hello :)
i find both the material on Estel's all-verb language
and on Telona to be very interesting.
my lang, draqa, is also based on a single open class
idea, but i admit that i've cheated and added closed
classes of unbound particles...
a good point was made about perspective when it comes
to the single word class. The words COULD be viewed
as all verbs or all nouns. For draqa i like to think
of each word (Root) as an event - an "object" and an
"activity" concordantly.
i also wanted a language that seemed natural for
someone who'd never think of contemplating a
difference between nouns and verbs. And so there are
Roots like "sio" (something that no longer happens),
and modifiers like "íam-" (approaching a state). So
we end up with words like "íamsio" (getting to where
it no longer happens). But a sentence with just "sio"
would mean "It doesn't happen anymore", and "skae sio"
would not "Doesn't run any more" {skae=run}.
Similarly, any Root can be modified by a Locative, and
so you get individual words like "lan-en" (towards
home). But "sio.en" would also be perfectly valid,
roughly "trying not to do it anymore" {as "-en"
([going] towards) something implies a volition not
suggested by "íam-"}.
Rather than thinking in terms subject and direct
object, Predicate-Relationship-Argument is the
structure that emerges, where the Predicate and
Argument are Roots whose Relationship is defined by a
small closed class of (mostly bound) modifiers.
anyway... very interesting work in both cases. good
luck!
.yasmin.
--- Jonathan Knibb wrote:
> Estel - your all-verb idea is very interesting, and
reminds me of my
> own conlang Telona. I wonder on what grounds you
distinguish your
> four verb classes; you say "distinguished mainly on
semantic grounds"
> - mainly or purely? If, for example, there are
syntactic grounds for
> distinguishing between the verb classes, then I
suspect you would
> find
> that they would not all be best described as verbs.
I'm trying to make it that there are very few, if any,
syntactic
differences between them. I call them verbs because
the inflections
they take are typical of verb inflections:
tense/aspect, subject and
object suffixes, maybe more.
> On the other hand, there may be no syntactic
differences, and the
> classes may be distinguished only by the kinds of
English words they
> translate (would you have had the same four classes
if your first
> language had been Mandarin?). But then you
effectively have a
> language with only one syntactic word class (a goal
of mine for
> several years!) - so why call the words verbs?
>
> The word 'verb' describes a particular syntactic
type within a
> standard noun-verb-adjective-etc. system. If all
words are
> syntactically equivalent, then every word in your
language must be
> capable of fulfilling the referential function of a
noun, the
> descriptive function of an adjective, the
oblique-argument-taking
> function of a verb, the anaphoric function of a
pronoun, etc., etc.
Well, I have ways of inflecting my verbs so that
they're more noun-like
and more adjective-like.
> I think of my Telona as an all-noun language,
although every word may
> optionally take a 'direct object'. When I'm creating
words for
> Telona, I deliberately try to put together systems
of reference and
> description that cut across the boundaries of the
English parts of
> speech, which I think would be more natural in a
language whose
> speakers know nothing of noun-verb distinctions.
Have a look at my
to hear whether
> you think Telona is really all-verb, or your
language is really all-
> noun, or something in between. :)
I've had a bit of a look at it a while ago, but I
should look again.
> your colleague in single-class conlanging,
> Jonathan.
Estel
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com