Verb Classes

In a message dated 6/12/00 3:39:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, steven@OLYWA.NET
writes:

> Comments are interspersed between lines of original message.
>
>  > 1. Verbs of physical movement, e.g. going (somewhere), fleeing,
>  approaching,
>  > etc.
>  > 2. Verbs of movement.  This includes volitional actions such as picking
>  > something up, as well as non-volitional actions such as water flowing.
>  > 3. Spoken actions.  Included are begging, offering, speaking, persuading,
>  > etc.  a word such as 'persuade', however, could function in a different
>  class
>  > depending on case.  if someone used their feminine charms to persuade
>  > someone, then the verb would probably be used with the 2nd class.
>  > 4.  Mental actions.  Thinking, believing, analysing, remembering, etc.
>  > 5. so-called "change" actions.  at first, this applied only to actions in
>  > which the subject underwent some sort of major change, such as dying,
>  aging,
>  > growing, freezing, rusting, etc.
>  > 6. "Emotional actions".  loving, hoping (although in certain situations,
>  > hoping could be considered a mental action), crying, smiling, laughing
>  > (although these are physical actions as well as emotional actions, to
>  > classify them as such would indicate that they weren't heartfelt.)
>  > 7. "Stative" verbs.  sitting, owning, tasting/smelling like something.
>  many
>  > mental actions can also be categorized as stative with varying meaning,
>  for
>  > example, if one was said to  love someone using the "stative" class
>  marker,
>  > that love would have to be an essential part of someone's character.
>  > 8. "Sensory" verbs.  smelling, feeling, hearing, etc.
>
>  Overall, I like this scheme.   There are some things I question.
>
>  Class 6:   "emotional actions"  Some of these just aren't actions (hope,
>  hate, etc.).   Some of these are just actions (smile, cry, etc.).   A
>  speaker can't always tell whether actions such as the latter are heartfelt;
>  quite a few people get better at faking such responses as they get older,
>  and then of course, you've got the people who either are actors or should
>  have been.   I think the speakers of your language would have to be
>  excellent at discerning sincerity for the contrast between smile-6 and
>  smile-1 to be useful.   I'd just put cry, laugh, etc. in class 1, and call
>  class 6 "emotions."
>
One could categorize laughing, crying, etc. into class 2 (I assume you meant
class 2, not class 1), but i think it would reflect a rather cynical attitude
towards the laugher/cryer/etc.  Thanks to the flexibility of the system, both
these options are possible, but had I a conculture to go along with the
language, I would probably make putting such actions in class 2 an insult.
Also, there are situations in which one would want to use such "emotional
actions" with class 2, for example, when cutting onions, crying would be a
mere physical action.

>  Class 1 comprises at least two kinds of verb:   intransitive verbs of
>  volitional motion (go) and transitive verbs of volitional motion (flee,
>  approach).
>
>  Class 2 comprises at least two kinds of verb:   transitive verbs of
>  volitional action, and intransitive verbs of non-volitional motion.
>
>  Do you want to be consistent about the distinction between volitional and
>  non-volitional?    If so, maybe you should separate the kinds of verbs
>  you've got in class 2.
>
>  If you're making distinctions between verbs of motion and other verbs on
one
>  hand, and verbs that stand for volitional actions on one hand and
>  non-volitional actions on the other, what you've got is four classes.   Let
>  me substitute the word "travel" for "motion," since most actions involve a
>  motion of some kind or other, but so-called "verbs of motion" usually refer
>  to verbs that imply a trajectory of some kind:
>
>  travel/volitional:    flee, run, roll, go, approach, turn (change
direction)
>  travel/non-volitional:    flow, fall, roll, go, approach, turn (change
>  direction)
>  non-travel/volitional:   write, pick up, file, penetrate, mark, turn
>  (rotate)
>  non-travel/non-volitional:   sneeze, cough, penetrate, mark, turn (rotate)
>
>  Yes, a number of verbs will fall into more than one class, but this is NOT
a
>  defect in your scheme.   In fact, if enough verbs fall into more than one
>  class, your scheme could serve as a way of semantically cross-referencing
>  the subject of the verb, at least some of the time.   (Maybe not in
>  sentences like "Wally hit John," but probably in sentences like "Wally ate
>  the pineapple.")
>
>  Be on the lookout for verbs that are only non-volitional in English, but
>  that could be volitional and non-volitional in your language.   e.g.
With
>  a volitional/non-volitional contrast in the inflections, one verb could
mean
>  "fall" with one ending and "drop to the ground" with another.
kolax sr~ (non-volitional, 1.movement)  -to fall
kolex sr~ (volitional, 1.movement)      -to jump down/off
kolax wam (non-volitional, 2.action)    -to drop (non-volitional)
kolex wam (volitional, 2.action)            -to drop (volitional)


>
>  Class 5:    Is dying an action in the same sense that writing is?   I'd
call
>  these processes, but I defer to the judgment of semantics experts on that
>  one.   BTW, your class 5 verbs could fall into the
non-travel/non-volitional
>  class I just described.
Dying (siv-) is a very interesting stem in rodeys.  In general it takes the
"change" class (though I really like your term, "process", and may take it.),
though theorhetically any class could be taken to indicate cause of death.
in addition, volitional and non-volitional endings indicate whether one died
by his/her own hand.  as always, the so-called "stative" class can be used to
simply say that someone "is dead":
sivax wam   -die 2 (by physical means, such as getting crushed or bleeding to
death)
sivex wam   -commit suicide 2 (by such physical means)
sivax san   -die 6 (of one's emotions, die of a broken heart)
sivex nal   -commit suicide 5 (by any means)


>
>  Class 3:   Do "spoken action" verbs encompass verbs of communication that
>  pertain to modalities other than speech?   Is "write" a class 3 verb?
This comment presents the greatest problem to the system.   I'm now
considering either changing the "spoken class" to the "expressed class",
which would encompass spoken, gestured and written actions; or creating a
different class which would govern non-verbal communication.  A solution I'm
leaning towards is to put gestures in the "physical actions"  class and
written actions into the spoken actions category:

sey sebre lay   zey  wam tam
she tell  love  hers  2  him
she tells him that she loves him (with actions)

sey neromr~al goze  ra
she in-book   wrote 3

sounds alright to me.  But to use class 3 in a sentance such as "she writes a
book" doesn't seem right to me.  Perhaps its because the spoken class behaves
more immediately in most sentences.  A possible solution to the sentence "she
writes a book" would be compounding classes:

sey koze   romr~al rawam
she writes book    3-2

Emphasizes both the physical and communicative aspects of writing.  This
seems like a suitable compromise solution.


>
>  If it is, then it can fall into both classes 3 and 2.    I wrote-3 a book.
>  I wrote-2 a symbol.
>
Well there you go, one step ahead of me!
>  "persuade" is not only accomplished by speaking and actions.   Facts can
>  persuade without the actions involved in speaking and caressing.
This is where associating the class with an object becomes useful:

hraya ab    senoyra       abma       fobedex sr~    xa  tamoz
facts about those-people  persuaded  to-leave       4<--[him]
the facts persuaded him to leave (the mental action is his)


>
>  Class 7:    Are you sure that "sit" and "wait for" can be properly
>  classified as "stative?"   I don't know, but if I were you, I'd
double-check
>  the definition of that term.
Perhaps 'stative' isnt the correct tem.  if anyone could tell me what would
be a more appropriate term, please do.
As far as 'sit' is concerned, the classes almost indicate aspect:
nadnex an           -be sitting down 7
nadnex wam/sr~      -to sit down 1/2
Class 7 is used with redex an (wait for) because it seems the most
appropriate.  of course it could be augmented by other classes:
oz dam hajitor rede tam an
mother his time-long wait him 7
His mother has waited for him for a long time.

>
>  Be on the lookout for verbs that fall into both classes 7 and 1:    sit-7 =
>  to be sitting, sit1= sit down;   stand-7 = to be standing, stand-1 = stand
>  up.
>
One step ahead of me again!
>  > Each verb is made up of a stem and a suffix.  the suffix distinguishes
>  > volitional/non-volitional.  In addition, each verb, when used in a
>  sentence,
>  > must be accompanied by an indicator of one of the above classes.  at
>  first,
>  > this class referred specifically to the action and its subject and served
>  to
>  > disambiguate homonyms, e.g.:
>
>  OOPS!    I wrote some of the above before seeing this part.   Sorry.
>  However, I think that non-volitional/volitional can be worked into the
class
>  system.   Consider the fact that speaking, & thinking will always be
>  volitional, while undergoing a process will always be otherwise.
This is not necessarily so in rodeys!  Let us look at fam- "think":
famex xa        -think about (volitional, mental)
famax xa        -realize (non-volitional, mental)
famax nal   -occur to (non-volitional, change)

famax functions in two ways:

sor vama     zey  xilve ra sor xa
I   realized [she lie   3  me] 4
I realized she had been lying to me.

korzevr~ vama     nal sor
solution occurred  5  me
The solution occurred to me.


>
>  I think you're going to have to spend a lot of time classifying verbs by
>  which sets of categories they can belong to.   However, if you enjoy the
>  time thus spent, the end result will be fascinating.
I have enjoyed it so far.  I think as long as I classify while deriving and
creating words they won't pile up and become a pain.
>
>  BTW, where are your existential and copular verbs?
The language has no copular verb, but it has a copular adjective, p-, which
only occurs in the past and future:
tam boy soln~dand
he  was teacher

sey poyn    soln~dand
she will-be teacher

In the present tense, the initial consonant of the first word  is voiced:

zey soln~dand
she's a teacher

>
>  I like the way that you use your endings to disambiguate homonyms and
>  distinguish different ways of angering people.   I still don't understand
>  the last example:
>
>  [snip]
>
>  >     tam gedne sondal-in nal
>  >     he  broke glass---->[5: change]
>
The -in is a case ending which indicates that the class refers to the
inflected word.  In this case, the glass undergoes a change.

>  > Which emphasized the fact that the glass is broken.  Without 'sondal'
>  being
>  > marked with the -in suffix, the sentence would mean that breaking the
>  glass
>  > fundamentally changed the sentence's subject.  A similar sentence would
>  be:
>
>  >     tam gedne sondal wam
>  >     he  broke glass  [2: movement]
The absence of any inflections indicates that the class, movement, applies to
the subject, he.  therefore he moved, causing the glass to break.
>
>  > which simply indicates that it is because of some physical movement of
>  ours
>  > that the bottle broke.
>
>  > Joe Mondello
>
>
>  Hope this helped.   Correct my errors at will!
>
>  Jim
I cant thank you enough for your detailed analysis.  The questions you raised
have helped me a great deal.

Joe Mondello