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

--0__=IoGMW06dR4XkYeNSUPf6UIgPRmMYiNzCBNyWbWdHIDTlnJBhRPqOXdaW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline




I'm going to resort to surrounding quoted text with >>'s and <<'s as replying
like this (above the message) is rather awkward.





"From

Please respond to Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>

To:   Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
cc:    (bcc: Paul Bennett/Townsend/XNCorp)

Subject:  Re : Re: Tlvn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius



*************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender. This footnote also confirms that this email message
has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
*************************************************************
--0__=IoGMW06dR4XkYeNSUPf6UIgPRmMYiNzCBNyWbWdHIDTlnJBhRPqOXdaW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




>>>>>>
Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 15/09/99 14:02:05  , Paul a =E9crit :

[snip]
>  "iku" on its own is a verb, whereas koyotsu needs the
addition
> of
>  "- da" to give a verbal sense.
>
good thinking, Paul.
or is it that koyotsu is a noun and will never be a verb,
no more than kyapnyalklapklap or whatever coyote will ever be
as i'm claiming it ?
adding a presentative "-a" doesn't change anything, whatever it
is described to be (verb, pronoun, "copula", suffix, etc.)
<<<<<<

Absolutely.  I think.  We're much more in agreement than I originally t=
hought.
See below for more...



>>>>>>
>  If the usual, legal forms of the expressions either both included or=
 both
>  excluded "- da", then you'd certainly have a point.
>
da is not needed with a verb.
you can make a verb into a noun :

iku > iku no
to go > the fact/the one going

but earlier japanese could do like you say
with a specific form of verb (iku > iki da).

now you have :

koyotsu ga iku no da : the one going is the coyote /here goes the coyot=
e
iku no wa koyotsu da : the one going is the coyote

koyotsu wa iku no da : the coyote is the one going/the coyote goes
iku no ga koyotsu da : the coyote is the one going
<<<<<<

Apart from clarifying the meaning of "ga" for me, that's just restating=
 the same
misaprehension.  The legal forms of both now only contain "- da" becaus=
e you've
added "- no" to one of them.  If you lose the "- no", the "- da" has to=
 go with
it.  At no point does "iku" become a noun, nor does "koyotsu" ever beco=
me a
verb.  To consider them both as equivalent PoS's, they surely need to b=
oth take
_exactly_ the same syntactic modification which causes _exactly_ the sa=
me
semantic change.  (The definition of exact may vary from language to la=
nguage,
but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't vary very much!)

I appear to have started arguing against someone without fully understa=
nding the
point they had to make.  It's not the first time, and it sure wont be t=
he last
;)  Suffice to say, I think I'm on your side on this one.


---
Pb


=

--0__=IoGMW06dR4XkYeNSUPf6UIgPRmMYiNzCBNyWbWdHIDTlnJBhRPqOXdaW--