Print

Print


On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> On 15 November 2012 09:15, Leonardo Castro <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Do you guys usually allow verbs that can have nouns, events or other
> verbs
> > as arguments?
> > Or do you prefer to have different verbs for each type of argument?
>
> I have a great philosophical fondness for referential transparency,
> which means, yes, verbs typically can have any of those things as
> arguments in my languages, but only because all of those things are
> syntactically The Same Thing.
>
> > For instance, the verb "to like" can have, as its object,
> >
> > (1) a noun: "I like ice cream.";
> > (2) an event: "I like that you know it.";
> > (3) another verb: "I like to swim.".
> >
> > I think that they could be three different verbs. There are verbs that
> only
> > allow nouns as arguments (eat, drink, build, etc.), others that only
> allow
> > events (hope, think, etc.) and others that only allow other verbs (must,
> > can, might, etc. [modal verbs]).
>
> In my loglanging pursuits, I conclude that it is Simpler, and thus
> Better, to not formally acknowledge those differences in the grammar.
> Rather, they show up naturally due to semantics restrictions. E.g.,
> there's a perfectly good syntactic form for something like "might(x) &
> dog(x)", but it's simply nonsensical, so you wouldn't say it. When we
> get to talking about issues of minimal coding & efficiency, though,
> there is some argument to be made for ensuring that every valid
> syntactic construction has a sensible interpretation, which argues for
> introducing special cases after all. Taking a page from type theory,
> though, once you start doing that it is very difficult to come up with
> a system that does not inadvertently end up disallowing the expression
> of some perfectly semantically valid propositions.
>
> > As I'm interesting in logauxlanging, I would like to know which strategy
> > would fit better:
> >
> > (A) having different verbs;
> > (B) simply using the same verb;
> > (C) using the same verb and adding particles that turns events into nouns
> > or vice-versa.
> >
> > Another problem is that sometimes the subject can be an event too...
>
> In terms of loglanging, my bias is towards B. But when you add in the
> "aux", I have no idea. I'm pretty sure there are no natural languages
> that are fully referentially transparent, so that's probably a bad way
> to go for an auxlang.
>
> On 15 November 2012 09:43, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Leonardo Castro <
> [log in to unmask]>wrote:
> >
> >> My strategy is to have separate verbs for each feature:
> >>
> >> x_1 {comes-from} x_2 {goes-to} x_3 {caused-by} x_4 {by-transportation}
> x-5
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> So some of your verb encode Path (x_1 & x_2), some encode Manner (x_4)
> > which would make your language mixed (English is as well, but its a case
> of
> > native verbs are Manner-encoders and Latinate borrowings are
> > Path-encoders), BUT you also have verbs that are Cause-encoders!  Could
> you
> > give an example or two of the latter and how they work?
>
> I wonder, what is the term for Russian verbs that encode "one-way" vs.
> "not one-way" (back-and-forth or habitual)? Would that be considered
> Path?
>
> Anyway, I can't speak for how Leonardo Castro does it, but if I had a
> verb system like that, it would work with coverbs or serial verbs or
> something to basically say "subject path-goes and manner-goes and
> cause-goes...", with as many as you wanted to specify at once. Either
> that, or, equivalently, a dummy verb that just means "moves
> generically", and then a list of particles / adpositions specifying
> everything else independently.
>
> -l.
>



Just now (and this is currently changing every 30 minutes or so!) I'm
thinking of having a very short list of very vague/basic verb roots (Move,
Stay, Appear, Do/Make, etc.) with everything else (Manner, Path, Cause,
Figure) being supplied by affixes.  Well, something along those lines
anyway.  I just had the idea about 10 minutes ago, so nothing is worked out
yet.  I have to work on a list of verbal roots first before I can decide if
it will be workable, but after last night's converastion about Natqgu
verbs, I'm inclined to think there should be a way to make it work.

Adam