Re: Parts of Speech - how many?

--- Doug Dee <AmateurLinguist@...> wrote:

> You could subdivide a number of the traditional
> parts of speech...
> The linguist Geoffrey Nunberg notes somewhere
> that dictionaries generally
> class all the following as adverbs: "ago",
> "quickly", "very", "nonetheless", and
> "aboard" (when it's not used with an object).
> Those words seem to have little
> in common & could easily be subdivided into
> different POS.
I guess it all depends on your point of view.

In native Talarian (one of my conlangs) grammar,
"aboard", "very" and "quickly" would all be
adjectives - which in the Talarian language are
actually descriptive nouns (inanimate nouns,
actually). Sherewar is a word that names the
quality called "speed" and is thus a noun. When
subordinated to a word that can posess speed,
such as a spear (pucar), it is used adjectivally.
When subordinated to a word that can posess
active motion, such as the verb fly (meryyaham),
is used adverbially [meryyâti sherewanam = it
flies (posessed) of speed].

"Ago" (-hamti) and "nonetheless" (pe) would be
particles, or 'authorities' [a-meryyâti-he
sherewanam-pe sharaffuam-hal = (it) flew
(posessed) of speed never the less into the
house]. 'Authorities' are any word that governs
the sense of another, and do not name something
in the way nouns name objects and verbs name
actions. Pe thus governs the manner of the
flying, probably in response to some comment on
how the thing couldn't or shouldn't get into the
house.

Talarian has six parts of speech: animate nouns,
inanimate nouns, names, active verbs, stative
verbs and particles. Clearly, the whole system
could be reduced to noun-verb-particle. It could
also be expanded, but as I said, it all depends
on your point of view! Talarian grammarians see
no particular sense in subdividing the particles
any further. While on the other hand, they see
animate and inanimate nouns as totally separate
parts of speech that we would see as a single POS
with at best a subtype division.

> It occurred to me a while back as I was
> pondering my principal conlang that
> English teachers will tell you that adjectives
> and adverbs (as in quick vs.
> quickly) are different POS, even though the
> only obvious difference is in what
> word they modify (a noun vs. a verb).
> Meanwhile, all prepositions are
> considered one POS even though they can be used
> either adjectivally or adverbially.
We could thus call _all_ of them "modifiers", as
they modify the base words of the utterance
(i.e., the nouns and verbs). That gives us
something not too dissimilar to the Talarian
system. The reason why it's not exactly like the
T. system, is that the adjective-adverbs are in
fact nouns. (If they _weren't_ nouns, Talarian
grammarians would certainly call them
'authorities'.) They form compounds with their
owners; even when they are separate words, they
are considered to be a compound - but that may
well be more of an artifact of the romanisation
scheme and how I personally understand the word
boundaries. Thus, sherewapucar (fast-spear) and
sherewwusha pucar (of speed the spear) are
understood to be equivalent. The former is more
common, though. Actual 'authorities' do not form
such compounds.

Padraic.


=====
beuyont alch geont la ciay la cina
mangeiont alch geont y faues la lima;
     pe' ne m' molestyont
     que faciont
doazque y facyont in rima.

.