Affirmations

>
><jlk@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>  Or Nulaes fin Nulaes ezo filixi.
>>  Xap ku ubos Nula je ol et duload.
>>  Xap ku zuenes Nula ron fiuh fili zupo sus vaksores.
>>  Xap ku vaksores Nula ron fiuh fili zupo sus zuenes.
>>  Xap ku nexoes Nula ro je duload exo filixi.
>>  Xap ku dulines Nula sukre be zupo ku dumines.
>>  Xap ku dumines Nula sukre be zupo ku dulines.
>>  Xap ku uwayas bek Nulaes je behdules uwai'.
>>  Xap ku toir bek Nulas je duload.
>>  Xap ku arites be Nulaes a Nulaes koam Inomac.
>>  Xap ku invay, uwa, et filixi ke ku Nulaes ecdur
>>  izu' daxosir isu ke te disrur usu.
>>  Et ahi gol je.
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>1 From Nulas to Nulas with love.
>>  Or Nulaes fin Nulaes ezo filixi.
>>
>>%or::-assigns following object as origin of a
>>vector reference frame with a space vector tail there.
>>*Nula::- n, NGL neutral term for NGL speaker of
>>       (Tokcir+nilenga+zumirtok)
>
>Taking the long view, I question the usefulness of adding this to the
>lexicon... in the grand scheme of things, it won't be so long before
>there is an essentially unified NGL language, and then what,
>precisely, will be the place of this term?
It would disappear for lack of a referent. Or be displaced by the
agreed on overarching term. However right now there is no shorthand way
to refer to the de facto schizoid state of the language, and I like to
have a word for it. The whole purpose of the affirmations is to  make
this term obsolete. Paovor "team speaker" doesn't do it for me as there
is no NGL flavor to it. I would like to see it disappear, but until
its referent does I at least will use it.

Here something slangy might
>serve, such as {NGLor}, or maybe something derived from a word meaning
>"team." NGL has two words meaning "group," {paov} meaning "group,
>committee" or {sau'e} meaning "band, group of people." I've never
>thought about the distinction before, but thinking about it now, it
>seems to me that a {sau'e} is an association by fact, whether it be
>ethnicity or being on the same bus, and a {paov} is an association by
>purpose, like a team or a committee. So, maybe {paovor} could work
>here?
>
>A note on the NGL plural inflection: in my understanding, it isn't so
>much an {-es} suffix as it is a {-(e)s} suffix, where the e is only
>inserted if the word ends in a consonant. So, {paov} and {paoves}, but
>{Nula} and {Nulas}. At least, that's what I _think_. Ditto the paucal
>ending {-(e)r}, BTW.
Thanks, I had no idea what the convention was.

>
>>%fin::- assigns following object as destination,
>>the point of a space vector.
>>"ezo/col","with","without",
>>"fili","love spiritually",,
>>*-xi::- purely grammatical gender change suffix; from verb to noun.
>>   Differs from "ci" in that it does not claim any "essential quality".
>
>I have {fili} listed as class V, so by my own habits, I would tend to
>agree with the need for a derivation into a noun class... but I've
>always _de facto_ treated it as N,V, so I probably just owuld have
>ended up saying {ezo fili}. Be that as it may, let's look at that
>suffix. You are trying to move from verb to a noun of the "concept"
>gender, correct? For that I would have no qualms about using {filici},
>but then, my personal usage is purely functional and may make
>imperfect reference to the meaning of "essential quality." I
>understand your concern, but my point is that it might be redundant to
>coin a new suffix, since in my dialect, at least, you wouldn't even be
>able to tell the difference. Maybe an alternative solution would be to
>reword the definitition of {-ci} in the database. So I suppose this
>amounts to an objection, which I could be persuaded to drop if it
>could be demonstrated that {-xi} is really different than {-ci} in a
>significant way.
My problem with ci is the historical baggage of the philosophy of
"essence" that it draws upon. The way you conceive and use it I would
have no problem, but the actual meaning of essence as used by Hegel and
Maritain is something I would rather leave out of NGL. Xi on the other
hand makes no claim that there even is an essence to a verbalized noun,
it just changes an action to an object. So I am hoping that you or
someone else will second it as it means a lot to me to allow the language
to function without metaphysics. For those who want it, let ci remain.


>
>>2 Affirmations for healing of the Nula family:
>>  Maxjulvaibes kiov hemul be ku Nulai' ubos.
>
>Interesting derivation for "affirmation"! Out of habit, I personally
>would have rendered that {Maxjulvaibes kiov hemul be ku ubos Nulai'}
>because according to the agreed-on word order rules, we _generally_
>find adjectives after the noun they describe, rather like I guess the
>majority of French adjectives.

OK, this has come up before, and I would like to clarify it. First, I
read the Cheatsheet as sanctioning free word order for adjectives so
long as they are marked.  The starred line looks like the rule to me.

                NGL: Grammar Cheat-Sheet

Word Order:  Fixed: SDVO/SDiOV
N-Aj, Aj-Av, V-Av
Semi-fixed:
Mark case when:
S is not first N
D is not before V
O is not after V
When D and O
are together mark 1st.
*  Aj when before N
Free: Mark all nouns for
case.

However, if it is not the rule that an ajective may be placed before
its verb by marking that adjective with "i" or one of my participle
forms which also use "i", I will propose it. To me it is an unnecessary
constraint that all adjectives must be post-verb. As a default I think
It's fine, and saves marking, and I use it a lot in Spanish, but
mandatory, why?.

>
>BTW, what does {be} mean?
I created a lot of confusion by using be and bo as synomyms. I'll clear
it up below. Why do I always see those typos as soon as the post goes
up, even at 2am? It must be one of Murphy's laws. "Be" is a loglan/lojban
borrowing for a "short scope linker" it's really "of" and sometimes
"for", the preposition.

>
>>"max","addition",,
>>"jul","force",,
>>vaib::- word
>>"kiov,for the purpose of (para) ",,,
>>*hul::-heal,
>
>If you still want to keep this word, I'm prepared to second it, but
>you should know that this could also be derived from Ogden {jas},
>"health," by adding a verb ending, so {jas}, "health," becomes
>{jasit}, "heal," which becomes {jemasit}, "healing."
I spent some time on this word, and I do want it. First I came up with
cut-join, kaldul. But I dislike basic words that are longer than their
English counterparts, because I believe evolutionary forces have on
average determined that length. I like to put evolutionary forces on
the side of NGL. To me this was a mini-lesson in the hazards of starting
word derivation at too fundamental a level. I believe we need more than
a few hundred building blocks before we start extensive derivation. This
also brought to mind the old discussion that Julian initiated on "sword".
Obviously this is no longer an every day word, and should be derived.
Heal however is still a very busy word, at least in my circles.

>
>>hemul, em infix makes general present participle, -ing.
>>ubos::-family
>>
>>3 Dear God, To Whom all things are possible.
>>  Filisiad Inom, uGol zupo ayhes ro je.
>>
>>%-iad is the adjectival past participle, -ing as an adjective.
>>The s breaks an illegal 3 vowel string before the last two vowels.
>>Altogether, "loving" God.
>
>I like it, but I would have said {Inom filisiad}, again out of habit
>and a desire for consistency.
It is a desire for inconsistency to break monotony of style that leads
me to want to have the _option_ mentioned above, of positioning
adverbs.

>
>>*Inom::- Nameless, God, from in-nom. Whatever it means
>>to you. Personally it is an impersonal general term for
>>the highest powers or ordering principles of the universe.
Very rarely would I propose a word that someone else had proposed
before me with the same meaning. I got the feeling of that when the
Ogdens overwrote several of the VXT morphems I had been using. I just
didn't know you had proposed Dia'. I retract *Inom, with apologies.


>
>There is something already existing, proposed by me and listed as
>"accepted," so you may want to look at it and decide whether it covers
>the meaning you want or not. Here are the relevant Shoebox records:
>
>\1itm (Ku) Dia(')
>\2tp N
>\3cl religious
>\4st acc SD
>\5def God (any monotheistic)
>\6nt The "ku" is optional. The ' is dropped when derived with a suffix
>beginning with a consonant.
>
>\1itm dia(')
>\2tp N
>\3cl religious
>\4st acc SD
>\5def god, goddess, deity
>
>{Dia'} is actually a somewhat modified borrowing from Irish Gaelic
>(which in turn, I suppose, probably borrowed from Latin). My rendering
>would have been {Dia' filisiad}.
Again, I have no objection to the word order, it's purely a matter of
style to me.

>
>>%gol::- it1, a pronoun. ugol is a dative form of gol analogous
>
>Good idea. I presume you will be adding this to the VTT pronoun
>proposal?
Yes, and go ahead and use it, _please_ :).
>
>>to umi, to me, the dative of mi, meaning "to the One".
>>"zupo","all","every",
>>"ayrh","event",,
>
>I have {ayoh} recorded for "event," no accent, although that may be a
>recording error on my part, it must be remembered that my records were
>originally copied from the document you are using. In any case, I
>would have said {zupo xol}, "all acts."
Well that one I know would be a slight mistranslation.  God would
_permit_  rather than intervene; this shows in the following line. A
sort of "God willing, we will do it: attitude.  I wrote the English
original, and that is what I had in mind.  But I will examine this
grammar further to see whether I think it conveyed an inaccurate
message, or you're just expressing a personal preference for an
active form.
The [ayoh] with the accent is the result of a direct output redirection
in Unix from the quoted file, it's not something I added.

>
>>All nilenga modals are second order logic claims about propositions,
>>%ro::-possibly       x says possibly "p" is true.
>>"je","have/be",,
>>
>>4  Let the Nula family be one and united.
>>   Xap ku ubos Nula je ol et duload. (didul, idol)
>>
>>All nilenga modals are second order logic claims about propositions,
>>%xap::-permits that:  x permits that y  make "p" true.
>
>That reminds me, I still haven't thought of something satisfactory to
>handle this sort of form.
Stephen: try xap and the VXT modals, they're not that_ difficult,
although they are unusual and require a slightly altered mind set from
English, and if you can show me they are opaque, I'll explain them. :).
In fact thanks for working through this post.

>
>>Here x is presumably Inom, y is Inom or a human agent unspecified.
>>The proposition p is "the family Nula is one and united"
>>ku the
>>ol , the number one.
>>"dul","join",,
>>duload, -oad is the adverbial past participle, in be united, united
>>(duload) functions as an adverb modifying be. The general form, didul,
>>where id is infixed before the first vowel, u, could also be used.
>>
>>5 Let the Nula children be loved by all their elders.
>>  Xap ku zuenes Nula ron fiuh fili zupo sus vaksores.
>
>I would have said {zuenes Nulai'} here, taking {Nula} to be class N
>and therefore requiring {-i} to function as an adjective. (In fact,
>this appears to be more of an incidence of a pseudo-genitive than
>anything).
Here again the question of adjective position arises. My take was that
putting the noun Nula in the natural adjective  position in effect
declares it an adjective. Probably what would be best would be "zuenes
bek Nula", Children of the Nula. That would make it possessive as you
suggest, and it follows the well-tested possessive pattern of the
Latin-based languages. Can "zuenes Nula" take the meaning of
"zuenes-Nula" ie, children [who are] speakers of NGL? Is that why you
like to mark the Nula as adjectival, even when it is in adjectival
position?

>
>>zuen::-child, from Stephen's proposals.
>>%ron::-necessarily   x says necessarily "p" is true.
>>Necessary modals are always true, this is one way of specifying
>>past, present, and future.
>>%FIUH type of modals.
>>fiuh::- when x1, the first argument of P, is the subject of P and
>>      the patient in P; P is true.
>
>I would point out that we should bear in mind that this sort of
>definition, while undoubtedly very pure and thorough and altogether
>good to include, is very difficult to follow by someone not versed in
>logic. For example, I can't make heads or tails of this. There's
>nothing wrong with complexity in your definitions, it saves trouble
>when things come down to a nitty-gritty argument, but it has to be
>born in mind that these things have to be usable and understandable by
>_amateurs_ with very eclectic backgrounds. So I must commend you for
>having included examples and a concurrent, equivalent explanation.
>
>>      Abel fiuh pa kill Cain.
>>      Abel(the patient) was killed by Cain.
>>%fiuh  makes the subject of the proposition (zuenes) the patient,
>>and the object (vaksores) the agent.
>
>In other words, this is VTT's passive voice.
Would you mind writing the VXT lessons? :)

>
>>"zupo","all","every",
>>vaksor  means adult, a proposed word IIRC.
>
>I don't remember what IIRC means. In any case, it's sort of an
>"accepted derivation," I think.
It's Internet Relay Chat slang and to me at least it means If I Recall
Correctly.

>
>>6 Let the Nula elders be loved by all their children.
>>  xap ku vaksores Nula ron fiuh fili zupo sus zuenes.
>>
>>7 Let the Nula marriages be united with love.
>>  Xap ku nexies Nula ro je duload exo filixi.
Your language instinct that this sentence has problems is correct.  I
was just cruising along calqueing English.  "nexies" is a typo that
crept in in the wee small hours. I have "nexoes" above in the head
version. Nexoes was an attempt to use the TVS stative suffix -o and say
"the state of the Nula marriages" . I don't know if that would work in
TVS, but it would be an example of combining the systems, and there are
many more, I believe.  Here's a rewrite of the sentence:

7'. Xap ron nexies nula dul ezo felixi.
   Permit that always nula marriages are joined with love.
   nex-xies--> nexies. xi converts nex from v to n.

   The fully expanded form:

"God Permit [someone,something] to make it true that it is true that
necessarily [always] Nula marriages are joined with love."
"je" doesn't even enter into it. This is certainly ugly, but it is
logical and parseable unambiguously.

>
>I would say either {nexes} (if {nex} is V,N) or {nexciares} (if {nex}
>is V) - derivation is {nex} (to marry) --> {nexci} (the state or
>institution of marriage) --> {nexciar} (a specific marriage).
This somewhat highlights a difference between my proposal *xi, the
verb-to-noun gender changer, and "ci" the essence-asserting suffix.
"nex-xi" means "marriage, n", "nex-ci" means "the state or institution of
marriage". There should be room for both suffixes in NGL.

>
>The verb I might have just done as {ro dulje}, it doesn't seem to
>require the more complicated form.
"dulje" literally is "to join-to be" in TVS and "(X) join-be" in VXT
which uses the the stem as the present tense. In a context of pure VXT
it might work as an idiom, but it might be a problem in PVS or a mixed
system:
Nixies ron dulje: " Marriages always to join to be" TVS;  or "Marriages always
join-be"VXT? I think the je should be deleted as the modal takes care of
it.

>
>>"nex","marry/commit",,
>>*-xi::- purely grammatical gender change suffix; from verb to noun.
>>nexxi--> nexi, marriage. See (*-bir and nexi below)
>
>Okay, I see where you're coming from.
>
>>filixi, love as a noun.
>>
>>8 Let the Nula women care for all the men.
>>  Xap ku birdulines Nula sukre bo zupo ku birdumines.
                       should be be zupo
>>*-bir role prefix. See -bir below.
>
>If {bir-} is intended as a prefix, the hyphen should follow the
>morpheme, not proceed, to avoid confusion.
Yes, yes
>
>>dulin, Stephen's proposed word for woman.
>>dumin, Stephen's proposed word for woman.
>>"sukre","care",,
>>*be::- of/for
>
>Okay, so this would take the fuction of "for" as in "for the sake of"
>that I've been extending {fo} into for lack of something I like
>better. All right this seems good, I second {bo}, so long as it
>doesn't extend too much into the meaning-realm of {fo} or {`}.
>
>>9 Let the Nula men care for all the women.
>>  Xap ku dumines Nula sukre zupo sus dulinesol.
>
>I don't get {dulinesol}.
"-ol",,,"beneficiary of V"
It is an attempt to use this feature (-ol) of TVS which is undocumented as
far as I know. The women are the benificiaries of the verb sukre,
care.  I have no clue whether this is Jack's intent,`I'm just winging
it.

>
>>10 Let the holidays of the Nulas be joyful reunions.
>>   Xap ku uwayas bek Nulaes je behdules uwavueri.
>>*uwa::-joy, n.
>
>I second.
>
>>"yas","today/day","night",
>>*bek::- be+ku  like de+el=del; de+la= du; of the or for the..
>>"vuer","full","empty/hollow",
>
>I still don't quite get {be}.
I used be and bo interchangeably by error. Only *be is proposed. bo is
lojban. be is "of"
>
>>11 Let the history of the Nulaes be healed.
>>   Xap ku toir bek Nulas  je huload.
>>
>>"toir","history",,
>>huload, adverbial past participle. hIDul, the general form can also be
>>used without declaring that hul is in adverbial use.
>>
>>12 Let the Nulaes' relations to one another please God.
>>   Xap ku duarites Nulaesi koam Inomac.
>>
>>*arit::- relation n.
>
>Possible conflict with the accepted {derus} V relate. Although, I can
>see where the separate noun-form may be useful, i'll second if you
>still want.
>
>>*duarit::- binary relation xRy
>
>Why bother specifying "binary"?
I want to include every possible pair, since "relations" isn't quantified
with some or all.

I'm just trying to put in standard mathematical terms for relations.
>
>>*koam::- please vt. default present tense. The past
>>may not qualify.
>
>I don't see how the tense needs to be explicitly limited... you might
>not use a verb for certain tenses, but that will work itself out,
>there's no need to limit ourselves with special rules. For example, I
>can readily envision a sentence like {Xole pa kaomem Dia'} - "Her act
>pleased God." In any case, I second.
This was a really bad attempt at unmarked humor. By "the past tense may
not qualify", I was joking about our history, I don't think our petty
rivalries would please God.

>
>>13 Let the strength, joy, and love the Nulaes share
>>   Xap ku invay, uwa, et filixi ke ku Nulaes ecdur
>
>Should be {inv`y}
Could you explain that?

>
>>"vay","weak","strong",
>>*ecdur::- share. piece+give; ec+deur.
>>
>>14   continue to embrace those around them.
>>     izu' daxosir isu  disrur usu.
>>#izu'::- continuative tense particle, using zu the point varible which
>>can range forward in time.
>>"das","have/hold",,
>>*daxos::-embrace, hug.
>
>Second.
>
>[...]
>
>To summarise, see detailed comments above:
>
>>*Inom::- Nameless, God,  from in-nom.
>
>Object.
Retracted.
>
>[...]
>>*ahi::- thus
>
>Object. Same as {loj}, "therefore."
Retracted.
>
>>*daxos::-embrace, hug.
>
>Second
>
>>*-xi::- purely grammatical gender change suffix; from verb to noun.
>>   Differs from "ci" in that it does not claim any "essential quality".
>
>Object, ground is that there would be no _practical_ difference and
>anything objectionable about the definition could be dealt with
>through a proposal to modify {-ci}.
See above.  The only satisfactory solution with "ci" for me would be to
remove its claim of extracting essences.

>
>>#ugol::- dat of gol, it1: "to/for it1" by analogy to umi, uvu, etc.
>>*koam::- to please vt.
>
>Second
>
>>*arit::- relation n.
>
>Object.
Please think about it.

>
>>*Nula::- n, NGL neutral term for NGL speaker of
>>       (Tokcir+zumirtok+nilenga.)
>
>Object.
I'm hanging in until we get a unified language. We have no term for
the combined use of all the dialects. With Jack teaching "NGL" without
VXT we have no omnibus term for the language.

>
>>*uwa::-joy, n.
>
>Second
>
>>*be::-of/for; linking preposition.
>
>Okay, what are {bo} and {be}?
>
>[...]
>>*nexi::- marriage. I define marriage as a contract between one "male" and
>>one "female" that usually involves sexuality. See *-bir for the
>>non-biological definitions of male and female used here.
>
>Let's just say the derivation, whether it's {nexi} or {nexci} means
>"marriage" and avoid loading it politically. We can all decide for
>ourselves what a "marriage" is (although given that the Canadian
>government is proposing sweeping legislative reform in response to a
>massive lawsuit by a gay rights group, in order to avoid the cost of
>court cases which recent Supreme Court decisions suggest they'd lose,
>in Canada, at least, the _legal_ definition of "spouse" may soon
>become rather broader :-)
Webster says: "legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife"
>
>[...]
>>*kal::-cut
>
>I have an un-dealt-with proposal for a morpheme {tap} V meaning "cut,
>sever." It doesn't matter to me which word we go with, but one or the
>other ought to be accepted, because it's a useful meaning.
In accord with my priority policy, I retract *kal.

>
>>*hul::-heal,
>
>Object.
see above
>
>[..]
>>*bir-::- Functional sex role prefix.
>>A prefix which converts a biological gender to a role gender. The role
>>may or may not coincide with the biological gender of a person.
>>Example: A man plays a woman in a play. He is a birdulin, a role-woman.
>>A macho-man is a birdumin as well as a dumin.  I define that marriage
>>means one role-woman united with one role-man.  The roles in the
>>marriage may alternate but there must be one of each role-human.
>>Asexual same-role relationships can be a friendship but not a marriage
>>under this definition.  The actual sex of the pair does not matter
>>under this definition. Sexually the birdumin usually penetrates, the
>>birdulin is penetrated. The entire psychology of the roles played in
>>the binary relationship are factored in.
>
>I don't mind the morpheme itself, and have no problem seconding it
>(e.g., a male actor playing a famale character in a Kabuki play may be
>referred to as a {birdulin} if it is desired to make a distinction).
>However, I find your use of this to create an official NGL definition
>of "marriage" to be out of line with my personal experience and,
>frankly, repulsive, and I will have none of it.
The affirmations as I wrote them exclude a member of my larger family
who is gay, and I mean to include him.  The ball is in your court to
write a definition of marriage for NGl that does include him. This is
not an issue I intend to evade; if my definition is offensive to you,
let's see yours. NGL is supposed to be a language that is frankly
sexual, witness Jack's module. If the NGL population is like the
Conlang list, we will be half gay. We need to resolve this issue, not
sweep it under the rug. Of course the society at large will create its
own definitions, but we are conlangers. We create our own definitions,
definitions that meet our needs and aspirations as an entire unified
group. What _does it mean to be married?

Jerry


>
>>I have crafted this definition to eliminate heterosexual bias from the
>>language; if it does not do so, or if the previous proposals cover
>>this, please retranslate the above and I'll retract it. Personally I am
>>heterosexual and monogamous, but I abhor mandatory discriminating and
>>divisive classifications; especially those sexual ones built into
>>English. This system gramaticalizes simple options.
>
>I know you meant well, but trust me, most gays don't particularly go
>for the notion of having a "role woman" and a "role man," it is
>neither a reflection of reality nor is it unoffensive as a
>mis-conception. Trust me, it's better to drop this whole project of
>defining "marriage" entirely, and let the definition be whatever the
>individual tokor or the tokor's society happens to judge at the
>moment. It's what's going to happen anyway, and it avoids a lot of
>unnecessary trouble for us as a group.
>
>Stephen
>
>
>