Re: Shaquelingua and Teonaht (was: discussion of verbless languages)

* John Cowan said on 2004-06-09 03:30:50 +0200
> Sally Caves scripsit:
>
> > I got some criticism for that when I first joined CONLANG... someone
> > described it as "counterproductive."
>
> Sounds like a typical auxlanger remark.  :-)
Latin scripts needs more vowel-characters! Typically, the ones added by
the Scandinavian tongues (PS! latin1): æ ø å ä ö aren't the ones most
needed...

> > Teonaht has three different ways to express "having" something;
> > something you have nonvolitionally by virtue of its being an innate
> > thing, such as a body part, a disposition, or a family member;
> > something you own by having taken or bought it volitionally; and
> > something that is with you presently, like a pencil, but which you
> > acquired somewhat indifferently.
>
> Lojban has the same three grades, but the middle grade is more broadly
> defined and doesn't require legal or customary ownership.  Rather, the
> defining concept is specific-ness of possession:  if it's mine (in
> this middle sense) it can't be yours too.  In the first grade, it's
> strictly impossible that it be both yours and mine; in the third
> grade, it can easily be both yours and mine.  The middle grade
> compromises.
Seems to be a trend :) Taruven too has three degres of possession,
inalienable (bodyparts, family-members), possessions (-only- things,
including abstracts, and non-sapient at that) and "connections"
(friends, all living things, and coincidentally temporary accompapanying
things, like the current pencil you picked up somewhere or the crush on
the one next door). The only possible contrast is between possessed
things and connected things, the rest is unambiguous (aw, shucks!), and
then there's the rule: "When in doubt, it is a connection." (selecting
for what gives the least information as is proper, goody).


t.