Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: A Language built around a novel grammar

From:Harold Ensle <heensle@...>
Date:Sunday, November 19, 2006, 18:52
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:49:24 +0100, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
wrote:

>Hi! > >Harold Ensle writes: >>... >> I understand why you do not distinguish them, but I think that as such >> that a verb includes the operator, it can be morphosyntactically >> differenciated. >>... > >Ah! Yes, I see what you are doing. So are your operators an open >word class? Because when I match your statement with Qþyn|gài >grammar, your operators are essentially the cases, which are a closed >category in Q..
The operators are a closed class. The idea was to represent a (fairly) minimal set of simple relations that would make the language work. (And the choice was motivated in part by what is treated "fundamentally" in natural languages....such as case and pre/post position and conjunction.)
> >Then in my unfinished S11, I wanted to get rid of the closed category >of cases and have an open one instead, because it felt a bit arbitrary >what to express in cases and what not. So I started with two open >categories, that could be labelled verb (the equivalent to cases) and >nouns.
> >After a while of constructing, I *still* arrived at the point where I >joined the two open word classes. Again, I found no way to >distinguish them in a good way.
If I understand your meaning here......if one used the word for an operator, like "equals" for "=" and then treated it like any other word, then the operator would become part of the general lexicon. So your point is, why should some word get special treatment?
>The result is that any lexicon entry >may function as either nullary (a 'noun') or unary (equivalent of >intransitive verb or case or adposition). Binary (equiv. of >transitive verb) n-ary relations in general are expressed by serial >verb construction of 'verbal'-'nomimal' compounds.
I see here that you have minimized the operators completely(?), but notice that in the very end, you still had to have three. I found also that there seems to be no way to avoid some distinct element that has special behavior quite apart from the most generalized word class. Harold

Reply

Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>