Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: Deriving adjectives from nouns

From:From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html <lassailly@...>
Date:Monday, June 7, 1999, 20:30
> > Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 07/06/99 18:21:50 , charles a =E9crit : > =20 > > you can define them provided you STOP equating action-and-state with=20
"verb"
> > and substance with "noun". try "predicate" and "substantive" instead an=
d
> > ponder about what "argument" is. do, be, have. > =20 > Yes, I agree. It is good to invent some useful categories, > but not to mistakenly reify them. Those 50 operators/functions > may not "be" adverbs/auxiliaries/classifiers/conjunctions. > I think syntax should be well-separated from semantics, at least during=20
analysis and maybe by design. you got it : first un-aspectivize, then analyse, and lastly design. i'm=20 afraid you get around 50 though, not speaking of spatial "references" (excep= t=20 for "base", "illative" and "ablative" because mankind is no elohim). that ma= y=20 be God's retaliation for Babel's blunder ;-).=20 So "adjective"
> might mean "some kind of noun modifier" but not necessarily > "an inherent or contingent quality of a being or essence".
exactly. adjective is no equative. go on.
> =20 > > > Though the mathematician Couturat had a major role in > > > designing parts of Ido, and Peano (famous for his set theory) > > > invented an auxlang (Interlingua, the first of that name) > =20 > > > neither was especially logical in its design or constructions. > >=20 > > did you ever wonder why ? > =20 > Yes; they knew what they were not doing; Jesperson, de Wahl too. > The goal was "just" to unite Europe linguistically, to prevent > World Wars I and II.
exactly. and as a romance speaker i favour the best common latin idiom. Mathematical logic was in no danger. (it'll be in a few years.)
> And logic is in no way incompatible with natural language.
perfectly true. maths were considered Logics and natlang an imperfect=20 application thereof.
> But to further discuss auxlangery here would be dangerous. > Come over to AUXLANG, which is nearly comatose. > =20
no way. i prefer here because all dead-serious issues are likely to end with=20 some "in my conlang 'xswartyzep' means both and neither"-kind of post. i fin= d=20 this more reasonable. mathias