Jim Grossmann wrote:
>
> RE:   COMPARISON
>
> a)    You could have relatively straightforward semantics and funny syntax.
> Imagine A-D as endings for adjectives that take complements.
>
> A           (equative)
>
> box    big-A    house = a box as big as a house
>
> B            ("over")
>
> box   big-B    house = a box bigger than a house
>
> C            ("under")
>
> box big C-house = a box not as big as the house
>
> D            (super)
>
> box big D-box = the biggest box
>
> (zero)    positive
>
> box big  = a big box
>
> E            absolute
>
> (obligatory on adjectives like 'unique' that aren't compared)
>
> opportunity unique-E = a unique opportunity
>

        I think I'll keep some ideas from this, like the reduplication of the
noun for the superlative. It would be a way to differentiate the
different meanings conveyed by my intensive and absolute.

> b)    Here's some comments:
>
> >My idea is to add to the "positive" form (the adjective itself) an
> >"intensive" and an "absolutive" (nothing to do with the case).
>
> On a list full of people all but obsessed with ergative/absolutive case
> systems, you may want to use "absolute" instead of "absolutive" for that
> form of the adjective.
>

        You're right, I didn't think of this term.

> >The
> >intensive serves to give more "intensity" to the meaning of the
> >adjective. For example, with the adjective "big", the intensive can
> >mean: very big, really big, huge, bigger, biggest, but the comparative
> >and superlative meanings (stretched into one form) are only consequences
> >and not basis of the real meaning of the intensive.
>
> >On the other hand,
> >the absolutive serves also to give more "intensity" to the meaning of
> >the adjective, not in the sense of being more "important", but in the
> >sense of being "just that" and nothing else. SO the absolutive of "big"
> >can mean: big enough, simply big, not more than big, not huge (but not
> >small either), as big as (more exactly "at most as big as").
>
> Doesn't this assume that big-ness is absolute and not relative?
>

        Yes and no. It assumes that big-ness is absolute, but only relatively
to the context developped there. An absolute form could never be used
first in a sentence without context or reference (like if you say "it's
bigger", someone will say "bigger than what?"). The absolute form needs
a reference, and when you have the reference, the meaning is clear
enough.

> >You see, I want a system that is different from everything I know
> >(still in my idea of a "disturbing" language). But I still would like to
> >know if anyone knows a language that would use a system like mine, or at
> >least another system than the simple positive-comparative-superlative
> >one (I don't mean the case where comparative and superlative have the
> >same form, like in French, because it is just the same system with some
> >syntactical confusion). Thank you in advance.
>
> First of all, intensification isn't comparison, although you could include
> both comparative and intensifying affixes in your list of inflections for
> adjectives.
>

        Comparison can be intensification, if I decide so. After all, Latin
didn't make any difference between relative superlative (the biggest of)
and absolute superlative (very big). The first is comparison, the second
intensification. My idea is just to add more meanings to the same form
(I don't care about confusion, in many languages confusions like that
exist in one field or another and nobody cares. My language is a
personal one, not a philisophical one).

> Second, I see what you're trying to do with "absolute," namely add another
> degree of comparison and so change the same-old same-old comparison system.
> But the meaning is unclear with relative adjectives like 'big,' 'hot,'
> 'slow,' etc.
>
> What does "simply big" mean?    And do you want one term that means both
> "big enough" and "as big as?"
>

        Yes, that was my first idea in fact. I feel a connection between those
meanings, so as I make a personal language, I decided to use the same
form for both. The other meanings came naturally, but after.

        I'm going to try and explain you the meaning of the absolute, as I see
it (didn't you see my other post with the lines explaining the semantic
meaning of the intensive and absolute? I think it would have made it
clearer). Let's imagine a couple of friends talking about others people
and their height (uninteresting conversation, but sometimes it happens
:) ). One of them is 1m65 (sorry for the Americans, but I can't use feet
to measure anything), The other is 1m80. The first one says "Peter is
tall (positive)", but the second one replies "Well, he is simply-tall
(absolute)" because in fact he is only 1m85 and that's not far from him.
Of course, the second one would explain then what he thinks, unless he
has already explained what he considers "tall". The idea behind this is
that the second person (the 1m80 tall one) considers himself tall, but
that's all (he is not a giant), so people near him in height are for him
"just tall (absolute)" whereas he considers persons tall (positive) more
for people between 1m80 and 2m00.

        As you see, the absolute narrows the meaning of the adjective,
depending on the reference chosen (which is needed, like for a
comparative, or even a relative superlative).

        Well, I don't know if I'm very clear, but it's something I understand
well even if I can't explain it well.

> Jim
>

--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: [log in to unmask]