Just to clarify what was probably opaque, there's an old joke where
Tonto and The Lone Ranger are surrounded by hostile Indians. The Lone
Ranger says, "We're in trouble now, Tonto!" and Tonto says, "who's
'we', white man?" Or maybe it was "paleface"? In any case, at least
among some of my friends, it's become a catch-phrase which indicates
that somebody is taking solidarity for granted. :)
In any case, I'm afraid I cannot see that nouns carry implied
existential predications, except inasmuch as they are inherently part
of a linguistic system in which they would be used in such contexts.
The difference between nouns which signify qualities and adjectives
which signify qualities is "grammatical", but then I hold to the
theory that all grammar involves meaning, so it would be more precise
to say that "beauty" denotes (as a noun) a bounded region in the
conceptual space of aesthetic qualities, whereas "beautiful" denotes
(as an adjective) an unspecified thing, but adds that that specified
thing possesses aesthetic qualities (the same ones directly denoted by
"beauty"). Since the thing denoted by "beautiful" is unspecified, it
must generally appear along with another word, which can fill in the
gap which its lack of specificity leaves.
Ed Heil ------ edheil@postmark.net
--- http://purl.org/net/edheil ---
> even "wolf" as a lonely noun is part of an implied predicate-argument
clause=20
> via a presentative for instance : "(here/there is the/a) wolf" (? -=20
> "pr=E9sentatif" or "existentiel" in french). this does not mean that "w=
olf"
is=20
> either a predicate or an argument.
>=20
> beauty is a noun and beautiful is an attributed quality, both pointing =
a
same=20
> concept.
> long is an attributed quality and length is a noun, both pointing a sam=
e=20
> concept. (just to remind that both may derive from either and none prev=
ails
> on the other).
> in white languages (;-) many attributed qualities are expressed with=20
> adjectives and therefore usually substuff : you say "pretty girl" or "s=
he
is=20
> pretty", you can't say "she pretty". but you may say "il rougit" (he=20
> "reddens"). so attribution is usually regarded as subPoS and quality is
often=20
> mixed up with subordination and "state", which i regard as the main fla=
w of
> eurocentred auxlangs. attribution does not have anything to do with PoS=
.=20
> personal verbs or nomen agentis are also attributive whatever PoS they =
are.
> many conlangers do not regard attributed qualities as subPoS and declar=
e
that=20
> they rather derive adjectives from "quality verbs" such as "to-be-prett=
y".=20
> this is a common pattern of many natlangs. japanese "state verbs" are a=
lso=20
> called in french "verbal adjectives" as opposed to "nominal adjectives"
(i'm=20
> sorry to give japanese examples below, it's not for showing off, only t=
o=20
> explain what i mean so japfans please do not post 'why "ga" not "wa"' :
it's=20
> just because i parallel with subclause, ok ?) :
>=20
> verbal root "taka-" : height
> taka-sa/taka-mi =3D height/loftiness
> taka-i =3D to be high.
> yama ga takai. =3D the mountain is high.
> takai yama =3D high mountain
>=20
> nominal root "kirei" : nice/clean stuff (you would expect that ambivale=
ncy=20
> from japs, wouldn't you ? :-)
> kirei da =3D to be nice/clean ("da" =3D it is < "de aru" =3D to be as)
> ie ga kirei da =3D the house is nice/clean
> kirei na ie =3D the nice/clean house ("na" < "da")
>=20
> to me "takai" is really a quality verb. there is a "stative" verb "taka=
ru"=20
> with quite a different meaning "to be many" ("ari ga satouni takaru" =3D
there=20
> are many ants in the sugar). many quality "adjectives" have state twins
like=20
> nagai (to be long) / nagareru (to flow).
>=20
> maybe due to japanese i have half a dozen specific verbs to say in my
conlang=20
> "to liken (a cicle), "to shape as (a circle)", "to move as (a circle)",=
"to
> wend according to the pattern of (a circle)", "to posture according to =
the=20
> pattern of (a circle)". i can speak my conlang better like that but i d=
oubt
> this is fit for an auxlang.
>=20
> now i'm sure i'll be flamed by linguists because all that is very
simplistic=20
> - and thus wrong. but at least i will have done my earnest best.
>=20
> mathias
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > =20
> > Ed Heil ------ edheil@postmark.net
> > ---
http://purl.org/net/edheil ---
>=20