Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

[hsteoh: Re: Non-static verbs?]

From:H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>
Date:Thursday, August 17, 2000, 1:17
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:15:06AM +0200, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> * H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...> [000816 21:37]: > > I'm just wondering if this occurs in any natlangs or any other conlangs: > > > > In my conlang, verbs are *never* used to describe state but specifically > > only for describing changes in state. > > Heh, târuven is just about the opposite, unmarked verbs are in the > continous aspect, giving the feel that a sentence is a snapshot of a > situation. Changes of state are marked explicitly if it isn't one of > the few non-continous verbs.
Interesting... from the POV of my conlang, that would mean you're using nouns all the time (which is perfectly valid, in fact). :-) [snip]
> "Check" for zero-copula. Adjectives are really stative verbs, and one > might say that nouns are stative verbs too... they can all be marked for > time :) They all have the existence-bit of the copula built-in, but > not the comparison/identity/grouping-bits.
[snip] Interesting concept, that nouns are stative verbs. Tho my conlang takes somewhat a different view: you have objects, and events, and interrelationships between them. These correspond with nouns, verbs, and "relatives", respectively. I don't know a better term for "relatives", so I'm sticking with it for now. Quite often, noun/verb inflections are enough, and relatives aren't always needed. Relatives are used mainly for identifying subclauses and adjoining sentences. T