Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

OFFLIST: ngwaalq (was: Syntactic differences within parts of speech)

From:eldin_raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...>
Date:Wednesday, August 23, 2006, 16:40
---In, Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...>
>wrote: >[Sylvia wrote] >>Also, who can provide similar examples from their conlangs? Does >>your conlang have an extra part of speech (two separate kinds of >>verbs, perhaps, which operate differently)? Does it contain >>subclasses within parts of speech (verbs, perhaps, that can't be >>nominalized? Yes, I'm rather stuck on verbs...) Words which don't >>fit into any part of speech in the language? Any other relevant >>examples or thoughts? >> >My current conlang ngwaalq has additional word classes not found in >English: noun classifiers and verb classifiers. These are closed >classes (about 50 items in each) which have distinct distributional >and morphological properties to verbs and nouns: namely, noun and >verb classifiers are the locus of nominal and verbal inflectional >morphology respectively, and can occur independently (nouns and >verbs require a classifier, but noun and verb classifiers do not >require anything explicit to classify).
>On the other hand, ngwaalq lacks a class that English has: adjectives >(treating adjectives as verbs basically). It also lacks true >inherently stative verbs (except for verb classifiers): verb >classifiers distinguish various Aktionsart and telicity related >distinctions, and stativity is indicated by the choice of a stative >type verb classifier.
>When a telic verb classifier occurs with a verb related to a state, >say "to be red", it is interpreted as an accomplishment, in this >case "to become red". I do not regard these verbs as inherently >stative, since neither meaning is more basic or more marked than the >other... telicity and Aktionsart (as well as valency) related >distinctions are simply mostly marked by the choice of verb >classifier rather than being inherently associated with a root.
>As for nominalization, verb classifiers (if you count them as a >subset of verbs) cannot be nominalized. You can form a relative >clause that contains them, but the nominalizing morphology available >to open class verbs is unavailable to them. Noun classifiers (again, >if you count them as nouns) also resist denominalization strongly, >since one of their main functions is to mark nominality.
This is all great stuff, Chris. I'd like to see more about ngwaalq. Where can I find it? --- Sylvia was more interested in non-closed and non-small classes; or at least _one_ of her questions said so. Possibly the question _you_ answered couldn't be answered with an open, major class. --- Two Eskimos sharing a kayak grew uncomfortably cold, so they lit a fire in their craft. Of course it sank; thus proving, once again, that you can't have your kayak and heat it, too. ----- eldin


Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...>OFFLIST: ngwaalq