Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Malat (on behalf of Garrett)

From:Jason Hooper <nirgal@...>
Date:Monday, December 7, 1998, 3:32
(I am sending this on behalf of Garrett, whose outgoing email is
currently experiencing technical
difficulties.  He currently still receives email)

Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:

> > I'm afraid of cases, just using 2: left-of-verb, right-of-verb. > > Could be both; S-V-O becomes N-V-N-V-N ... > > > > > I agree with you (you know that anyway). I crammed a third case only
because my factitive voice forced me to.
> > I've read the Malat grammar. It's neat. But many conlangers of the
past dealing with *causality* have fallen into the famous all-noun-root or all-verb-root syndromes (below : ANRS/AVRS) depending on their personality. Does that mean I am too? I'd like to think that I'm not. In my system, there are 2 basic types of roots: actions/verbs, and states/nouns. The two types can be used as the other type with certain modifiers. A singular action (a kick) can be converted into a state (be kicking). A state (red) can be converted into a momentary action (to flash red). The derivation of action words starts with the verb (-e-); the derivation of state words starts with the noun (-a-).
> Garrett speaks of *causality* but actually I think he's dealing with
*finality*. Actors of actions and states are not only agent, patient and *focus*, whether transformed or not. Each verb has its own set of implied actors : patient, instrument, essence, semblance, substance, result, patient's attribute, independent result, etc. These actors are implied within the semantic scope of the verb : *to protect* implies a benefactive and an adversative (cf. Charles). *To smell* implies an object and an organ. *To see* implies an object, an organ and a result (image). Etc. So when you speak of the *result* of an action, you define this action as the process towards a final state and you should not go beyond because otherwise you go beyond the semantic scope of the verb itself. Well, if there is a certain final state of a certain verb, that doesn't mean the whole process stops right there. The final state itself can cause yet another state after it, and the process could continue forever. With malat action concepts, the final state is niether stated nor necessarily implied by that action; the final state is expressed seperately.
> In other words you create an actor that is not implied in the meaning
of the verb. And that's where nonsense commences. Of course anything could be an instrument to perform an action and anything could be the result of a specific action. If you feel like that, you're human. If you speak like that, you fall into AN/AVRS.
> *I drink food* : no good (except for metaphore). Why ? Is it because
food is no drinkable liquid ? Or rather is it that you've never experienced (heard) that you could *drink* food ? (Japanese can *drink* soup). Logics or semantics issue ? Well, over here, i'm going to make drink and eat the same word. Is there a necessary distinction? The equivalent in english is implied by what is actually consumed (food or liquid). Also, no matter how logical you try to make your language, it's impossible for everything stated in the language to be logical. The only thing I can successfully make logical is the derivation of words and the grammar of the language.
> Now, let me sum up : natlang seem sometime *illogical* because they
can't consistently derive a noun of result, beneficiary, etc from every single verb. Like Rick said in his noun section, it's impossible to logically derive every noun in your language from a verb concept; the derivations can only be slightly related, but, by using these derivations you cut down on roots you need.
> But actually the reason for that is that each verb is a concept
implying a limited number of actors. And each word may be the actor of a limited number of verbs. Each time you add or suppress an actor to or from a concept, you fall into another concept. And reversely. Rick Morneau wants to teach more alternative derivators and less roots. I prefer to learn more vocabulary. Less vocabulary = less time to learn...
> I like poetry.
I don't like poetry myself...
> Language is not a long equation to me. > Your fellow conlanger. > Mathias > > ----- > See the original message at -- -Time is what keeps everything from happening at once. -Garrett Jones aka Alkaline Rising Sun - C&C2: Tiberian Sun - Malat -