Re: Verbal nouns

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Barry Garcia
> Sent: Saturday, December 25, 1999 1:46 PM
> To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> Subject: Verbal nouns
>
> Hi all, hope you all are having (or had or will have) a great Christmas.
>
> Anyway, I have the system for forming nouns from verbs all layed out. I'm
> posting them here for those of you who don't want to fire up your web
> browsers to see it on the web.
> Verbal nouns in Saalangal are formed from prefixes added onto the roots.
> These verbal nouns are only formed from roots that are not of concrete
> things. You would never see the root for the word to write (kálaw) alone
> to signify "a writing" (but, the word for bird, pakú' can be). It would
> need a prefix to make it a noun.
I like your system, Barry. I'm currently struggling with a word-construction
system for Dhakrathat. What I want to do is have a bunch of mostly
disyllabic roots, each of which has a certain semantic value which is not
specific to part of speech (verb, noun, adjective, etc.) Suffixes are added
to make them into nouns, verbs, etc. But I can't decide which divisions to
make -- originally I was going to use one for verbs, infinitives, and some
concepts, one for animate agents, and one for inanimate agents (if such a
thing exists) and/or instruments. I think maybe I'll make a "general noun"
category and add more specific categories. For instance, from the root for
"writing," the instrument form would be pen/stylus/etc., the
infinitive/gerund one would be (the act of) "writing", the agent one would
be "writer," maybe a passive instrument form would be "book" (written
thing), etc. Those categories would be pretty predictable for all roots, but
the generic noun category would be specific to each root. So maybe the
generic noun form of the root for "writing" would be (the act of) "writing,"
equivalent with the infinitive/gerund form, whereas the generic noun form of
the root "being human" would mean "human," thus being equivalent with the
agent form (=one who is human).

Am I making sense? :)


Eric Christopherson
raccoon@elknet.net