Print

Print


Mine will be devided into types like clothing, whether the clothing is
plant-made or not not by speech part like noun or verb. Maybe
adjective. Material adjective, possibly,  that would create a new
category of parts of speech. My pronouns are devided by age, so I
guess those could be parts of speech.

On 8/20/16, Athenic Cuber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> So a part of speech specifically relating to motion? You would need to break
> the semantic roles of most languages with Agents actions and objects, with
> locative/ablative/etc. being significant in most sentences.
>
>> On Aug 20, 2016, at 14:15, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 August 2016 at 11:16, A Walker Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Leo Moser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do any of you folks see 'parts of speech' and 'semantic domains' to be
>>>> possibly related?
>>>> Does each semantic domain require at least one word of each part of
>>>> speech
>>>> to function properly.?
>>>> Are we missing the true meaning of 'parts of speech'?
>>>> Are there languages that do this?
>>>
>>> I don't see any relationship between the concepts of part of speech and
>>> semantic domain.  However certain specific semantic domains may have a
>>> disproportionate representation of one POS or another, depending on the
>>> grammar of the language in question, because of the semantic properties
>>> of
>>> that specific domain.
>>
>> E.g., actions tend to be verbs, properties tend to be adjectives,
>> substantives tend to be nouns, etc. There are lots of exceptions going
>> both ways, however, which is one reason why semantic definitions of
>> parts of speech don't hold up very well.
>>
>> Additionally, semantics domains can be endlessly divided into smaller
>> and more precise chunks; and while you can get pretty finicky about
>> parts of speech as well, the divisions just don't match up beyond a
>> very high, abstract level like "actions", "states", and "the rest". I
>> could, for example, imagine a language having a part of speech that
>> highly correlates with "vehicles" or "modes of transport"- say, some
>> distinct syntactic class of words that patterns with motion verbs- but
>> a language that has specific parts of speech for "space vehicles" vs.
>> "airplanes" vs. "wheeled vehicles" seems *extremely* weird and
>> unlikely, despite the fact that those are all perfectly valid semantic
>> domains.
>>
>> -l.
>


-- 

Pen Name
Mellissa Green

Founder of A Blue Green Universe
website
www.abluegreenuniverse.com
twitter
twitter.com/@abluegreenunivs
pinterest
pinterest.com/abluegreen