Re: Decomposed verbs (OOP-ish but applies to any lang)

--- Javier BF <uaxuctum@...> wrote:
> >I was wondering is there are any conlangs that do
> >without certain verbs by decomposing them into
> smaller
> >pieces.
> [snip]
> >Or: "About this red book, John caused himself not
> to
> >own it and caused Mary to own it."
> [snip]
> >The questions are, what minimum set of verbs
> suffices
> >to express all other verbs?  Just as "Own" can
> replace
> >"Give" in the example above, which verbs are
> >primative, or elemental in that they cannot be
> >deconstructed?
>
> I've been searching for such "minimum set" for
> my con-auxlang project, but the conclusion I've
> reached so far is that what concepts you take as
> "basic" and which as derived is arbitrary.
>
> In the above example, I don't think you can
> completely substitute "own" for "give" without
> introducing a new semantic nuance, because "give"
> doesn't necessarily imply a change of ownership.
>
<snip>

I imagine it would take a lot of verbs to replace
"give."  If John and Mary are in the Library and he
takes a book off the shelf and GIVES it to her, there
is no change of ownership.  If he GIVES her a funny
look, and then GIVES her a hand with her homework she
might GIVE him a hug and a kiss in return, not
realizing that he might GIVE her his cold.  Then
there's GIVE UP, and GIVE IN, and GIVE a damn, GIVE
these brave contestants a big hand folks, that axle
bearing has too much GIVE in it, and it's a GIVEN that
there are probably a dozen more.

Obviously any truly precise language would have a
different term for each of those varied meanings.

--gary

Reply