Re: Conlang Shadows

Jonathan Knibb <j_knibb@...> wrote:

<<<<
takatunu wrote:
>>>
This tag shows that the noun works in the specific way you expect it
to work when asociated with a specific predicate. It's a way to make
the language kind of "all-noun."
[...]
with : @operating+tag
out of : @tap+tag
for : @duration+tag
in : @place+tag
although : @concede+tag
<<<
That's fascinating (I speak as one who has been wrestling with the
allnoun concept for some years now).  I see now (thanks also to John
C.) that the tag has a much broader range of meanings or meaning-
modulations than a typical instrumental case affix.
>>>
"Fascinating"? Thanks, but I think there must be a misunderstanding here:
It's simply skipping "cases".

<<<
Starting with "noun" vs. "verb" is starting within a active mode in
which--by definition--you need a verb and a noun.
Maybe you could try an attributive mode rather.
>>>
When you say '...when associated with a specific predicate', do you
mean to imply that the relationship of the tagged noun to its
surrounding phrase is flexible and context-dependent, like the
relationship between the concepts in an English compound (like snow-,
post-, chair- + -man)?
<<<
Kind of. The tag is simply a "hyperlink milestone."
Any lexy (i.e. a word or expression) in a language can be translated into a
corresponding lexy in another language.
For instance the words "duration", "motive", etc. can be translated and
understood, even if sometimes it requires a periphrase.
The words I use have two actors in any languages: "the reason for X is Y",
"the duration of X is Y", "the only problem to X is Y", "the cause for X is
Y", etc. I say that Y "expletes" X's function. I gave up wondering whether
their meaning is "flexible" or "context-dependent" because a human being
understands this "strategy" and a machine doesn't need to understand at all,
only to be fed data and what I call "occurences and concurrences" and infer
and develop new ones and store them.

<<<
And if your language is 'kind of all-noun', might it not be possible
to use this tag to make it completely all-noun (apart from the tag
itself of course)?
>>>
I don't know what you mean by "verb" and "noun." I only need an entity, a
behaviour and if I link two pairs of them then I also need to tag one as the
reference (predicate) and the other as a referent (circumstance.) I use
"SVO" because it's usually understood by anyone. S and O are entities an V
refers to both entities' respective behaviours. But the link between the
behaviour and the entity are "ineffable." No need to break it down. Really,
it's useless. And you cannot pair two entities ("nouns" but I call them
"substantives") together with no behaviour (call it verb, adverb, copula,
whatever.) That doesn't work in your brain although it's handy to make
compound words like you write above.

<<<
I'm particularly interested in the example
'@operating+tag' - presumably 'operating' corresponds to a verb here,
but if so, the word-class distinction here is surely redundant and
'operator+tag' would be syntactically as well as semantically
equivalent.
>>>
The word "fork" refers to a tool used in Western countries to eat. Imagine
you're a machine:
If you read "I break a pot with a fork", you understand that the fork breaks
the pot.
If you read "I eat spaghetti with a fork", you understand that the forks
eats the spaghetti.
The problem is that to get it right the machine needs data that a fork has a
specific self-function and a hyperlink to that function:
"I eat @FORK." But this would imply that FORK has already been entered as a
specific function in combination with the predicate "to eat."
So I leave it to be understood later by tagging with "OPERATE." Other
example:

"I plant a tree @LOCATION field."
means "the location of me or the action or the tree is the field since no
specific crossreference is added."

"I plant a tree @FIELD."
means "a field has a specific role in combination with "to plant" but I
don't need to read the definition of "field" in my dictionary because most
people will get it.

"I plant a tree @OPERATE field."
means "apparently there is some way to correlate a field to that darn
plantin' predicate but this depends on the definition of 'field' so I should
check that sometime."

I call it the "no-brain strategy": either you already know it or you leave
it to others :-)

<<<
As a matter of interest, does @WORD here mean 'translation of WORD'?
>>>
Kind of. This would mean "If there's a predicate like 'to talk', 'to
inform', 'to speak', 'to write', etc. here and if I add that 'go to Hell!'
is the expletive of "WORD" then people won't need more information to get
it."

<<<
How dare you write that my uberfantastic lang design is not even worth
your criticism? :-)
< More that my criticism isn't worthy of your language ... :P
>>>
Thanks again but I think you overestimated the trick. :-)

µ.

Reply