Print

Print


On Aug 10, 2015 6:27 AM, "Patrik Austin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> First to make sure, there are two languages; here you're asking about the
two-category language.

Absolutely. I've focused mainly on the two-category language because it's
very interesting, and because FL is defined in terms of it. Can I call the
two-category language Hodor? :)

>
> The nesting is obligatory because otherwise you wouldn't be able to know
what refers to what. In this sentence everything refers to the topic -
which is a seeing ‒ so other members are embedded. [...]

The topic isn't a seeing, since below you argue the acc isn't a house.
Rather, the seeing has a topic, like the house has an acc (which has that
same topic).

>
> > That's my first question. My second is, what is meant by your basic
> semantic formula? The English is ambiguous. "In the 'with' of 'dog'" seems
> to suggest something like "in a 'with', specifically the (only) one
> belonging to 'dog'". But the example [acc house] would read "in an 'acc',
> specifically the one belonging to the house". Here and elsewhere, when I
> try to interpret the semantics I end up leaning toward "in an "acc"
> consisting of a house" or even "in an acc., namely the house". It seems
> like your preposition class isn't always asserting the existence of
> something which the corresponding noun owns, possesses, has, etc. Or maybe
> it is?
>
> Like Logan said the anaphorics have to be determined wisely. If there are
none, as is the case at this point, it could be anything. This is a
language that lacks articles - which is quite common - so the English
translation is a matter of liking. For instance, in Finnish you would use
phrases like "talon vieressä" ("in the beside of the house", literally
"house-of beside-in" i.e. beside the house; there's no saying it shouldn't
be "in a beside of a house"). Anyway the answer should be yes indeed, for
instance the house has a beside, and the dog has a with (Finnish 'kanssa' -
fossilised location word + an ending that looks like the inessive). The
Esperanto dictionary PIV actually has the noun 'kuno' for a 'with'. It
surely is semantically possible. If you want an English place-noun, you
could use company: with the dog = in the company of a dog: [company dog] =
[with dog]; not to be confused with an enterprise (these could be company1
vs. company2).
>
> Anyway, according to the definition, "the accusative of the house" means
"the form of the house where the house is the object". 'Form' is probably
not the best word, but it is in my English dictionary. It should be
something like status or position. In Finnish we have the word 'sija' for
case, an old word for place.
>
> This is actually not the same as the house being the accusative (hence in
this language you can't properly say [object house]); nor the with being
the dog. The with is what's with the dog, so it can't be the same as the
dog, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
>
> So, cross over: > "in an "acc" consisting of a house" or even "in an
acc., namely the house".
>

"The with is what's with the dog"... Isn't it more like, the dog has a
with, which can have other things? I don't see how the with could "be"
other nouns mentioned.

> > Giving different answers to those two questions, I've come up with what
> seems like a dozen variations of the language. Many of them seem
> functional, but unless I'm fooling myself they're not the same as one
> another, and tend to require different definitions of the vocabulary in
> order to make the example sentences work. (Or just don't work with the
> example sentences.) But I figured I'd just ask rather than trying to
figure
> out which ones actually work.
>
> Well, just look at the parse tree and you see it works perfectly, whether
it makes any sense or not. You can express everything unambiguously with
two lexical categories. That's it basically. But do keep asking!

I think where I stand right now is, I like Hodor but I'm not sure I
undesrtand it; and I think I understand FL but I'm not sure I like it. But
I'll let you know what I really think once I really think something.