|From:||Joe Mondello <rugpretzel@...>|
|Date:||Monday, June 12, 2000, 19:48|
In a message dated 6/12/00 3:39:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, steven@OLYWA.NET
> Comments are interspersed between lines of original message.
> > 1. Verbs of physical movement, e.g. going (somewhere), fleeing,
> > 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
> > 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,
> > 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.
> > mental actions can also be categorized as stative with varying meaning,
> > example, if one was said to love someone using the "stative" class
> > 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,
> 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 onone
> 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 (changedirection)
> travel/non-volitional: flow, fall, roll, go, approach, turn (change
> non-travel/volitional: write, pick up, file, penetrate, mark, turn
> 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 NOTa
> 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 couldmean
> "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'dcall
> these processes, but I defer to the judgment of semantics experts on that
> one. BTW, your class 5 verbs could fall into thenon-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
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'ddouble-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
>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
> > must be accompanied by an indicator of one of the above classes. at
> > this class referred specifically to the action and its subject and served
> > 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 theclass
> 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:
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:
> > 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'
> > marked with the -in suffix, the sentence would mean that breaking the
> > fundamentally changed the sentence's subject. A similar sentence would
> > 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
> > that the bottle broke.
> > Joe Mondello
> Hope this helped. Correct my errors at will!
> JimI cant thank you enough for your detailed analysis. The questions you raised
have helped me a great deal.