Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re : Malat

From:Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>
Date:Monday, December 7, 1998, 19:02
Garrett wrote :
Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
past dealing with *causality* have fallen into the famous all-noun-root or
all-verb-root syndromes (below : ANRS/AVRS) depending on their personality.
Garrett :
Does that mean I am too? I'd like to think that I'm not. In my system, there are 2
basic types of roots: actions/verbs, and states/nouns. The two types can be
used as the other type with certain modifiers. A singular action (a kick) can
be converted into a state (be kicking). A state (red) can be converted into a
momentary action (to flash red). The derivation of action words starts with the
verb (-e-); the derivation of state words starts with the noun (-a-).
Mathias :
1/ I'm no linguist.
2/ I never ever judge fellow conlanger's works.
3/ Posts have pointed out in the past that my *technical* vocabulary is usually wrong.
So don't take my post too seriously :-)
I just referred to *philosophal* conlangers who tried to derive all substantives
from verbal roots and reversely. I have my opinion on this but it's only
personal and biased. I'm not speaking of Danoven and the like either. Anyway,
your roots are neither verbal or nominal but both at the same time. Did your
peruse the Nova language ? I'm sure you would like it.
Garrett :
Well, if there is a certain final state of a certain verb, that doesn't mean the
whole process stops right there. The final state itself can cause yet another
state after it, and the process could continue forever.
Mathias :
So spins the Wheel ;-). You would be fine at Japanese : it works like that most
of the time. That's what my TUNU language does too. It's also a prefix *a-* but
I call it an *adverb* ;-) What is your syntactic deixis for all these
causatives :
I cut the tree into twigs (patient)
I cut the tree and get tired (agent)
I cut the tree which makes him happy (clause)
I give him money and he gets rich (focus).
Garrett :
With malat action concepts, the final state is niether stated nor necessarily
implied by that action; the final state is expressed seperately.
Mathias :
OK. So it's causative, not final. I misunderstood from the example in your Malat
page : *to spit* > *to get wet (from spitting)*.
Garrett :
Well, over here, i'm going to make drink and eat the same word. Is there a necessary
distinction? The equivalent in english is implied by what is actually consumed
(food or liquid).
Mathias :
Yes. That's what I say : when you allow one more actor to a verb, then it becomes
another concept, hence another verb. Your verb would not be a Malat translation
of *to drink* but another concept.
Garrett :
Also, no matter how logical you try to make your language, it's impossible for
everything stated in the language to be logical. The only thing I can
successfully make logical is the derivation of words and the grammar of the
Mathias :
Now, let me sum up : natlang seem sometime *illogical* because theycan't
consistently derive a noun of result, beneficiary, etc from every single verb.
Garrett :
Like Rick said in his noun section, it's impossible to logically derive every noun
in your language from a verb concept; the derivations can only be slightly
related, but, by using these derivations you cut down on roots you need.
Less vocabulary = less time to learn...
Mathias :
I've personally experienced that it's not less vocabulary because the more you
derive away from core-case actors, the fuzzier the meaning of the words gets
(hi, Josh :-). I'm not sure that *contend*, *intend*, *pretend*, etc are
readily guessed from *tend* by English students. You would say that you
derivation are much more *logical*, but that doesn't make any difference to me.
I had a lot of trouble with derivations in Japanese and Serbo-Croat heavily
using that pattern whereas I found English and Sino-Japanese kanji one-syllable
stems 1000 times easier to remember : to carry // to fetch, to cut // to prune,
etc. I designed my 1150 basic roots mainly from kanjis for that reason.
Garrett :
I don't like poetry myself...
Mathias :
Maybe because poetry thrives on reshuffling and blurring relations and operators
between words... Freedom is frightening. We know that ;-) But you are a poet
since you made your language. Sorry for you ;-)