Christopher Bates wrote: >> Lojban doesn't distinguish nouns and verbs in its basic vocabulary, >> although it does have pronouns and proper names. As I understand it, >> in Lojban the equivalent of a word like the English word "cat" would >> be a word ("mlatu" in this case) that represents a relationship >> between an individual cat and a particular category (breed of cat) >> that the individual belongs to. >> >> There have also been attempts to do without verbs, but I'd think that >> nouns would be the easier part of speech to leave out. Pronouns could >> be a part of the verbal morphology. > It is important to understand that these two are equivalent. Having > verbs cover typically nominal territory and nouns cover typically verbal > territory are actually the same thing, namely a unified verb/noun class, > it's just being described in different ways. Well, put another way, there are different ways of eliminating the noun/verb distinction. I guess you could say they're "equivalent" in a trivial sense: the end result is having a single part of speech that fills in for both nouns and verbs, but other aspects of the grammar may be quite different. If the noun/verb words are more "noun-like" in their syntax and morphology, and the traditional functions of a verb have to be taken over by other elements of the sentence, I think it makes sense to describe that as a strategy of replacing verbs with nouns. The grammar in that case ends up being different from what you'd get if you replace nouns with verbs. > As for the question asked, the idea of having one class covering both > typical verbal and nominal concepts is an extremely common conlanging idea.