>>(translation) Noun Adjective Transitive verbs Intransitive
>>verbs
>>Stative
>>Active
>>So words are grouped into boads and are the same root in my conlang
>As many languages do not have a separate category labelled 'adjective', but
>use stative (intransitive) verbs instead, I think this "board" needs some
>explanation. What, for example, is the difference between adjectives and
>stative verbs?
the difference is that adjectives are use to describe something like "the
big man" or "the man is big" but verbs indicates action even if do not
implies to work to realise it like in case of stative verbs
>> The distiction between a transitive or intransitive utilization is
>>simply the presence or not of an accusative object
>Like English? He smelt terrible. [intransitive] He smelt the new mown hay.
>[transiive]
Exactly like in english, I don't see a more simple way to distinct it
because even if there is an affix or an indication of the transitivity of
the verb on it, there would be an object anyway...
>> Stative Active
>> Noun sight a look/observation
>> Adjective visible wich can be looked
>>Transitive verb to see to look at/observe
>>Intransitive verb to be able to be able to to see
>>things look things
>Um - the transitive verbs appear to have the addition of potential mood. It
>seems this conlang can express: (a) I am looking at them now. [transitive]
>(b) I am able to look at things (now my eyes are better). [intransitive,
>potential mood] But it cannot expresse: (c) I'm looking! [intransitive]
>Why?
I think that when you say "I'm looking!" without saying "at something" it is
because the thing had already been mentionned like
- Wow! look at that!
- I'm looking!
and in that case I only have to add a pronoun like if instead of "I'm
looking" you say "I'm looking at it"
>> So all these words are the root "viz" or "fis"
>>- A look: hafis -> definite singular article prefix(ha) + fis
>I am puzzled. If |ha| is the _definite_ singular article, shouldn't _hafis_
>mean "_the_ look"?
Yes sorry, my mistake, "a look" would be "hofis" because "ho-" is the
indefinite form. "hafis" would effectively be "the look"
>> I allows me to have only voiced or voiceless consonants in the same
>>root but I think I'll make nasals, [l], and spanish [r]
>Er - do you mean [r] (the Spanish |rr|) or [4] (the Spanish |r|)?
hee.. I don't know.. I don't know your phonetic code for [4] but I know that
it is [r] in the official phonetic code.
>> unchanged at Stative and Active forms and it will leave me create root
>>families that don't have any opposite by using only these consonants
>But they are _voiced_ sounds.
I know this, all vowels are voiced or not but I want them to be unchanged
and it is not worse like this because the difference between [l] or [r] and
voiceless [l] or [r] (symbols take a round on, I think (and sorry for using
"round" I don't know the english name for it)) is hard to hear for most of
people so a word with only "l's" would
>> Sometime, I'll probably need to cut stative and active subjectively
>>like
>>(dZaz) Noun Adjective Transitive verbs Intransitive
>>verbs
>>Stative woman typic of women to make a woman of to become a woman
>>Active man typic of men to make a man of to
>>become a man
>>It is not discrimination or something it is only for the opposition
>Discrimination involves opposition. But in my almost 66 years of sojourn in
>this life, most of the women I've met have been pretty active. But I can
>think of few stative men I've come across!
I've just said it is not discrimination! I just want to create an
opposition.
Would you prefer I make "dZaz" means man and "TSas" means women?
I decided to give the stative to the women because I think that Voiced
consonants sounds more gentle that voiceless ones...
I don't want it to be called Stative and Active I just want an simple
opposition that would unite words that have a near meaning like "to look"
and "to see" or "man" and "woman"
>This seems to me to be purely arbitrary, and contrary to experience. In
>what way is this _logical_ representation?
There is not any arbitarity(...) It is true that "to see" can be linked to
"to look at" and that "man" can be linked to "woman"
The only mistake I made is to call it Stative ands active but I don't want
it to be called Class 1 and Class 2 but if it causes trouble here, maybe
i'll decide to call it like this.
Class 1: Active neutral words / masculine things and persons
Class 2: Stative neutral words / feminine things and persons
>Also, is there no way to convey 'human person irrespective of sex' as, for
>example, in Novial? home = human person, man (generic) (German: Mensch)
>homa = woman homo = man (male) (German: Mann)
>Why is such a concept excluded?
Thats true! I didn't think about persons with undefinited sex.
I could add a third Class that should souds different or the others
Class 1: Active neutral words / masculine things and persons
Class 2: Stative neutral words / feminine things and persons
Class 3: Passive neutral words / persons without definited sex
So I could have
1: to look at / man
2: to see / woman
3: to imagine / imagination
I'm not sure of the third one "Imagination" that could itself be divided in
active stative
I will separate things in 5 classes
1: Active neutral words ->voiceless
2: Stative neutral words ->voiced
3: masculine things and persons ->voiceless
4: feminine things and persons ->voiced
5: persons without definited sex -> (something else that I will find
someday..)
And a board could anly have the 1 and the 2 or the last 3
>> Maybe someone would have an other word to replace "stative" and
>>"active" to fit with the "woman"/"man" opposition?
>Sex - Male/female?
No because "to look" is not more masculine than "to see"
>> What do you think of it?
>I am very puzzled. More explanation is needed. I am sorry to say that it
>seems far from logical to me and to contain much that is arbitrary.
It would be ok with my classes? I think that's all were arbitrary so if
there is something else just tell it and thanks for your critics and ideas