Re: Trigger language?

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 11:23:24PM +0100, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
[snip]
> > Perhaps I was thinking of agent and patient instead.
>
> Those are semantic roles, and as such exist in any language :) .
Don't be too sure about that one. Remember the language of the children of
Tama (Star Trek)?

I also have in mind a verbless, nounless, grammar-less conlang for a
parallel universe to Ferochromon, where everything consists of a single,
standalone "utterance". For example, there is a "word" (if you can call it
that) that has the idea of grabbing something and pulling it up; depending
on the context, it can have a variety of meanings. Uttered by a group
leader in a pebble field, it can mean to pick up pebbles. Uttered on the
battlefield, it can mean to pick up the enemy by the scruff of the neck.
Uttered in a construction site, it is an order to build.

[snip]
> Well, let me define topic and comment: the topic is "what we are talking
> about"  (and thus can be omitted, but is always present at least in
> context) and the comment is "what we're saying about the topic" (and is
> thus mandatory in a sentence because it's always the reason why we are
> uttering this sentence, to comment on something ;)) ).
[snip]

Topic-comment structures are very common in Ebisedian, in spite of its
otherwise odd grammar. :-)

You "nominate" a subject (an NP) by stating it in the locative case.
Ebisedian grammarians call this a "nominator sentence", it only consists
of a single NP. Actually, it's basically making the NP the topic of
subsequent discourse. In subsequent sentences (the "comments"), you then
refer to the topic with a back-referencing particle which is inflected for
case. Or there may not even be a need to refer to the topic explicitly;
the meaning of each sentence will be clear from the context provided by
the "nominated" NP.

In fact, the NP in the "nominator sentence" is identical a vocative; when
you address someone by name, and then say something to the person, it's as
if you're talking about the person: the person is the topic, and what you
say to him are the comments. (The fact that pronouns are technically
always 3rd person makes this illusion even more compelling: since pronouns
are person-independent, no matter where you use them it's always clear
what/who you're referring to. So you could've said the exact same words to
another person, and it would suddenly become a comment about the first
person rather than something addressed to him! :-P)

(One way I've thought about describing Ebisedian is a "3rd-person
language", because (1) verbs are always the subject rather than the
participating nouns, so it's almost like you're describing everything from
an impersonal, 3rd-person perspective; and (2) because technically
speaking there are only 1st and 3rd person pronouns.)


T

--
Being able to learn is a great learning; being able to unlearn is a greater
learning.