Re: logic vocabulary

On Wednesday, December 22, 2004, at 07:28 , # 1 wrote:

[I wrote]
>> 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"
{sigh} - I *know* the schoolbook definition of adjectives - I learnt it
more than 50 years ago!

The point is that in some languages, for example, Chinese and Japanese
(not related - despite popular belief), a word like "big" *is* a stative
verb. There is no adjective meaning 'big'; there is a stative verb meaning
'be-big' (être-grand).

> but verbs indicates action
How is "to see" (voir) an _action_?

What I mean is how will your scheme work with, for example, a concept like
"red"? How will the adjectives differ from the stative verbs?

[snip]
>> 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...
Yet, in the example you gave of "see" ~ "look" (presumably "voir" ~
"regarder"), the translations of the intransitive forms in your last mail
seems to imply that the intransitive are in potential mood, as we see
below.

>
>
>>>                    Stative          Active
>
>>>    Noun             sight          a look/observation
>
>>>  Adjective         visible        wich can be looked
>
>>> Transitive verb     to see         to look at/observe
                          voir          regarder

>>> Intransitive verb  to be able       to be able to                 to see
>>> things      look things
                        pouvoir voir      pouvoir regarder

>
>> 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
Not necessarily.

> - Wow! look at that!
> - I'm looking!
Yes, but we can also have:
- Wow! Take a look out of the window!
- I'm looking!
- What do you see?
etc.

[snip]
>>>    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]
The "phonetic code" is 'Conlang Extended SAMPA' otherwise known as CXS. If
you want to make yourself understood & to understand what others say, it
might be an idea to learn it. If your mailer can read Unicode, you will be
able to read that the CXS [4] is the IPA [ɾ], the alveolar tap, which is
the sound of single non-initial |r| in Spanish.

> but I know that
> it is [r] in the official phonetic code.
I suppose by "the official code" you mean IPA (International Phonetic
Association). Unfortunately, not all mailers can read this. So to enable
everyone to understand what we are saying, the 'official' phonetic code
for email on Conlang is CXS.

Anyway, if it is IPA (and CXS) [r] then it is the lingual trill.

>
>>>    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))
What is written in CXS as [l_0] and [r_0].

>  is hard to hear for most of people so a word with only "l's" would
The Welsh |rh| is quite distinct from |r| which BTW is [r] also. Whether
you write |rh| phonetically as [r_0] or [r_h] is a matter of choice, but I
have no difficulty in distinguishing between |rh| and |r|.

Voiceless [l] is another matter. It seems that where [l_0] might arise *as
a separate phoneme* it either loses its distinctiveness and merges with [l]
  as Old English _hláf_ has become modern English _loaf_ or become a
lateral fricative as the Welsh |ll| and that is _very_ different from [l].

I understand the Icelandic |hr| and |hl| are the same sounds as the Welsh
|rh| and |ll|.

But even if you do not want to include such sounds in your conlang, the
point I was making is that |l, m, n, r| are voiced sounds so if your
"boards" are to be consistent they should be used initially only to denote
'stative' meanings. But, it is your conlang; if you want irregularities or
exceptions that is up to you.

[snip]
>> 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.
But there can be no discrimination unless there is opposition!!

> Would you prefer I make "dZaz" means man and "TSas" means women?
No. It is just as discriminatory.

> 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"
NOT IN THE SAME WAY. 'Moon' can be linked with 'sun', 'dog' with 'cat',
'knife' with 'fork', 'Tom' with 'Jerry', 'Rudolph' with 'Santa', etc. etc.
  etc. These are not analogous links.

Men and woman are both human beings; they are differentiated mainly by
possessing different sexual organs. I was not aware that "to see" differed
sexually from "to look at"    ;)

> 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
This is *arbitrary*. There is no logical reason that I know of why "active
neutral words" (whatever they are) should be put into the same class as
"masculine things and persons", and "stative neutral words"  put into the
same class as  "feminine things and persons".

By "masculine things" and "feminine things" do you mean male and female
living things, or is your conlang dividing the world up into "masculine
things" and "feminine things" they way languages like French, Spanish,
Welsh, Irish, Arabic & Hebrew do?

>
>> 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
Oh! I had been assuming that you were using "active" as the opposite of
"stative" (a better word is 'dynamic' in this use). Now it appears that
"active" might be also opposite of "passive". It seems to me that you are
conflating the concept of _voice_ (active, passive, middle etc) with the
_superordinate aspectual_ categories of dynamic ~ stative. This is
confusing.

[snip]
> 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
To be frank, I think your "boards" really do need rethinking. Have you
considered the class system of the Bantu languages, for example?

>>>    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"
Quite so!! The difference between "to look" and "to see" is simply not in
anyway analogous to the difference between "man" and "woman".

>> 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
Sally has given you some ideas. I would suggest also that you look on the
Internet for information about Bantu noun classes; it may give you some
more ideas. Spend some time trying out several _different_ ideas for your
boards before deciding upon a scheme. Part of the fun of conlanging is
trying out different ideas.

Joyeux Noël et Bonne Année!

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]