Re: My Digression from Boreanesia

Adrian Morgan wrote:

-----<snip>-----
>I'm not at all convinced about this scheme, it
>seems such a strange way of classifying things.
>Why is measure of permenance so important to
>them? Rather than, say, measure of threat?
Since the language lacks a distinction between verbal
and nominal roots, it needed a way to distinguish verbal
concepts from nominal concepts. So I rather hastily came
up with the idea of roots being events rather than being
either verbs or nouns, and verbal concepts being more
instantaneous events while nominal concepts being more
permanent events.

But I guess I got a bit carried away with the idea. I
really don't need 10 classes of permanence. You're
absolutely right, a primitive hominid species would
afterall not care how long things exist exactly. Perhaps
three classes is sufficient: 'instant', 'life-long/permanent',
and 'neither'.

The lizard would be 'life-long/permanent' not because
the lizard is immortal, but because during the life-time
of a hominid, a lizard would always be a lizard. The same
goes for the nut. These are therefore events with a
nominal meaning.

As for the sun and the moon, that depends on the intended
meaning. When they are expressed as 'life-long/permanent'
events, then one is talking about the sun and moon as
objects. When expressed as 'neither', then one is talking
about solar and lunar events (e.g., daylight and moonlight).

Take the sign <food> for instance, this is the same sign
as <eat>. Compare how they could be used below:

Speech   /instant event/ /GEN/
Sign     <    food     > < 3 >
Literally: 'his instant event of eating'
Translation: 'he eats'

Speech   /life-long event/ /GEN/
Sign     <     food      > < 3 >
Literally: 'his life-long event of eating'
Translation: 'his (favorite) food'

Speech   /neither event/ /GEN/
Sign     <    food     > < 3 >
Literally: 'his event of eating (neither life-long nor instant)'
Translation: 'his food (don't touch!!)'

>But ... surprise me.
Boo ;-)

-kristian- 8)