Re: Long Languages

"From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html" wrote:

> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 06/05/99 20:51:00  , Dan a =E9crit :
>
> << What I don't understand is how
>  "all-agent" would apply here. >>
>
> Well, I understood from your web-page
Whoa! Mathias, to quote Alice in Wonderland, this discussion is
getting "curiouser and curiouser!" I don't have a web-page!!
Thinking about it, I suspect that what you did was type "rtemmu"
into a search engine. When I tried that, it sent me over to
_Joshua Hooper's_  list of conlangs, where admittedly, rtemmu
is listed. (If you know of another site where rtemmu is discussed,
please let me know the URL: it's not due to me!)

> that Rtemmu verbs are usually derived
> from a noun of agent (like "speak-er", "build-er"), but obviously I was=
 wrong
> since your example derives a verb from a noun of action.
    In all honesty, Mathias, I'm not sure how well I can explain a non-no=
un,
non-verb conception using a lang such as English which uses nouns and
verbs. I'll try to explain it, but if it gets too hard to follow, I'll
understand.
    <B-i-i-i-g  Breath!>
    OK then. The rtemmu world-view sees (senses) the universe as one big
complex development. "Development" is a noun, but I do not mean a "noun-t=
hing".
Try to nonverbally feel what reality is "doing"; how it's
constantly changing. The universe has arrived at this state from a long
development
and, as you read this, it's continuing to develop, on into the distant fu=
ture.
    A word is defined in rtemmu by "tuning in" to this universal developm=
ent at
some "point"  and "surfing" with it until a point where the definition "t=
unes
out"
and disengages from the overall development. No nouns, no verbs: tuning i=
n and
tuning out.
    To use as an example, the sentence from my post from Thursday, 6 May:

 inazuv tikuhnuh kehs mtuku raskehs dshuhvakuhhe zuv tikuh'uh zuv ryo`tsa=
x.

The word "mtuku" means "man" or more exactly, "male human". Where does a =
male's
world-history line begin? At conception? When exactly: conception is a co=
ntinuous

process taking place over time. And the egg and sperm arrived at that pro=
cess via
their
own developmental histories via the developments of the parents, etc.
When the word was defined, the choice of when to tune in was made, bearin=
g in
mind that there is development
before and after this pont in time.
The  (ideal) "male-developmernt" continues on through birth, childhood,
adulthood, old age.
When does the definition of "male-human" tune out? At death? Beyond?
At the end of the world? Ever? Again, the choice of when to tune out was =
made,
but
realizing that what had been developing into a man is now part of a diffe=
rent
development
(Worms? Heaven? Hell? Other? The exact answer is not relevant here; what =
is
important is that
continuity of overall  development is never in dispute)
    Anyhow, the same goes for "dshuhvaku". When exactly does that "part" =
of the
ongoing
development go into a "chop"? And what about the mental planning for the =
motoric
action? And the mental activity which preceded the motoric planning, etc.=
 And
where
does a "chop" end? Before the result? At the result? Including how many
ramifications?
The definition "tunes in" at some point and tunes out at another point, b=
ut
always
bearing in mind that one is merely paying attention to part of the whole =
process.

No nouns, no verbs, only tuning in and tuning out to the universal develo=
pment.
    Now (if you're still with me), to combine them:  "mtuku dshuhvaku" wo=
uld mean

that the listener is asked to pay attention to a part of the ongoing univ=
ersal
development
(subject to time, space, and other constraints given by grammatical marke=
rs)
and focus on a "man-like thread" of development. So far, so good. Next, t=
he
listener
is asked to widen the focus to include a "man-thread" with a "chop-thread=
" of
development.
No nouns, no verbs. Only a widening of a single focus of attention or con=
ception.

One could then widen the focus still further to include a "birch tree thr=
ead" of
development,
never for a moment leaving the world-view of one universal development.
(BTW, the reason that the speaker's subjective rate of development is
grammatically
required to be shown at least once in most sentences is to acknowledge th=
at the
speaker
is also part of the same ongoing universal development as that which he/s=
he
describes.)
    I hope that this makes some sort of sense. If not, no problem: divorc=
ing
one's
thoughts from the usual "thing-action" framework can be a bit tough.
Anyway, thanks for bearing with me.

Dan Sulani


--
 likehsna  rtem  zuv  tikuhnuh  auag  inuvuz  vaka'a.

 A  word  is  an  awesome  thing.