _Tense and
Aspect_ are wonderful, his _Languages of the world_ delectable, and his
_Language Universals and Linguistic Typology_ is very readable and full
of interesting examples. One doesn't need to agree with a book to find
the book a good book (or vice versa). And who knows - perhaps Comrie is
a closet conlanger, who only became a linguist to discover new features
for his secret conlangs!

Besides, what Comrie contends in the pages mentioned (59-61 - I hope
I have the same edition that Tom does, second), is that there is a
'continuum of control from agent to patient', which is expressed
differently in different languages. I can't find anything that might be
taken to mean that Comrie thinks English doesn't have a category like
indirect object.

Indeed, what I take these pages to explain is that different languages
have a different expression of semantic notions, but not that the notions
don't exist in a certain language.=20

I think, if you make the semantic notions sufficiently atomic, then every
language could be said to express almost all of those semantic notions,
but groups them differently, thereby adding an extra meaning to those
groups of notions.

Let's invent two languages, that express three meanings in two lexemes:
           be       breathe      live
Kuliu           aku           |  liu
Ymur       Ym    |        hisu

So, both Kuliu and Ymur have the notion of be, breathe and live, but
distribute them differently - the same can happen with more abstract
meanings, like 'getting it done to you' or 'going someplace', that are
often expressed by mood or case - this is what Wierzbicka contends.

Boudewijn Rempt  | http://denden.conlang.org/~bsarempt