Re: New Langage "Tyl-Seok": Similar ideas? (Was: Translation pattern of `to have'?)

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:49:52 +0100 Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
writes:
> Hi!
>[SNIP]
> >  But a single noun can be (and often
> > is) both the patient of a preceding noun and the agent of
> > a following noun,
>
> Could you give me an example?  Is it like (monospaced font):
>
>   Tyl-Seok:     tired   man          work
>   Structure:   [tired.V man.PAT].AGT work.V
>   Reference:             \________/
>   English:     The tired man works.
>
No, it's not like that.  Here's an example:

"X putsY onZ"

X and Y and Z are nouns.
"Puts" is Y's prefix and "on" is Z's prefix.
(Because X starts the sentence, it has no prefix.)

The reason I call the prefixes "quasi-verbs" is that they can
generally be interpreted as either verbs or prepositions.
For example, "X putsY onZ" can also be translated as
"X makesY occupyZ" (since to put something somewhere
to is make it become somewhere, and since to be on
something is to occupy it).  So we can translate Z's prefix
as either a verb ("occupy") or preposition ("on") here, and
we can translate Y's prefix as either an active verb ("put")
or auxiliary verb ("make") here.  Similarly, we can translate
"X putsY onZ" as "X movesY onto Z", or as "Because of
X, Y becomes on Z",  or as "X has Y get on Z", and so on.
(Modifiers can be added to express the exact shade of
meaning you want, but my conlang doesn't require them.)

So, in "X putsY onZ", the prefix that I translate as "put"
really just means this: "This prefix's noun's referent changes
its location in response to action by the referent of whatever
noun this prefix relates back to."  And the prefix that I
translate as "on" really just means this: "Consequent to any
action and/or inaction that may be specified earlier in this
sentence, this prefix's noun's referent is occupied by the
referent of the noun this prefix relates back to."

Now, when my conlang's word-order rules are applied to
"X putsY onZ", we find that the noun which "puts" relates Y
back to is X, and that the noun which "on" relates Z back to
is Y (so X acts on Y, and, consequently, Y occupies Z).

So Y is both the patient of X and the agent of Z.

> > Unlike your particles, my prefixes cannot be omitted.
>
> Redundance alert!! :-))
>
How true!  My hardest task is selecting vocabulary in which
there's no (or practically no) redundance between meanings
of nouns and prefixes and modifiers.

**Tommie