Re: LONG: Latest Wenetaic Stuff

Paul Bennett wrote:
>
> mathias writes:
> > > Generally, most roots are noun-based.   The verbal form of "x" is generally
> > > translated "perform the action stereotypically associated with x".  It's a bit
> > > rough and ready, and there's not much regularity beyond that rule.  The verb
> > > of "sun" is "shine", "wolf" <--> "hunt", "shovel" <--> "dig" and "fight" <-->
> > > "fight".  There are exceptions where the noun seems to be "the end result of
> > >  x-ing", eg, "wall" <--> "build" and "victory" <--> "win".  As long as you
> > > keep a general idea of "act like an x" for the verbal form, and learn a few
> > > exceptions, you'll understand and be understood.
> > er... yes, but.
> > take "hole" *kuru(k).
> > now does "*kukru" mean "to be a hole in" or "to be pierced a hole in" ?
> > and anyway, how do you derive "to be pierced", "to pierce", etc. ?
> *kukru would probably be "to make a hole in, to pierce".  There's no real
> regularity in how it works, and I think the exact definitions depend fairly
> largely on context.  They're learned forms, and potentially no more troubling
> for a first language speaker than the semirandom connection of verb +
> preposition in english to derive different verbs.
> > [snip very interesting fragment of tunu, I'm reading the grammar with
> > interest...]
> > so if you can do without these, i'm interested in knowing how.
> > maybe you use auxiliaries like "to be", "to do", "to get ...ed", etc. ?
> I think Wenetaic is going to try and exist with neither (true) copula nor
> passivity.  If a man bites a dog, it's a single event in semantic space, to a
> Wenetaar, "looking at it from another direction" would seem pointless and
> tautological.  I'll probably have to give in and accept some auxiliaries,
> though.  You've set me thinking... more later...
Here's my radical half-baked theory (you've been warned):

The *real* verbs are what we call "auxiliaries",
or in a long thread some months ago, "pre-verbs".
They have the power to incorporate an object.

So, "make+hole, have+hole, be+hole" form a verb,
genitive, and adjective. But then with frequent use,
the "pre-" part erodes/elides and semantic habits decide
that "hole+tense" means "make+hole" rather than "be-hole",
an arbitrary choice but a natural one.

And thus pidgin evolves into creole into evolving language.
Or maybe not, but in my universe it does!