I've had similar ideas in my conlang, where I actually had a two-case
system for a word: the one dealing with the "verb class" and another with
the "direction". Every word was in effect a verbnoun, but clearly there are
still lots of complications because of that, and I still can't get rid of
"childspeech".

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Brian Woodward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 2012 Jan 1, at 5:46 PM, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro wrote:
>
> > Hallo conlangers,
> >
> > I'm creating my first conlang and I wanted it to have no stopwords/closed
> > word classes (adpositions, conjunctions, particles, measure words,
> pronouns
> > of any kind and so on).
> >
> > And due to the lack of reference (anaphora) words like subordinating
> > conjunctions or pronouns, the verbs in my conlang turned into verbnouns,
> so
> > that subordination would still be able to be performed and my conlang
> would
> > not look like a childish speech, e.g. I eat cake. The cake is good. The
> > cake flavor was chocolate. The cake ... or I saw the girl, the girl was
> > playing a guitar, one of the guitar strings was broken. And so on...
> >
> >
> > But yesterday, when I was reading Rick Morneau's essay (
> > http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/lexical_semantics.html), I saw that he
> divided
> > the verbs into static and dynamic verbs.
> >
> > Today I was thinking that the static verbs could be interpreted as a
> > locative/inessive case, e.g. I am free. > My state in freedom. In my
> > conlang state-1SG.POSS freedom-LOC.
> > And the dynamic verbs could be interpreted as an allative case, e.g. I
> > escaped. > I set(made) myself free. > My making of my (own) freedom, or
> My
> > making towards (my) freedom. In my conlang make-1SG.POSS freedom-ALL.
> >
> > Maybe these verbs can be interpreted as places where one can be at this
> > moment, be moving to, be coming from and so on.
> >
> >
> > In dynamic verbs people say the state to which one thing turns.
> > E.g. He set himself free. This means he managed to move from nonFree
> state
> > to free state.
> >
> > Maybe using other motion cases, like ablative or vialis one can create
> more
> > complex statements with only a few words. As can be seen in the nest two
> > examples.
> >
> > Example 1 (Ablative): make-3SG.POSS freedom-ABL > his making (to some
> other
> > state) from my freedom (state) > his making of removing me from my
> freedom
> > state > he removed me from my freedom.
> > Example 2 (Vialis) ring telephone-GEN bath-VIA-1SG.POSS > the ringing of
> > the telephone through my bathing state > the phone rang while I was
> taking
> > a shower.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I still have another problem with my conlang that I simply cannot find
> the
> > answer. I separate my verbs into sensory/emotional/non-volitional verbs
> > (where the subject is the patient of the action) and other/intentional
> > verbs (where the subject is the agent).
> > The agent of the verb is represented by the possessive case as it is the
> > owner of the action, and the patient by the genitive as it is a mere
> > complement of that action.
> >
> > So, Mary eats the cake is eat Mary-POSS cake-GEN (Mary's eating of the
> > cake), and Peter cried is cry Peter-GEN (The crying of Peter).
> > But there are sensory verbs which have both subject and object. In Mary
> > sees John, Mary is the patient, what is John? How could it be written in
> my
> > conlang? see Mary-GEN John-??? (The seeing of Mary ...?). Towards, maybe?
> > (Allative?)
>
>
>
> Towards (as you said), to, on, at, into (depending on meaning). I like the
> idea you have going there. It's definitely unique!
>