From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 14/09/99 16:40:36  , Tom a =E9crit :
> > > But AFAIK there are no natlangs lacking fairly obvious verbs and
> > > nouns,
> >
> >  Josh Roth, inter alia, has already well addressed this topic.

Perhaps you could resummarize? I can see adjectives being
replaced by intransitive verbs and genitives and articles, sorta.
But then how to remove, rather than just disguise, either
the nouns or the verbs? Which natlang really does that?

> of course a noun can be used to express a predicate :
> "he mans a ship"

> >  > or excluding "valency" 3, the more-or-less indirect object.
> >
> >  See Comrie, "Language Universals and Linguistic Typology" p.59-61,
> >  for some discussion on why English syntax may not warrant a separate
> >  category for "indirect object".

In that sense, Spanish may not "warrant". But it's nonsense,
e.g. in "I'm telling you this" I count 1 verb and 3 nominals.

> not warranting expression doesn't mean making concept not exist.
> verbs are little theater plays. some plays need 3 actors and
> it is not possible to make them into 2 plays with 2 actors without
> debilitating the original meaning.
> we all know that some people are desperate to find a way to
> make language into 0&1 sequences and many authors are thus
> eager to prove it is so.
> but ANY human being who speaks and can reflect on what he speaks
> and is able to make a conlang knows what the truth is.

Yes. In my conlang I insisted on "noun1 verb1 n2 verb2 n3" but
who can stop real people dropping verb2 to make a ditransitive?

> a few fairy tales to have nice dreams tonight :
> - transitive =3D factitive
> - ditransitive =3D 2 x transitive
> - X =B0 Y compound =3D X + Y
> and other ones i'll tell you if you're a good boy/girl.

That and some Thai food should suffice to disturb.