Re: Chevraqis: a sketch

On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Fabian wrote:

> > Verbs:
> > Infinitives always end in -u.
> > Verbs inflect only by tense, not by number or person.
>
> By having infinitives, you are implying a lot of pseudo-indo-european
> grammar. Japanese lacks this, as does Arabic, on which I thought you were
> basing some stuff.
>
> > I've been having fun with the static/dynamic distinction, and coming up
> > with how meanings cluster around these things, though I'm probably
> > getting it all wrong.  <wry g>
>
> The arabic approach is that adjectives are essentially static verbs.
> Consider HMR (red). the static form (ahmar) is 'to be red'. the dynamic form
> (hamar) is classed as a type 1 verb, and means 'to become red ; to blush'.
> the type 2 form is hammar, to make someone blush. I've read that there are
> about 44 different word shapes for each 3 letter root in arabic.
>
> Or consider ride (a horse), a static verb, vs mount (a horse), teh dynamic
> equivalent, which calques as 'to become riding a horse'.
>
> The dictioanry form of verbs in Arabic is the 3rd person singular perfect
> tense. Sentences such as "he wants to go home" would calque as "he wants he
> goes home". No need for an infinitive.
Actually, apologies for the belated realization--

I realize Arabic *doesn't* handle it this way, but what I've been doing
is have affixes attach to the three-syllable base morphemes to produce
infinitives in different aspects/moods (?).  You then conjugate those
infinitives by lopping off the -u ending and replacing with whatever
suffix.  So I guess it's a two-stage process, born of my foolish attempt
to marry bits of Arabic verbs and bits of Japanese verbs.  We'll see
where it goes--I expect to have to do complete overhauls on the grammar
every so often anyway.

YHL