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

Mike Ellis wrote:

>   The "gave" part is implied by the lack of anything else. "Threw" isn't
> excluded here, but without any indication that the book was thrown, the
> speaker would take this to mean "gave". Other meanings would require nouns
> like the "throwing" or "reading" or "gift" that you mentioned.
That's exactly what I thought when I created the shaquelinga. Only unusual
events need to be explained. Besides, there's no word without context.

> You're right, there's going to have to be nominalisations of events and
> states if this is going to work at all. A lot of these things will also be
> expressed with end-state adjectives. This is currently the hardest part of
> building the vocabulary, because I'm trying not to make these seem
> too "verb-like".
That exactly the way shaquelingua works. The vocabulary contains lots of
"nominalisations". I can't think of any example right now but the funny part
of such a vocabulary is that you have meaningful words that you can't
translate in your own natlang, at least not very easily without expressions
like "action of" or "state of". (Arrrgh! The black hole in my memore!)

Back to John (TsöJh), Mary (VarI) and the red book... (Shaquelingua has no
[m], no [n], no [Z], no [dZ].)

ve pälika zëtosh çöçh'vë-VarI teth'va-TsöJh.
[ve: p94ika zEtos: COC:^vë:^vaxi tet_h^va:^ts))Oj:]

ve pälika zëtosh = the red book
çöçh'vë-VarI = physical object toward (the) Mary
teth'va-TsöJh = indicative-past-real (the) John

Witout verb: In the past, the red book from John toward Mary.

It can means either "to give", "to hand" or "to throw" ot "to offer".

If I change the middle part into:

çälh'vë-VarI = physical object up to (the) Mary.
[C94:^vE:^vaxi]

Now it can only means either "John gave the book to Mary who took it" or
"John throw the book and hit Mary".  ;-)

In both case, the context helps. But you can be more precise.

vi pälika zëtosh pei, be-xutseo çälh'vë-VarI teth'va-TsöJh.
[vi: p94ika zEtos: pei be:^x\u.ts))eo C94:^vE^vaxi tet_h^va:^ts))Oj:]

vi pälika zëtosh pei, be-xutseo = of the red book, a gift
çälh'vë-VarI = physical object up to (the) Mary.
teth'va-TsöJh = indicative-past-real (the) John

Now, it means only "to give" and it also implies that Mary took the book. If
I change the first part into:

vi pälika zëtosh pei, be-xiluçh = of the red book, an offer
[vi: p94ika zEtos: pei be:^x\i4uC:]

It now means "to offer" only. But context always matters. You only need to
explain when you throw the book because that's an unusual way to use a book.

That's why I would only say:

ve pälika zëtosh tulh'vë-VarI teth'va-TsöJh.
[ve: p94ika zEtos: tu4:^vë:^vaxi tet_h^va:^ts))Oj:]

ve pälika zëtosh = the red book
tulh'vë-VarI = immaterial object toward (the) Mary
teth'va-TsöJh = indicative-past-real (the) John

This means "John read the red book to Mary". There's not much immaterial
things you can do with a book when you're an agent close to an indirect
object.  ;-)  It is unnecessary to be more precise.

vi pälika zëtosh fra, ve-dëthtëli tälh'vë-VarI teth'va-TsöJh.
[vi: p94ika zEtos: fx))a ve:^dEt?tE4i t94:^vE^vaxi tet_h^va^ts))Oj:]

vi pälika zëtosh fra, ve-dëthtëli = part of the red book, the text
tälh'vë-VarI = immaterial object up to (the) Mary.
teth'va-TsöJh = indicative-past-real (the) John

= John read the text of the red book to Mary who listened.

That's over-precise, even in english.

See ya,

=====================
Remi Villatel
maxilys@normandnet.fr
=====================