Re: verbal classifiers

Matt: (20 May):
> Dredging up memories of my old Auari/Awemai project got me thinking about
> another project I've been kicking around, which exploits what I think
> may be a novel way for constructing verbs.
>
> The idea is for a conlang (call it Awari - I like that name), in which
> all verbs are formed from two parts, a PREVERB (or VERBAL CLASSIFIER)
> and a ROOT.  The preverb gives information about the argument structure
> and type of event the verb refers to, while the root provides the
> semantic content.  I started playing around with this last night, and
> here's what I came up with:
>
> Verb roots may denote an object (e.g. "kamaat" = "a knife for cutting
> meat"), a property (e.g. "likii" = "quick"), or an activity (e.g. "zana" =
> "run, running").  To these roots, various preverbs may be prefixed which
> specify whether the verb is transitive or intransitive, what kind of
> event it denotes, etc..  There are several dozen preverbs, including the
> following.  (Here X, Y, Z, and R are variables representing positions
> in the argument of the verb where various things can be plugged in;
> X stands for the subject, Y and Z for the objects, and R for the content
> of the root):
>
>         du-      "X holds/carries R", "X moves in an R manner"
>         ha-      "X uses R", "X does R"
>         ida-     "X goes to R", "X begins to R"
>         ili(na)- "X uses/does R (to Y) repeatedly"
>         ima-     "X transforms Y into an R", "X causes Y to become R"
>         ka-      "X affects Y by means of R"
>         ma-      "X is an R", "X is someone/thing that does/is R"
>         maha-    "X makes an R"
>         mba-     "X uses Y to transform Z in an R manner"
>         mbadu-   "X go to Y in an R manner"
>         mi-      "X is at R"
>         na-      "X affects Y in an R manner", "X acts upon Y using R"
>         ndi-     "X perceives Y by means of R"
>         ndu-     "X puts Y on an R", "X causes Y to go to R"
>         ngiha-   "X acts on Y in a forceful/decisive way using R"
>         ni-      "X becomes an R"
>         walu-    "X is busy using/doing R"
>
> How exactly these preverbs are interpreted depends on the kind of root
> they attach to.  Hopefully some examples will make the system clear:
>
>         Roots:  hai       "inside, interior"
>                 kamaat    "a knife for cutting meat"
>                 lakii     "fast"
>                 mbaa      "seeing"
>                 mbaasat   "reading" (lit. "seeing-word")
>
>         du-hai          "X goes through an interior space"
>         du-kamaat       "X wields/carries a knife for cutting meat"
>         du-lakii        "X goes quickly"
>         du-mbaa         "X searches with his eyes, X looks all around"
>         du-mbaasat      "X does research, X reads carefully"
>
>         ha-kamaat       "X uses a knife for cutting meat"
>         ha-mbaa         "X sees things"
>         ha-mbaasat      "X is reading"
>
>         ida-hai         "X goes inside, X enters"
>         ida-lakii       "X speeds up, X becomes quick"
>         ida-mbaa        "X begins to see, X gains the ability to see"
>         ida-mbaasat     "X begins to read"
>
>         ilina-kamaat    "X cuts Y (= meat) repeatedly with a knife"
>         ili-mbaa        "X looks at Y repeatedly"
>         ili-mbaasat     "X reads repeatedly"
>
>         ima-kamaat      "X makes Y into a knife for cutting meat"
>
>         ka-mbaa         "X discovers Y (e.g. a lost object) by spotting it"
>
>         ma-hai          "X is the interior (of something)"
>         ma-kamaat       "X is a knife for cutting meat"
>         ma-lakii        "X is a fast one, X is fast"
>         ma-mbaa         "X sees, X is sighted"
>         ma-mbaasat      "X is a reader, X is literate"
>
>         maha-kamaat     "X makes a knife for cutting meat"
>         maha-lakii      "X makes things fast, X causes things to go fast"
>         maha-mbaa       "X looks at Y"
>         maha-mbaasat    "X reads"
>
>         mba-kamaat      "X uses Y to make Z into a knife for cutting meat"
>
>         mbadu-lakii     "X goes quickly to Y"
>
>         mi-hai          "X is inside"
>
>         na-kamaat       "X cuts Y (= meat) with a knife"
>
>         ndi-kamaat      "X reveals Y (e.g. bones, worms) by cutting meat"
>         ndi-lakii       "X quickly perceives/realises Y"
>         ndi-mbaa        "X sees Y"
>         ndi-mbaasat     "X reads Y (= words), X understands Y by reading it"
>
>         ndu-kamaat      "X puts Y (e.g. an inscription) on a knife..."
>         ndu-lakii       "X causes Y to become quick, X speeds up Y"
>
>         ngiha-kamaat    "X butchers Y (= meat) violently with a knife"
>         ngiha-mbaa      "X stares at Y, making Y uncomfortable"
>
>         ni-kamaat       "X becomes a knife for cutting meat"
>         ni-lakii        "X becomes a fast one"
>
>         walu-kamaat     "X is busy cutting up meat with a knife"
>         walu-mbaa       "X is busy looking around, X is busy searching"
>         walu-mbaasat    "X is busy reading"
>
> As I see it, the possibilities are endless.  With a collection of, say,
> three dozen preverbs, you could produce an extremely large number of verbs
> using just a few roots.
>
> What do people think?
This is somewhat reminiscent of Livagian. Simplifying a good deal (my
exposition, I mean), the "preverbs" (to use your term) occur in the
syntactic pattern
    (NP*) + PREVERB + X + (NP*)
where * = "any number of", "NP" is meant in a loose sense (roughly,
anything of type <e> or <t>), and "X" = a constituent of one of a very
large number of categories.
  On its own, the preverb tells you (A) the number of arguments, (B)
which of these
arguments may be identified by word order alone (i.e. without a
preceding "case marker"), and (C) the order which the (B) arguments
would appear in if present.
   The preverb coupled with the "X" gives you the lexical meaning.For
example if
X = /ghwobbi/ ("cloak") and the preverb specified one (A) argument,
then the meaning is "y is a cloak", while with a preverb specifiying
two (A) arguments, the meaning is "y is a cloak worn by z".

  That's the basic system. On top of this there are ways of
stipulating (A), (B) and (C) for
predicates with infinitely many arguments (i.e. there is no limit in
principle on the maximum number of arguments a predicate can have, and
however many arguments there are they may appear unambiguously in any
order). There are also ways of deriving alternate meanings from the
same X, with the same number of arguments (e.g. if you wanted a
predicate meaning "y is a cloak made of cloth z").

   Oh yes, and the preverbs also optionally indicate, for every
   argument that is not a (B)
argument, if it is 1st person, 2nd, or 1st+2nd, and whether it is
ordinary or imperative. Or if it is "taboo" (something you'd rather
not mention by name, such as God or genitalia or your boss).

  In my own notes I have called preverbs "vvv-words", where vvv =
Voice & Valency & Version.

  The downside to the preverb system is that every predicate consists
  of at least two words, the
preverb and the "X". The upside is that it gives very flexible clause
structure and very powerful mechanisms for deriving predicates.

  Oops. I forgot: another thing the preverbs do is indicate where more
than one argument slot is saturated by the same value.

  At one time, the preverb system was far more complicated than it is
now. I tried to list the entire paradigm (as is my normal practise),
using Word macros, and generated several hundred pages, getting only a
small fraction of the way through. I then did a back-of-envelope
calculation and estimated there to be about 50 million preverbs. I
decided that this was too complicated, and reduced them to just a few
dozen (not counting the person indicators, which are additional prefixes
to the preverbs).

--And.