> Van: From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html
<[log in to unmask]>
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <[log in to unmask]>
> Onderwerp: Re : Re: Tlvn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
> Datum: dinsdag 14 september 1999 22:12
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 14/09/99 20:12:55  , Tom a =E9crit :
> >=20
> >  We're not talking about semantic relations here, but syntax.
> I can't tell the difference. get out of the "syntax vs. semantic" safet=
> bunker.
> it's pretty hot and smelly inside.
> >  Nouns and verbs are abstract grammatical categories that only
> >  exist if there is reason to posit they exist in the syntax of a
> no. wrong. XXL-wrong.

I have a question regarding this subject. It is about two Lillooet (or
Lil'wat?) sentences:
- tl'ak ti-nk'yap-a             'the coyote goes'
- nk'yap        ti-tl'ak-a              'the goer coyotes', 'he who goes is a coyote'
tl'ak =3D coyote
nk'yap =3D go
ti- =3D realis
-a =3D 3rd person

When translating, I have to do strange things. I use the word 'goer' and =
verb 'to coyote'. That doesn't feel good. 'To' coyote is not a verb. I mu=
verbalise it some way, like 'to be a coyote'. I see in the examples that
Lillooet does not need morphology or some other instrument to change verb=
into nouns and v.v.. That makes me think that Lillooet does not really
distinguish nouns from verbs.=20
Is my interpretation right? If yes, then Tom could be right.
What alternative interpretations are possible?

I have to admit, I was shocked the first time I was this. I tried to
implement it into a conlang, but failed. It is too weird to me.

> >  No one (except maybe solipsists) denies that there really are things
> >  out there that fit into semantic equivalents of those abstract
> >  categories -- but those are semantic categories, not grammatical
> >  categories.
> > =20
> ????????
> so THAT is linguistics ? can you tell syntax from grammar from
> semantics from strawberry jelly ? over here europeans can't.
> but they only have a few 1000 years of age.
> >  So, when we're talking about syntax, we can't talk about "disguising=
> >  the existence of a category -- the category itself either exists or =

> doesn'
> > t.
> >  (whether or not it's reasonable to have that category is a different
> >  question).   If a language (like Yupik Eskimo) likes to incorporate
> >  stems whose semantic meanings represent physical objects into
> >  an abstract category called "verbs", there's nothing stopping it fro=
> >  doing that.  It's not disguised;   that's a confusion of semantics a=
> >  syntactics.
> no. that's called compound, construct, incorporation or integration
> over here. but you need consider semantics for that.=20
> and you obviously don't. you speak and you don't care about meaning.
> fortunately this is over. only "native americanists" still dream awake
> that.
>   For example, in Oneida, you can incorporate the noun
> >  itself directly into the verb:
> > =20
> that's called "applicative" over here, in japan and somewhere else too.

I consider the Iroquoian languages as the languages par excellence that a=
all-verb languages.
I think there is more than applicative. I have some examples of Iroquoian
languages and how they incorporate. I don't have them here, but at home,
I'll try to send some examples tomorrow.

> >  lanV,stayV,'sthos  "he [or she] plants corn"
> >  (where my <V,> here is [V], I think)
> > =20
> >  la-         3rd person singular affix
> >  yV,-      to plant
> >  -s          present tense
> >  nV,st-    incorporated form of o-nV,ste?, 'corn'
> > =20
> you mean she sticks a corn shoot/seed into the ground to make it
> grow and you expect me to believe there is no verb implied
> to make noun "corn" into a predicate "to plant (corn)" or conversely
> because otherwise i'm mixing "grammar" and your whatever
> english-speaker's prejudice ? i tell you what : you're maybe not aware =
> but
> you feel like that because in english you shelter with shelter, shield
> shield, dog as a dog, stone with stone, plant plants etc. so that=20
> you're not even able anymore to see the "silent" verbs making these
> from nouns. wake up, boy !
>  =20
> >  Why are you assuming I agree with Comrie?
> i do from what i read.
>   All I meant to
> >  do was to show you that the world doesn't usually fit into our
> >  neat little categorizations as often as we'd like it to. When you
> >  make a claim about linguistic typology, one needs to be
> >  able to back it up with facts, closely analyzed.
> you don't analyse anything. you take things their face value.
> fact is that "to plant" is a verb and "corn" is a noun whatever
> indianists' priviledge is at stake and however it is expressed - be it
> a pro-noun or stuff. that "corn"'s semantic field obviously identifies
> to "to plant" among certain cultures in such a tight way that it is
> not even necessary for the ones to utter "to plant" or "corn" for the
> others is no excuse to ignore it. ignorance is no excuse to whomever.
> > =20
> >  And please -- don't dismiss Comrie unless you've read what
> >  he has to say. :)
> are you to say he's/you're right unless someone dies out of bore readin=
> that genius's enlighed/ning prosa ?
> then please don't use latin words unless you've read virgil, don't spea=
> english unless you've learned grammar in cambridge, don't eat unless
> had lunch =E0 la tour-d'argent, don't think unless you had my permissio=
> but BTW, do you allow me to write this in english although i never read=

> single
> book in your mother tongue ?
> YOU could design a language like Degaspregos. could Comrie do that ?
> mathias