Re: Changing worldviews with language (LONG)

This thread has gotten so complex, and interesting, that I can only reply
piecemeal.
>> Mat McVeagh wrote:
>> > Exactly, semantics is where the really juicy stuff is at, and it's
harder;
>> > it does seem as tho ppl are more interested in constructing *form* -
>> > phonoogical, orthographic and grammatical, as you say.
>>
(Nik Taylor I think:)
>> I wouldn't say that.  There may be more talk about forms, but semantics
>> is hardly ignored.
>
(Teoh:)
>Heartily agreed.
As do I, but Mat's statement is also true.  Phonology and morphology _are_
relatively easy; semantics is slippery and requires a lot of thought and
analysis to get away from the languages we know, with relatively familiar
categories-- constrained by the fact that most of our conlangs are intended
for Earth-like people living in Earth-like environments.

Some of you may remember seeing the famous (and only!) example of Chomskyan
TG applied to the semantic component:

BACHELOR
1. [anim, human, male] an unmarried male person
1a.[anim, -hum, male] a male seal that has not found a mate
2. [anim. hum] holder of a certain academic degree

There was also an approach roughly like the following, an attempt to analyze
lexical items into component parts (as best I remember it)--

KNOW: speaker believes [X is true]-- and X _is_ true
BELIEVE: speaker believes [X is true]-- but X may/may not be true
CLAIM: speaker believes and says [X is true]-- but X is not true

.......? :  speaker says [X did Y] -- and it is true that X did Y
ACCUSE:   Speaker says [X did Y] -- may/may not be true
BLAME:  Speaker believes [X did Y]-- may/may not be true

Also certain verbs may refer to the same action, but depend on the point of
view of the speaker or situation:
GO/COME
BRING/TAKE

To some extent, BUY/SELL and LEND/BORROW are similar, and it is not
surprising that some languages use a single root for each.

>A similar feature in Ebisedian:
>        rii'bi  the skeletal frame of a framework
>        gii'bi  the fillings of the infrastructure in a framework
>        jii'bi  the contents, contained by the framework
>
>E.g., the metal frame of a car is the _rii'bi_, the engines, gears,
>wheels, etc., are the _gii'bi_, and the passengers are the _jii'bi_. Or a
>building: the pillars, weight-bearing beams and walls, are the _rii'bi_;
>the plumbing and electrical connections are the _gii'bi_, and the people
>and furniture are the _jii'bi_.
Can these be divided up further?
Is this r-/g-/j- alternation systematic, i.e. can it be applied to other
vocab.items? Or must these be compounded so that e.g. rii'bi-PERSON =
skeleton, gii'bi-PERSON = muscles/cartilages/tendons (or perhaps innards?);
then would jii'bi-PERSON be......soul, personality???? or would
jii'bi-PERSON be the actual internal organs?
>
>1)      _fa'ta_         "to see" (phys)
>        _va'ti_         "to realize" (or, "to see", introvertive)
Kash has some similar groups:
sanjañ 'be aware of, realize, understand (that...)'
tanjañ 'to understand, grasp the meaning of', caka- 'to suddenly do so, to
have a flash of insight'
tacañ 'to mean, to intend'; andacañ 'definition'

nuwak 'to ask, to question'
penuwak 'to doubt' (old prefix pe- 'having....')

Reply