Re: Syntaxy-Turvy (long, crazy)

Basilius wrote :
-------------------------
>You will notice that in an action-chain, where A performs action 1 on B,
and B
>performs action 2 on C, and C performs action 3 on D, who then performs
action
>4, it's not *inherently* more difficult to phrase it as:
>
>(A 1) (1 B 2) (2 C 3) (3 D 4)  --- the Taxy way --
>
>than to phrase it as:
>
>(A 1 B) (B 2 C) (C 3 D) (D 4)  -- the English way.
This looks correct.

But: it seems that you define parts of speech as syntactic classes,
which leads to a question more difficult for me: what are 'nouns',
'verbs', etc. from a purely syntactic point of view?

I feel that you invented a totally original system, but I'm trying to
understand what exactly is 'inverted' in it, as compared to e. g.
English.

(And I think you'll still need more diverse markers for what is
attributed to 'lexemic verbs' compared to 'lexemic nouns'.)
-----------------------

i think i understand what Ed is doing.

rabitting on a previous post, i think that Ed is doing what
some genial guys are doing over here.

"verbs" and "nouns" are rather called here "behaviour" and "entity".
an entity "behaves" a certain way either in an énoncé or inherently.
entity+behaviour = énoncé.
whether the behaviour is expressed with syntactic verb, noun, adjective,
or even a coma, an -s, or whatever dynamic, transitive doobedoo etc.
is of no importance.

for instance, "eye" is a noun and rather an entity at first sight, but in
"i can't believe my eyes", eyes refer to a behaviour-- they are taken
as an agent of "to see". it has nothing to do with syntax.

"eyes" is no "symbol" but an entity with an inherent behaviour when
set in this peculiar énoncé. in other word, it's a preset possible actor
of a number of behaviours so these behaviours are inherent to it.

Ed is making an ultimate logical mapping where he defines a behaviour
("verb") through its possible actors ("nouns"). the "verb" is just a tag
qualifying the pattern of the behaviour of these actors. that's what all-noun
langs try to achieve.

for instance, if you take the verbs "to express", "to tell", "to warn",
"to say", etc. these verbs will be the different possible patterns of
a network of links between the preset actors of "communication".

"to tell" directs first on the "addressee" actor while "to say" directs first
on the "message" actor and "to warn" refers to a field of cognition with
actors of "danger", "threat", etc.

for "communication" you may have a list of set actors such as :

the message
the messenger
the addressee
the understander
the language
the medium
the meaning
the purpose
the topic
etc.

example:

"i tell you he's a dork"

pattern:tell
messenger:me
message:"he's a dork"
meaning:"he's a dork"?
topic:he
medium:voice?
addressee:you
understander:you?
etc.

the head of the french team of the university of paris 7
who was doing this kind of "reversion" to make computers talk
told me that they stopped doing that because they realized
that in each énoncé, the behaviour of an entity is also an entity
whose behaviour is precisely that entity.

i mean, in "blue eyes"
blue is a behaviour of "eyes" through the pattern "colour", but "eye"
is also a behaviour of "blue" because "blue" is a different entity when
paired with "eye". like in "red wine" wine is not red. so this guy told
me that if you try define all actors of all verbs you end up "writing up
again the dictionary".

in other words, when you all-noun your lang, you all-verbize it
too at the same time ! ;-)

maybe that's what Christophe felt with Notya.
because i believe that you "feel" that stuff and you can't really explain it.
although i tried once again.
sorry, Ed, Basilius and Christophe.


mathias