[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [ceqli] ser


On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Jim Henry wrote:


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.
It isn't there. It's probably a bad idea of mine to ape the Loglan idea here, but there's something very attractive about it, awkward as it might be. If 'kam' means work as a verb, it seems that 'to kam' ought to be clearly derivable from it. I know how you're thinking, and it's pretty much the same way I've been thinking since Ceqli split off from Loglan. What you end up with is something where everything ISN'T primarily a verb (which may be optimum after all) but in which some roots are primarily nouns and others primarily verb/ adjectives.
So, if 'jin' doesn't mean 'be a person,' it ought to have some sort of reasonable secondary verb meaning other than that, so as not to waste anything, so to speak, or maybe not if it's awkward. Maybe my first instinct, to follow English and Mandarin as much as possible, was the right one.
OTOH, I think a noun like 'pamo' could be allowed to act as a verb. go pamo da. I am father of him. 

But can I say:

ciba hon kanin.   This is a book about dogs.
I don't think so. Really too ambiguous. You'd have to say 'ciba hon hu tem kanin.' 

Corresponding to 'cisa hon tem kanin.'   this book is about dogs.
OTOH, in Ceqli, 'go kala' would mean 'i'm a fish,' so 'kala' can't really have the verbal meaning that it does in English. That would have to be 'go kalafulu.' I fish-catch.
That's really the point. I guess Mandarin solves this by insisting on 'shi' for that copula. Without the 'shi' or 'is' or 'bi', it would be possible, I think, for 'kala' to mean 'fish' as it does in English 'I fish.' You see, I'm really into terseness as much as possible. If that's allowed, then 'go kala' means 'I fish,' and 'go bi kalapro' means 'I'm a fisherman,' and 'go kalapro' would be ungrammatical.
But at this point in it's development, Ceqli does seem rather like Mandarin, in that it's hard to tell in a sentence like that if it's acting as a verb, or if it's just short for 'go bi pamo hu da.'
I think I'm going to retain 'bi' to be used as is Mandarin shi, but allow it to drop out as I allow so many things to drop out.
Another thing. I've been convinced that ci/ca/cu should have the primary meanings of here/there/yonder, and can be used thus: 

go sta ci.   I am-locate here.  And that can be shortened to 'go ci.

go xau ciba.  I see this (thing), and that really can't be shortened.
go xau cisa baum. I see this tree. And that, I think, can be shortened to 'go xau ci baum.'
Well, at this point I feel talked back around to the Mandarin/English way of looking at things. go bi jin. go bi pamo hu da. go kala. go bi kalapro. 

Rex May
rmay@hidden.email
See some of my cartoons at:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmay/
NOW UPDATED REGULARLY!