Re: logic vocabulary

On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, at 10:29 , # 1 wrote:

> I've finaly found a way to logicly represent the vocabulary roots for my
> conlang and to group it logicaly
>
> I'll class my words in boards like this
>
>
> (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 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]

> The distinction between Stative and Active works with the voicing of the
> consounants so in the stative form all consonants are voiced and in active
> form they are not
>
> So a board can look like this
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, at 10:47 , # 1 wrote:
>
>                     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?

> 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"?

[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|)?

> 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.

> 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!

This seems to me to be purely arbitrary, and contrary to experience. In
what way is this  _logical_ representation?

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?

> Maybe someone would have an other word to replace "stative" and "active"
> to
> fit with the "woman"/"man" opposition?
Sex - Male/female?

> 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.

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" ]

Reply