Re: A Language built around a novel grammar

Weld S Carter wrote:
> Has anyone here done or seen work on a language relying on a
> grammar that does not require the noun/verb distinction?
and Eric Christopherson wrote:
> Actually, does anyone know if there's a list of those conlangs
> and natlangs with little or no noun/verb distinction?  I would
> be interested in such a list, so that I can compare them.
I can add my conlang Telona (which went through a phase of being called
T4) to the list. Sadly, my attempts to explain it in written form remain
rudimentary, but I'm very happy to discuss on- or off-list.

I've never felt the need for a distinction between 'all-noun' and
'all-verb'. To me, if (as in Telona) there is only one open word class,
the syntax is already so different from traditional grammars that
neither term is really suitable - just my opinion though. Every
open-class word in Telona may take zero or one 'direct object', although
the relationship of the object to the governing word is more fixed for
some words than others. Number, aspect and so forth are considered
properties of referents, not of words, and are expressed using separate
words of their own.

Weld went on to write, quoting his colleague Andy:
> 1) A word is not the fact, feeling, situation, etc.
> 2) A word covers not all the characteristics of an object,
> fact, feeling, etc.
> 3) Language is also self-reflexive, in the sense that in
> language we can speak about language.
> "I find it convenient to abbreviate these as: 1) inaccurate,
> 2) incomplete, and 3) self-referential."
It seems to me that these things are uncontroversially true of natural
languages in general. How do these principles relate to the lack of a
noun-verb distinction? (Or have I missed the point?)

Jonathan.
==