Re: "to be" or "not to be"
|From:||ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, June 14, 2008, 4:20|
Scotto Hlad wrote:
>Anyway. I was looking in my Roget's Thesaurus and in the front, Roget
>has the Tabular Synopsis of Categories. This seems like a good
>compendium of root meaning that I could work from as a basis for some
>roots for my new lang. Under existence, there is an entry for
>"Inexistence." Roget has a pile of words that related to this, but it
>got me thinking. Is there a language that has a specific word for non
>existence eg. "not to be"? I find it fascinating to think in those terms
>and would like to see how it might have worked elsewhere.
>Maybe not quite what you're after, but Kash has:
takale (lit., not be) extinct, no longer in existence; Ã§utakale near
extinction, dying out, endangered (e.g. a species); rundakale to annihilate,
destroy; catakale annihilated, obliterated, wiped out; andakale extinction
The verb _ale_ means 'to be', also with derivs: Ã§ukale to exist, come into
being; rumale to create; aÃ±ale(k) existence.
_ale_ is used almost exclusively with predicate nouns or adverbials, and is
often omitted-- not used with adjectives, which are verbal in their own
y/ale kandumbra 'he is a doctor'; yale ri holunda 'he is in Holunda'; but
ya/marok 'he is old'
The negative would be ta [subj.+]ale.....
_takale_ might not have very wide usage, since the meaning is rather
specialized. Also, there are several other verbs that mean 'destroy' in one
sense or another.
However, I think Hamlet's line would be translated "ale, tak ale..." but in
this case "tak" is pronounced [ta?] whereas the compd verb is pronounced