Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Affirmations

From:Gerald Koenig <jlk@...>
Date:Friday, January 29, 1999, 1:33
Vocabulay proposals: ta'a|T::- "is_true" referring to a proposition. fi'a|F::- "is_false" referring to a proposition.
>On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:53:44 -0800 (PST), Gerald Koenig ><jlk@...> wrote:
I would like to see it [Nula] disappear, but until
>>its referent does I at least will use it.
[nula= tokcir+nilenga+zumirtok]
>All right, I must maintain my objection, because "accepted" status >implies that the word is meant to be a part of the launched language's
If having it listed as provisional is okay with you I'll do
>that, and we can come back to it later when the language has >progressed farther and see if {Nula} still has a place.
good, ok.
> >Nothing ventured, nothing gained. What I would say to anyone is, by >all means play and experiment with stuff, and look at making mistakes >or not knowing stuff and having to make educated guesses as an >opportunity to learn.
Yes, I hope we can all take an uncritical attitude towards the writings coming forth.
> >[ci] >>>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. >[...] >>>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. >[...] >>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. >> > >I collected all the {-ci} argument together, so we can deal with this >part of the discussion all in one place. With regards to the third >quoted passage, I should note that in Tokcir I doubt you'd see any >difference between {-ci} and {-xi}, because Jack seems to use {-ci} an >awful lot like the way you describe {-xi} (we are somewhat different >in our usages where parts of speech and pickiness about noun category >are concerned), and I can't see where it would make a heck of a lot of >difference in my dialect except that {-xi} is a tad broader than >{-ci}. I think a far better solution is to discuss the problem with >defining {-ci} in terms of "essences" and see if we can come to an >understanding on that end before we go and invent a new morpheme with >almost the same semantic space. > >I don't have the philosophical background, so I'm missing a good piece >of the story where the usage of the term "essence" is concerned. >Having {-ci} defined in terms of "essence" never bothered me, but >since philosophy gives me a headache anyway, for practical purposes I >interpreted the definition rather liberally when I actually went to >use it. If you look at my actual usage of the morpheme, the definition >would be something like "derives a noun as a concept or abstraction >from another noun or a word of another part of speech. Works something >like endings '-tion' '-ness' '-hood' '-ity' etc. in English." Would a >re-definition like this, if it were acceptible to other group members >and to Jack (who coined it), suit your needs and address your >concerns? If not, are there any modifications that could be made to >{-ci} to make sure both have a place (since it has not actually been >proposed to drop {-ci})? A redefinition would perturb me not at all, >and so would seem to be an ideal solution from where I sit.
I want to clarify the difference between -xi, the grammatical gender changer, and -ci, the essence asserting and extracting suffix. What is an essential property? It is a property that an object has to have in order to retain its identity. Put another way, it is a property that an individual cannot gain or lose without ceasing to exist or losing its identity. It is contrasted with accidental properties, which an entity may gain or lose without loss of identity. Now consider the word marriage: In English which is our current basis it requires a husband and wife as essential properties. Therefore, "nexci" can only mean that a man and a woman are involved. The word nexci necessarily pulls the man and the woman into its definition because they are essential properties of the definition of the basis verb or other root. Without the man and woman, the marriage ceases to exist under the essentialist view. Now consider the suffix -xi. It changes the word nex, "to marry" into nexi, a noun. Does it claim that a man and a woman are involved? No, it can extract other aspects of a marriage into its abstraction. It can extract precisely the aspects you so well describe below in your paragraph giving your take on what a marriage is. Rather than claiming there are essential factors in the verb "to marry" that must be downloaded into the derived noun, it allows a collection of properties that are judged accidental under the essentialist view. But so long as those properties are mutually agreed on, communication goes on. That, in a nutshell, is why I want the word -xi. Its meaning is quite distinct from -ci. It does not depend on the existence of essential properties. The difference between -xi and -ci is the claim of unique essential properties by -ci. The words should coexist.
> >>> >>>>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. >>..... >>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?. > >Okay, we'd better go over this. Big note here: I didn't make up these >rules, I wasn't around! Jack or Julian would likely be able to give >you a fuller explanation here. But I'll give you my understanding.
>stress, *I don't know for sure*. I never use the non-fixed adjectives, >and I don't have a good grasp on the rules. BTW, though, note that > >Note to Jack: I don't know what I'm about here! A refresher on >out-of-place adjective marking would be really good.
Thanks much for sharing your understanding. I have a better grasp on it. I'll wait for Jack's views before going further with this. It's something we should all use, understand, and agree upon before ratification.
> >>> >>>BTW, what does {be} mean? >>...............
"Be" is a loglan/lojban
>>borrowing for a "short scope linker" it's really "of" and sometimes >>"for", the preposition. > >Okay, I second {be}.
Thanks, I think you'll get to like it.
> >>> >>>>*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 >......
>I still think it's overlapping with {jasit}, but that doesn't >necessarily mean we shouldn't have it if you think the shortcut will >do enough work to justify the duplication. Since you're sure you want >{hul} and as far as I can tell having it does no harm and maybe some >good, I second it.
> >[...] >>> >>>>*Inom::- Nameless, God, from in-nom. Whatever it means >> >>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. > >..... BTW, would you like me to send you the Shoebox text >database as an uncompressed email attachment? It would take a bit of >download time (but probably not all _that_ much) and you would have >access to a more complete record of the lexicon.
This text database would help a lot. Why don't you post it, then anyone could participate. I intend to use Shoebox too which I have up and running, but I'm in overload with win95 right now. I already know how to grep files for words, and I can concentrate on the language. Downloading the text file is no problem for me as I work off my unix pop account through a cable modem, and it won't be downloaded.
> >[...] > [about ayoh] >Well, I was just pointing it out, I don't know the correct form >either. Jack? > >>>>4 Let the Nula family be one and united. >>>> Xap ku ubos Nula je ol et duload. (didul, idol) >>>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. > >All right, let me see if I can demonstrate a grasp of {xap}, bearing >in mind that I have trouble following the way you define your modals >given my lack of training. That's okay; it's just a matter of trying >to find a way of thinking of them that _does_ work for me, and in >terms of working out how to make them accessible to the general >population it can't help but be a worthwhile exercise. My >interpretation of {xap} is that it means something like "let, allow" >in which case it is _somewhat_ analogous to the PVS modal {pas}. >Example: >{Mi xap Linda pa adeur mis kuaj.}[9s] >"I let Linda take my car." >PVS equivalent: >{Ta caxom Linda ta adeurem kuajo.} If she actually took the car.[11s] >{Ta caxom Linda pasa adeuerem kuajo.} If I permitted but convey no [12s] >information about whether she took it.
Your understanding looks good to me. The VXT has the second sense you give, ie it doesn't claim the car was taken, merely that the opportunity to take it was granted. I don't have a modal for your first case which is two claims, "Linda was permitted..", and "she did it", but it is easily done with the sentence anaphora assignor gua, which sets a preceeding proposition or topic equal to it1, gol: mi xap "Linda pa adeur mis kuaj" gua je ver. [12s] Literally: I permitted that Linda make the sentence "Linda took my car" (which I call it1) be true; the sentence, (it1) is truth. I don't think the quotes are necessary to mark off the sentence which is referred to by gua, but I put them in for absolute clarity. Gua, the it1 assignor, is explained more fully in the pronoun post. I feel the need for words meaning "is true" and "is false", I'll think about it, but this is down the road in the logic module. Hmm.. the letters, *ta'a (T) and *fi'a (F); I propose them to mean "is-true" and "is-false", referring to a proposition. Then capital T or ta'a would be a substitute for "je ver" in the above. mi xap Linda adeurpa mis kuaj gua T. 11s I permitted that Linda took my car, its true she did. xap::-permits x permits y to make "p" true.
> >Anyhow, this is a type of example I'm not good at, like I said, I >haven't really addressed this question very much yet. As to the VTT >modal, I'm not at all clear on how it should be used in a sentence and >could use some help.
I will post some examples very soon. I hope others will will give them a tryout too.
> >> >>Here again the question of adjective position arises. My take was that >>putting the noun Nula in the natural adjective position in effect
> >My take is that if you make {Nula} an adjective you have to add the >correct derivational suffix, period, no matter where you place it in >the sentence, and that additional case marking may be necessary if you >move it out from behind the noun it describes. In any case, you and I >have very different understandings of how adjectives are supposed to >work, and I don't think either one of us is really on the ball about >it. You have only the cheat-sheet to go on, which is incomplete to say >the least, and I have the cheat-sheet plus experience, but that >experience is in a very narrow way of using adjectives which works for >me and suits my personal preferences but which does _not_ explore all >the options available. We really need to get an opinion from Jack on >this.
And also from others on what it should best be.
> >[...] >>> >>>>6 Let the Nula elders be loved by all their children. >>>> xap ku vaksores Nula ron fiuh fili zupo sus zuenes. >>>>
>>>>*be::- of/for >Okay, i second {be}.
> >[...] >>>>*duarit::- binary relation xRy >>> >>>Why bother specifying "binary"? >>I want to include every possible pair, since "relations" isn't quantified >>with some or all. >> >Because {inv`y}, "strong," is the inverse of {vay}, "weak," and the >way the inverter morpheme, {in-`} works is that it puts the stress on >the syllable immediately following the in. You can think of the stress >shift as one of the "letters" of the prefix, it's just part of the >sound that conveys the meaning.
Thanks again for the enlightenment.
> >[...] >>>>*arit::- relation n. >>> >>>Object. >> >>Please think about it. > >All right, I'll drop my objection and further I will second {arit} if >{arit} won't replace {derus} (at least not immediately).
I don't think it would, it's more mathematical in connotation, although the idea of relations ultimately comes from personal relations.
> >>> >>>>*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. > >As dealt with above, it seems the best solution is to list {Nula} as >provisional.
ok, I hope the need for it vanishes soon.
> >[...] >>>>*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" > >The dictionary makers serve and follow the speakers of the language >not the other way around. The dictionary definition of "marriage" is >immaterial to our discussion of what the concept is to mean in NGL, >and indeed is immaterial to a discussion as to what "marriage" means >in English. > >>> >>>[...] >>>>*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. > >Okay. Don't suppose I could get you to second {tap}, though, no-one >has yet... :-)
You've got it, I second {tap}.
> >[...] >>>[..] >>>>*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? >[...] > >How can we possibly resolve this issue here and now? _I_ certainly >don't have a definition of marriage I'm entirely happy with at this >point, all I know is that I don't like yours since it reflects a >misconception about gay relationships and is at odds with the actual >charater of every actual gay relationship I am familiar with.
I think I am being misunderstood. The maleness and femaleness of relationship is something I think pervades every human relationship and I will stick with that. That's -ci with me :). I'm afraid I got misunderstood as saying relationship was a matter of costuming or role playing. As a board member of a mostly gay theatre I know better. I've been to Hollywood and Vine and seen the transvestites, I've been to gay bars, I've been to aids funerals of close friends, I've been around. (I
>appreciate the attempt to be inclusive, but the proposal isn't >effective). This is a big question and it will take years to resolve. >I'm not even sure how I feel about this omnibus lawsuit in Canada to >get spousal rights in all categories for gay couples; it worries me >that we could all wind up being vulnerable to the kind of petty >lawsuits from vengeful exes that poor Brian Orser is being targeted >with. Yippie, we get the privelege of being even more hosts for >parasitic divorce lawyers :-). > >I'll say this much; I (and, I would venture, everyone else) have an >intuitive grasp of what constitutes a "relationship" as opposed to, >say, a friendship, and it is qualitatively very similar between gays >and straights, nonsense about butches and femmes aside. Qualitatively, >a long-term, committed gay relationship is the same as its straight >counterpart and should probably be treated _de facto_ as a common-law >marriage, for the same reason that this status exists for straights. >To me, a marriage is a member of this species of relationship, the >difference being that the parties take serious and binding oaths, with >the practical and emotional consequences this entails. This may seem >like a small thing to distinguish it from common-law, but to my mind >it's _deceptively_ small. Anytime you make a solemn promise, it has >major spiritual consequences. > >But would I have my idea of "marry" loaded into the NGL word {nex}, >"marry, commit"? No. It's enough to say it means "marry" and let >people thrash out for themselves what that means to them.
>We can >agree, I think, that it refers to a pairing relationship of a unique >and, in some fashion, sexual nature which involves the making of >explicit commitments and the conferral of rights and obligations onto >the partners.
We can agree 100% on this definition. Now, can we agree to let {nexi} be so defined? I propose it. Jerry
> >Naesverig, > >Stephen > > >