Print

Print


2012/11/15 Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

> 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?
>
>
OK, let's go (I'm not a native so I'm not sure about the meaning of phrasal
verbs):

The pencil {go-out-from} table {blown-by} wind {down}{go-to} floor.

I'm not sure if I understand the "cause-encoding", but I think that it's
uncommon in my native language, so it's natural for me to have a separate
verb.

In my experimental language, every group of two nouns and one verb must
come from a common root that represents a "binary relation", like

{eater}{eats}{food}
{reader}{reads}{book}
{speaker}{speaks}{language}
{goer}{goes-to}{destination}

I'm desperately searching for roots that either happens in natlangs or have
some kind of "sound symbolism", so please give me suggestions for these
verbs. The roots must follow the following patterns:

CVNC-
CUAC-
CUANC-

where

C = consonant;
V = vowel;
U = { /u/~/w/ , /i/~/j/ } ;
A = {/a/, /e/, /o/} ;
N = nasal stop.


>
> > I have another question related to this one:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> That would be interesting as well.  I'll have to ponder whether or not that
> might fit into some language or other that needs developing.
>

BTW, German has "mögen" which accepts an noun object or an infinitive verb
and "gern" which is like a modal verb. There is another "like" word that I
don't remember now.

[snip]

2012/11/15 Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
> On 15 November 2012 09:15, Leonardo Castro <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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

Oh, now I remember that that's another reason why Xorban reminds of
OO-programming:
In Java, "everything is an object", including the methods and the program
itself.
In C, similarly, everything is a function. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

[snip]

2012/11/16 Herman Miller <[log in to unmask]>

> On 11/15/2012 11:15 AM, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>
>  I have another question related to this one:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.".
>>
>
> Tirelat has a derivational suffix -ri to make nouns from verbs, so a
> sentence like "I like to swim" would be "I like swimming" (jĕšoblanen my
> xełiri). You could also use -ri for "knowing" (nasuri), and with a
> possessive prefix "your knowing" (rĕnasuri), but Tirelat also has an
> equivalent of "that" for joining two clauses. In this case I think Tirelat
> would use different verbs for "I like ice cream / swimming" (šobla "enjoy")
> vs. "I like that you know it" (probably mahvi "be happy"). The word for
> "that" (pa) is considered a conjunction, so it doesn't matter if the verb
> is transitive or not: you can say "I am happy that you know it"
> (intransitive) as easily as "I know that you know it" (transitive).
>
> jĕšoblanen my xełiri "I like (enjoy) ice cream."
>
> jĕšoblanen my rĕnasuri u jah "I like (enjoy) your knowing that." or
> jĕmahvinen pa rĕnasujaz my jah "I like (am happy) that you know that."
>
> jĕšoblanen my xełiri "I like (enjoy) swimming."
>

Your grammar sounds pretty natlangish to me, so it would possibly be a good
strategy for an logauxlang to have these kind of particles.