A Conlang by the group: parts of speech
|From:||Carlos Thompson <cthompso@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, October 10, 1998, 16:42|
De: Pablo Flores <fflores@...>
Fecha: S=E1bado 10 de Octubre de 1998 10:29
Asunto: Re: A Conlang, created by the group?
>>>and some small particles (prepositions?) to extend some meanings.
>>Pre- or post-? I think they should be in the opposite end of the noun
>>with respect to case markers (i. e. cases postfixed > prepositions,
>>cases prefixed > postpositions).
>I agree to this case system. I'm still a bit reluctant to kill the
>verb-noun distinction, but it's certainly a good thing, because it
>makes it possible to create an inflection which will be useful for
>any part of speech. So I agree in principle. I guess practice will show
>us if the system is comfortable.
>The "modifier" case is sort of a catch-all case. I think we should call
>"modifier" what is called "classifier" above, and drop "classifier". Als=o,
>let's have "predicate" alone as a case, and add other inflections to
>distinguish between static and dynamic. Carlos? That way we would have:
>Let's be aware that in this way we could NOT make case agreement unless
>we agglutinate the inflections. "The stopped car is blocking the highway="
>would have "The stopped" as a determinant, "car" as an agent. "The stopp=ed"
>wouldn't be considered part of "the stopped car" as the agent.[...]
>If the proposal of no verb/noun disctintion is accepted, gender (if any)
>would be applied to a verb... of course, if we have not yet decide which
>genders we will use, we could no be sure what they would mean.[...]
>>cases/modes: absolutive, accusative, conditional, copulative, ergative,
>>imperative, indicative, subjunctive, unergative.
>I don't agree. This is why I'd like to preserve some form of distinction
>between nouns and verbs. Some roots should be inherently verbal and some
Well, we could have original nominal roots, and original verbal roots, bu=
they could take any part of speech when needed (as Esperanto).
>>>* Adjectives: the only proposal so far is to have them behave like ver=bs,
>>>which also gets rid of copulative "to be" and allows many derivations.
>>>I agree on the proposal.
>>Of course, if verbs and nouns are the same, only recognized by themode/case
>>tag, such disctintions would be irrelevant.
>Granted. Given the system we have, there would be a root generally meani=ng
>"red" that could be inflected to mean "to be red", "(which is) red"[determinant]
>"red" [modifier], etc.
or "red color" [theme, patient or agent]
No case agreement and semifixed order (never take the modifier or
determinant too far from the modified word).
Gender agreement of modifiers.
Predicades and predicate modifiers agree with theme.