Print

Print


At 00:43 23/04/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 23/04/99 04:28:41  , vous avez =E9crit :
>
><< Christophe,
>=20
> I would really like to understand this, but I think I need some more help=
 on
> the terms "determiner" vs "determinee" and "lexical" vs. "grammatical"
> determination.
>=20
> Could you give some more examples with particular attention to these
> distinctions?
>=20
> Ed
>  >>
>
>Christophe will do that better than me, but I make the same distinctions=20
>which are taught in French lingbooks. Determiner is the rectum ("tail") and=
=20
>determinee is regens ("head") so you have : noun+adjective,=20
>headnoun+tailnoun, and this usually implies a verb+noun and=
 preposition+noun=20
>structure.
>

        Is it not the contrary Mathias? "rectum" is passive, it means: "which is
governed", so it must refer to the determinee, whereas "regens" is active,
means: "which governs" so must be the determiner.

>Lexical v. grammatical is the "lexeme" v. "grammeme", or "plereme" v.=20
>"ceneme" distinction (mots pleins c/ mots vides).
>

        Nearly. The fact is that in Notya, you'll find hardly any "ceneme". For
example, even if I said that 'ma' in atonic form can be treated as a dative
postposition, it will mean in this case "to give to", nearly never only
"to". I wouldn't call that a "ceneme", but it's a matter of definition and
what you consider to be "plein" or "vide".

>What Christophe means is that Notya words are "nouns" when they refer to=20
>items but they also can be used as "verbs" when that item "symbolizes" a=20
>process or a relation, that is, a transitive, transformative or perfective=
=20
>process between two nouns.=20
>

        It's more complicated than that. If it was only that, it would just mean
that my "-n" endings refer to nouns, and my "-m" endings refer to verbs,
but that's not true. It's only a way to translate them, and the contrary
happens also very often.

>Like in English "shelter" is a noun of item and also "symbolizes" a=20
>transitive relation of X "sheltering" Y; or "mill" may also refer to the=20
>transformative process of "grinding"; and "fruit" may refer to the
perfective=20
>process of "growing fruit". The "relation" is derived from some=
 specializing=20
>sememe of the definition of the word that makes it a usual actor of a=20
>process, like "language" is an instrument for or a process of speaking,=
 like=20
>"arrow" is usually an auxiliary instrument to a bow to wound prospective=20
>victims, and "shelter" a usual transitive instrument for sheltering, and=20
>"wound" a usual finis of wounding, and "mill" a usual transformative=20
>instrument for grinding (not for putting bottles under it ;-).
>
>But when the noun does not specialize in a specific role in a specific=20
>process, then the derivation as a grammatical word is ambiguous : mouth >
"to=20
>mouth" =3D ? Then you rather need words of process.
>

        Ambiguity happens only in sentences out of context. Context is very
important in Notya, as I already said, as it is true that without context,
a Notya sentence can be very ambiguous.

>Mathias
>
>
                                                        Christophe Grandsire
                                                |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.

"Reality is just another point of view."

homepage : http://www.bde.espci.fr/homepage/Christophe.Grandsire/index.html