[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 1/14/06, Rex May <rmay@hidden.email> wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Jim Henry wrote: > > I am not particular about zer, ser, kar or fe; but > > I am curious about your using zer to mean > > both "to do" and "doer" instead of "to do" > > and "doing, action, deed"; similarly "sel" = "to sell" > > and "seller" instead of "to sell" and "sale, > > act of selling". To me the latter seems a more > > natural way to use verbs nominally; but either > > should work as long as it's consistent throughout > > the language. > > This notion is based on the Loglan idea, whence Ceqli sprung, that > everything is a verb. If I go with it in Ceqli, it means That all works are verbs by default doesn't necessarily say anything about what those verbs mean when they are used as nouns. As I said, it makes more sense to me to have a nominalized verb mean "act of doing X" instead of "person or thing that is doing X / does X habitually". "Everything is a verb" does not logically imply "nominalized verbs refer to doers rather than deeds". > jin = is-a-person > to jin = the one which is a person. > > So you can say 'go jin' for I'm a person. Yes, sure. > And, logically, if > kam = work > go kam = I work, or I'm a worker > so > to kam - the worker. Hm, maybe. OK, if "to kam" meant "the work, the act/process of working" then I guess "to jin" would tend to mean "the being-a-person". Would that work? In any case, this "everything is a verb" and "a nominalized verb signifies a person or thing that does the action of the verb" must be documented in the grammar; I don't recall reading about it before, at least not as explicitly as you've written in your last couple of messages. -- Jim Henry http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang.htm