[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 4/8/02 2:23 PM, Mike Wright at darwin@hidden.email wrote: > Rex May - Baloo wrote: >> >> on 4/8/02 12:27 AM, Mike Wright at darwin@hidden.email wrote: >> >>> If we go with all non-particles being verbs and requiring some >>> particle to convert them into nouns, it seems that there are many >>> categories of nouns that should be derived from verbs. Arabic does >>> this a lot. >>> >>> It seems that the following are the minimum number of derived forms >>> that need to be covered: >>> >>> verb: to cut >> Xnay >>> verbal noun: the act of cutting >> How will this be used? Here I get very fuzzy minded. What wd some English >> examples be? > > The verbal noun would be used whenever the verb has to be used as the > subject or object of another verb--and such a noun should be able to > be followed by the object of that modified verb. > > Go bu joy xnayka karn. I don't enjoy cutting meat. For this one, we don't need a different form. Go bu joy xnay te karn. Which is short for: Go bu joy ke go xnay te karn. > Komka kansa karn bura. Eating dog meat is evil. Ditto Bura ke kom te kansa karn. or (Ke) kom te kansa karn, co bura. > > The verbal noun would also be used when the verb is modified by a noun. > Dasa xnayka karn bon. His meat-cutting is good. Here we just need: Da bonsa xnay te karn. or Bonsa xnay te karn, da. (to emphasize bon) > > Or, when modified by a stative verb. > Bon xnayka karn ben kul per. Good meat-cutting benefits everyone. ben kulper ke bonsa xnay te karn. Or Bonsa snay te karn, co ben kulper. > > The glossary has "komka" as "meal". To me, this seems more like an > instance of eating. (I assume that you aren't using "meal" to mean > "that which is eaten", which I would guess as being something like > "bekomdiq".) > >>> instance: a cut >> Here we maybe have two things. An event and a result. The surgeon's cut >> went well. > > That's the verbal noun. > >> I have a cut on my arm. More clearly. Building is an art. He >> lives in a building. We need a suffix for act of, and one for result of. >>> actor: a cutter (person) > > "Result" is a bit ambiguous to me. A building is a built thing, but is > a cut thing a cut, or is it a cutting? > > This demonstrates the problem of trying to create a logically > consistent--and consistently logical--language. We have to divide the > world of experience into categories, but our categories are > inescapably arbitrary. They may be reasonable, and useful, but they > are not logical. Logical categorization requires so much detail that > it becomes too unwieldy for practical use. Indeed, I think Zamenhof realized that, and let some things remain fuzzy. > >> here you could use To xnay or To xnaycel (xnayper) Probably per, as it >> combines more smoothly. >>> instrument: a cutter (blade or machine) >> Could be Xnaytul, Xnayxin, or, maybe even Xnaytayl for a blade of a machine. >>> >>> Arabic also has a way of deriving a place of action from a verbal >>> root. This might be useful in some cases, e.g., for the verb "to sell". >>> >>> Some of these will be more obvious with other examples: >>> >>> verb: to sell >> Sel >>> verbal noun: the act of selling >>> instance: a sale >>> actor: a salesperson >> Selper >>> instrument: n/a >>> place: a store, market >> Seljay, Seldom. >>> >>> verb: to saw >>> verbal noun: the act of sawing >>> instance: a saw cut >>> actor: a sawyer >>> instrument: a saw >>> place: a sawmill? >>> >>> There might also be a use for a noun of faculty: >>> >>> verb: to see >>> verbal noun: the act of seeing >>> instance: a sighting >>> actor: a seer (person) >>> instrument: a scope > > Also a "viewer". > >>> place: ? >>> faculty: vision >> How about Xawfeyxen. See able-ness. > > That should work, though it might be misinterpreted by English > speakers to mean "visibility", which is a property of the seen object, > rather than of the seer. But that's probably because the English > "able" gets a passive meaning when it's used as a suffix. (A person is > "able to sing" but a song is "singable"--and has some degree of > "singability", while a person has "the ability to sing".) > > BTW, I don't see "xen" in the C-E glossary. > I just made it up. >>> In particular, I would avoid creating new morphemes where derived >>> forms would work. Given the limited morpheme structure, it's probably >>> best not to waste them unnecessarily. >> Yes and no. I just realized that we don't need Pon, put, when we have >> stakaw. Cause to be located. On the other hand, there are an infinite >> number of possible morphemes, just a limited number of one-syllable >> morphemes. When you get to two syllables, I think the math will show that >> there are plenty. I agree, tho, that we should not overproliferate >> morphemes. >>> >>> There are several existing Ceqli forms that already work: >>> >>> verbal noun: -ka >>> instance: ? >>> actor: -pe >>> instrument: -ju >>> place: -jay >>> faculty: ? >> >> Absolutely. Now, the ones in CV form will have to be changed, but the >> principle is the same. Pe can be per or go back to cel, Actor is the >> unadorned t-ed verb, i. e. Ja is go and To ja is the one who goes, goer. > > Ah. I would have expected that to be the verbal noun. Yes, me too. But following the pattern hoq is red to hoq The red one Ja goes to ja The going one. > >> But of course in many cases you'd also have a combining form with pe >> because you want it clear that it's a person, not a thing, doing the going. >> And Ju is too short, wil have to be, say 'tul.' Jay is fine. Dom can >> frequently work for 'place of', if you are in fact referring to a building. >> maybe replace 'ka' with 'xen', from English '-tion.' >> To Xawxen. Seeing. -- >PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: rmay@hidden.email > Rex F. May (Baloo) > Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp > Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm > Language site at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Uploadexp.htm >Discuss my auxiliary language at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txeqli/