Re: Word classification (was Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was Re: Evanescence of information (was Re: Going NOMAIL: Honeymoon)))

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Eldin Raigmore
<eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:

> The kinds of verbs have been discussed on this list before, but there wasn't an
> organized consensus resulting from that discussion, as far as I know.  And as
> far as I know the same is true of linguistic literature in general.
I've been working on yet another system of classification for
gzb verbs, based on the kinds of arguments they must/can take.
It's like this system you mentioned,

> Another seeks to characterize clauses by the kinds of participants in their
> cores;
> S
> A U
> S E
> A U E
plus the other system you mention based on whether a verb can/must
take a complement clause; but since gzb distinguishes between
topics, experiencers, agents, patients, objects-of-attention,
physical and nonphysical objects-of-result, and so forth,
and also between subject and object complement clauses
(different conjunctions are used to introduce them)
the system has far more categories than your four above.


> Would it be possible to gather together the verb-classification systems that
> have been proposed or discussed on the CONLANG-L list, at least since it
> began its current format, into something coherent and organized?
Why not on the Conlang Wikia, along with the "List of derivation methods"
and "List of self-segregating morphology methods"?

http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Or maybe on one of the other wikis that has a higher number of
participants who would notice and maybe help out...

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
I analyze the results and write the article